Mitoe wrote:n0eL wrote:I disagree with that. Having fixed resource opens up the same variation. For example as Japan. If it's 300 w start you can do std consulate. You can do market. You can do tp and you can do double shrine. 200w start, you can't really do must of those things because you're age up is too slow. So you are limited by it.
That's only if you decide to give a civ it's ideal crate start after fixing the crates, which we inevitably won't for some civs. And this could affect matchups a lot actually, since I would imagine people wouldn't give a civ like Germany their wood crates. We could end up buffing a civ like Japan a lot actually by making this change, and swinging a lot of their current matchups. Now don't get me wrong, I actually do think fixed crates has potential to be more balanced than random crates, but let me try to explain how I've been thinking about it.
If we want to get to the root of the problem with random crates, it's not that a coin start is too bad for Germany while a wood start is too good, as the other civ should, in theory, be at just as much of an advantage or disadvantage as Germany. The problem arises when a coin start turns out to be bad for a civ like Germany, and good for another civ, let's say, Dutch—for the record I'm not even sure a coin start is much better for Dutch than it is for Germany, but we'll use this for the sake of example. This is the situation you get matchups that are potentially swingy depending on the crate start. Not when Japan and Germany both get coin or both get wood.
For the most part, however, most civs will be just as happy or unhappy as other civs with the same crate start.
Now let's just assume we decided to follow through with the fixed crate change. Great. We could potentially undo a lot of other changes to civs like Germany and France in favour of this simpler starting crate change.
But now you have new problems: you gave Japan that wood crate, but you left Germany with a coin crate. This matchup that used to be relatively balanced (debatable, but for the sake of argument let's assume it was balanced) is suddenly Japan favoured. And let's say this suddenly swung in Japan's favour in a lot of other matchups as well. Suddenly Japan is a top civ, and we're looking to make other nerfs to it that weren't necessary before.
On the other hand there could also be a civ that's suddenly disadvantaged in a lot of matchups that they weren't disadvantaged in before because of the crate change, and we have to give this civ buffs that weren't necessary before.
On the flip side, maybe fixed crates won't even change anything. If we were to assume that the Japan/German matchup is 5% in favour of let's say Germany, for example, on a wood start, and more or less equal on any other crates start, then what happens if we change the starting crates forever and the matchup is suddenly always 5% in Japan's favour. Maybe neither civ will move up or down on the tier list, so we don't bother applying any further changes to either civs, but the matchup will be forever changed, and the fact that the matchup is favourable for one side over the other will also remain unchanged forever. Isn't this potentially even more imbalanced than random crates? I'm sure clicking into a matchup where the difference between each civ is between 0-5% is more balanced than where it's guaranteed to be 5% for one side.
So I guess my point is, yes we could potentially solve some issues with some of those swingy matchups with fixed crates, but it's not going to magically balance the game. There will be more work that needs to be done.
I think maybe the problem isn't so much that random crates are inherently imbalanced, but the few civs that are much happier with crates that the majority of civs are unhappy with, e.g. Dutch, China (because they can always get wood when their opponents get gold), and probably a couple of others that aren't coming to mind immediately. Obviously we can solve their happiness with these crates pretty easily by fixing them, but how many other problems do we create in the process? how many other changes do we need to make in a world with fixed crates? If it's less changes than we need to with random crates, then maybe it's worth it. If not, then maybe we should try to solve this particular issue with these few civs.
I know my argument is going to be instantly shut down by someone arguing that a wood crate start is clearly way better for Germany than it is for Japan or something equally subjective, but what can you do I guess.