The official fixed crate topic

Fixed crates?

Yes
66
58%
No
48
42%
 
Total votes: 114

User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: The official fixed crate topic

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

Like last time there will be an open beta so that we can still change things if they get out of control before the tournament. Then when the next event starts the change list will become final.

We decided last time around to skip the play testing phase because hardly any play testing was being done and what I have seen previously is that if we play test in a closed beta, what can happen is changes in the patch can easily be based on just a couple of games rather than a lot of thought and discussion which in the past has proven to produce better changes overall.

As for our mandate, I planned to post a thread explaining more about it in public but haven't got around to it. I guess I may as well post our internal change guidelines here:
A change must:
- Address a civ balance issue, or
- Address a larger-scale balance issue which is apparent in a wide variety of match ups (for example dragoon nerf, potential water changes).

A change must not:
- Standardize a unit. For example in the case of uhlans we chose to nerf HP and not attack.
- Remove or nerf techs or shipments which are unique to a civ.
- Remove or nerf a civ bonus.

A change should:
- In the case of a buff target an aspect of the civ which is unique to it (examples include Dutch bank changes, Ottoman Silk Road, Spanish unction).
- In the case of a nerf focus on the civ's start, in order to affect it as generally as possible.
- Be tweakable.

A change should not:
- Encourage a play style which is already prevalent with the civ or in the meta game.
- Discourage a play style which is rarely seen with the civ or in the meta game.
- Introduce an exception to an otherwise consistent game design (for example making TPs more expensive only for a certain civ).
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1446
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
Location: Boston

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Darwin_ »

Goodspeed wrote:A change should:
- In the case of a nerf focus on the civ's start, in order to affect it as generally as possible.

What does the first statement entail? What about civs that are weak in the early game, but too strong in the late game? What about civs whose early game is balanced, but their mid and late game is too good?
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:Civilization F G W
Aztec 3 0 2
British 2 0 2
China 2 0 3
Dutch 0 4 1
French 3 0 1
German 2 0 1
India 1 0 3 (on RE it is 2 0 2)
Iroquois 3 0 0
Japan 4 0 2
Ottoman 0 0 3
Portuguese 1 0 1 (on RE it is 2 0 1)
Russian 5 0 1
Sioux 3 0 0
Spanish 2 0 1

Food+food as extra crates is not possible.


All civs should get the same extra crate even with fixed crates. Which obviously shows how the current system is just fine.
How so?
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by zoom »

IAmSoldieR wrote:Crate spawn is kinda like how we dont use random maps.. if you play QS and have to make a strat based on civ MU and maps instantly, its much different than knowing maps and civs before you play.

"since it neither increases the number of viable options in a given game, nor rewards skill to any degree worthy of mention"

Also, yes, crates determine what you can start with, and based on treasures how you can adapt it, and that definitely takes skill for adapting, but since everything else is basically fixed in tourney, whats the difference.
That's a good analogy, actually, and it highlights (should highlight, rather) how dysfunctional having random crate-spawns is, for remotely competitive play. If the strength of a given civilization is dependant on external factors that are unpredictable, player skillā€”including adaptationā€” will be marginalized compared to what map and what crates spawn ā€“ same as inter-civilization balance. Of course, that's just to say random crate-spawns are adversely affecting balance and competitive play; no more, no less. Also, note that this is strictly in relation to what nominal map spawns ā€“ not the exact, unique map for which adaptation is still important.

Yes, crate-spawns determine what you can start with, I agree. I am only trying to explain that they don't increase the number of viable options in a given game ā€“ for any given crate-spawn, there is, in practice, only one option the player will opt for if he wishes to win.

Adapting to one's position in a game requires dynamic and on-the-spot assessment of the situation. Adapting to one's crate-spawn in a game, however, requires looking at the crates and doing whatever you've previously decidedā€”outside of the game and not by yourselfā€”is viable. I don't consider the latter a skill to any degree worthy of mention; let alone reward.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by zoom »

deleted_user wrote:Diarouga cant post here so who will defend his ideas???
The trinity, of course.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Garja »

Ofc it doesnt increase the options in a given game, you get one random crate per game afterall. It's in the long term that produces more possible combinations. Also civs should be given same crate because else it would be obvisouly unfair (e.g. 100g vs 100w for lot of civs). Hence why the current stystem is already an actually well thought balanced solution.
Frankly, what is even the point of adding an extra crate to the base ones if it is going to be fixed? Just make every civ start with the base ones and only add/remove the fixed 100f if you want a faster or slower age up for all civs.

Anyway, instead of discussing this for 3 months just implement it. Personally, I know for sure that whether it will be more balanced or not (it will be in terms of static balance) it will be boring af for sure.
Image Image Image
No Flag Nathan_Drake98
Crossbow
Posts: 37
Joined: Dec 6, 2016

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Nathan_Drake98 »

I'm noob but I like it, I would play this patch if it was implemented!
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by SoldieR »

zoom wrote:
IAmSoldieR wrote:Crate spawn is kinda like how we dont use random maps.. if you play QS and have to make a strat based on civ MU and maps instantly, its much different than knowing maps and civs before you play.

"since it neither increases the number of viable options in a given game, nor rewards skill to any degree worthy of mention"

Also, yes, crates determine what you can start with, and based on treasures how you can adapt it, and that definitely takes skill for adapting, but since everything else is basically fixed in tourney, whats the difference.
That's a good analogy, actually, and it highlights (should highlight, rather) how dysfunctional having random crate-spawns is, for remotely competitive play. If the strength of a given civilization is dependant on external factors that are unpredictable, player skillā€”including adaptationā€” will be marginalized compared to what map and what crates spawn ā€“ same as inter-civilization balance. Of course, that's just to say random crate-spawns are adversely affecting balance and competitive play; no more, no less. Also, note that this is strictly in relation to what nominal map spawns ā€“ not the exact, unique map for which adaptation is still important.

Yes, crate-spawns determine what you can start with, I agree. I am only trying to explain that they don't increase the number of viable options in a given game ā€“ for any given crate-spawn, there is, in practice, only one option the player will opt for if he wishes to win.

Adapting to one's position in a game requires dynamic and on-the-spot assessment of the situation. Adapting to one's crate-spawn in a game, however, requires looking at the crates and doing whatever you've previously decidedā€”outside of the game and not by yourselfā€”is viable. I don't consider the latter a skill to any degree worthy of mention; let alone reward.

It's amazing how you can type so much but say nothing new.
Ya so if we just disagree that its not a significant skill to adapt to crates and treasures, then we just disagree. I also think civs are pretty much the same (or can be if you adapt correctly) with spawns. Each civ has slightly different spawns becasue thier civs bonuses ( you cant have brit start with 100w crate when their houses cost 135w).

But if everything is in favor of getting the most balance as possible, then ya, balancing with fixed crates is easier. But then why dont we just mirror every single game? Why? Because its not fun.
No Flag Nathan_Drake98
Crossbow
Posts: 37
Joined: Dec 6, 2016

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Nathan_Drake98 »

I like zoom's opinion.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Dsy »

A competitive game cant based on luck.
If some1 disagree just explain to the community that 35 sec aging difference how doesnt matter if he plays with japan.
Looking for the clever answers.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:Ofc it doesnt increase the options in a given game, you get one random crate per game afterall. It's in the long term that produces more possible combinations. Also civs should be given same crate because else it would be obvisouly unfair (e.g. 100g vs 100w for lot of civs). Hence why the current stystem is already an actually well thought balanced solution.
Frankly, what is even the point of adding an extra crate to the base ones if it is going to be fixed? Just make every civ start with the base ones and only add/remove the fixed 100f if you want a faster or slower age up for all civs.

Anyway, instead of discussing this for 3 months just implement it. Personally, I know for sure that whether it will be more balanced or not (it will be in terms of static balance) it will be boring af for sure.
First: the crate spawn absolutely does increaseā€”or decreaseā€”the options available in a given game. You must be either phrasing yourself poorly, or misunderstanding me.

Second, and my entire point: any additional combinations are meaningless, because they are not actually a matter of choice or skill. They only offer variety in a perfectly superficial way. You clearly appreciate that, which is a valid argument in its own right, but it's not with regards to competitive play or strategic depth.

Third: what civilization should be given what crate would be decided based on balance. Whether you consider fair to mean "identical" is irrelevant in this capacity ā€“ balance is the goal.

Fourth: I must be missing a few links in the chain of logic between your flawed claims and the conclusion that the status quo is "already a well thought-out, balanced solution".

Fifth: That's a reasonable option, and I'm not sure. I don't even think the EP should make this change (on a full scale, anyway). I can see you
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Garja »

For the longevity of the game it doesnt matter whether or not it depends on a choice or if it is given. It still produces more combinations. Would it matter as an argument for balance instead? Maybe. By the time you reach this supposed competitive balance there will be literally a handful of high profile players. And at that point how long do you think the game will last with such tourney tailored (arguably) game you created?
As for specific crate spawns. Good luck in finding a combination of extra crates that will be
1) more balanced than the current mirror crate system;
2) more efficient than the current system (which is simple and intuitive)
3) less controversial than the current system since atleast this one is given while for new crates you need to come to an agreement.
Image Image Image
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by SoldieR »

I mean, just tell me how you would do German?
200w? That means tp every time.
100w 100gold? Then you're forcing them to start market everytime.
That's fine, but don't you want to start a game with more than one possibility?
User avatar
Brazil macacoalbino
Howdah
Posts: 1305
Joined: Apr 2, 2015
ESO: MacacoAlbino
Clan: 3Huss

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by macacoalbino »

IAmSoldieR wrote:I mean, just tell me how you would do German?
200w? That means tp every time.
100w 100gold? Then you're forcing them to start market everytime.
That's fine, but don't you want to start a game with more than one possibility?


Do you start any game with more than one possibility anyway?
You are only given 1 start each game... Don't you want to know that you will be able to send the extra colonial shipment or not before clicking into a tourney game?
Image

Image
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by SoldieR »

Then might as well just let them start with a tp built
No Flag Nathan_Drake98
Crossbow
Posts: 37
Joined: Dec 6, 2016

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Nathan_Drake98 »

Imho the Ger TP start is very unfair, it should be deleted.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Dsy »

German should start with 100c (maybe +100f if its needed plus).
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by WickedCossack »

German should clearly start with the 100xp crate. (Yes that's a thing.)
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by lemmings121 »

WickedCossack wrote:German should clearly start with the 100xp crate. (Yes that's a thing.)


uhmmmm

i'm definitely making a map with 100xp start. just for the lulz.
Image
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: The official fixed crate topic

  • Quote

Post by deleted_user0 »

Xp crates could be an interesting design tbh :p like a map that starts with 1 or 2 xp crates, so you basically have 2 age1 shipments. Could see some nice meta
User avatar
Brazil macacoalbino
Howdah
Posts: 1305
Joined: Apr 2, 2015
ESO: MacacoAlbino
Clan: 3Huss

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by macacoalbino »

IAmSoldieR wrote:Then might as well just let them start with a tp built

Or give them a start thats not 200w
Image

Image
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by SoldieR »

Then might as well start then with a market
User avatar
Brazil macacoalbino
Howdah
Posts: 1305
Joined: Apr 2, 2015
ESO: MacacoAlbino
Clan: 3Huss

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by macacoalbino »

On florida they can!
Image

Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by Garja »

No matter how you put it, but giving a civ 100w and giving another 100g is not going to be balanced. And I mean that with the same standards of balance that are used as argument for the fixed crates change.
E.g. India with 400w start and Germans with 100w 100g is not balanced.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: The official fixed crate topic

Post by lemmings121 »

Garja wrote:No matter how you put it, but giving a civ 100w and giving another 100g is not going to be balanced. And I mean that with the same standards of balance that are used as argument for the fixed crates change.
E.g. India with 400w start and Germans with 100w 100g is not balanced.


that argument doesnt make any sense..

you consider the RE mu german vs dutch on a wood start 100% balanced?
well, probably not, maybe you will say that german is slightly favored.
now if its german with coin start agaist dutch with wood? maybe things gets closer to a balance?

the game is assimetrical by nature, if your argument were right, you could change every civ to start with 200f 100w and 6 vills, while in practice that would be insane....
oficials patches added and removed crates and vills all the time, what people are sugesting here is removing luck factor on civs that change a lot based on start, in a unfair way.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV