What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

No Flag Omkar_Satapathy
Dragoon
Posts: 305
Joined: Jul 11, 2016

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Omkar_Satapathy »

deleted_user wrote:
Omkar_Satapathy wrote:
deleted_user wrote:Is this a joke

Why should it be?

Because it's really dumb

How?
No Flag Omkar_Satapathy
Dragoon
Posts: 305
Joined: Jul 11, 2016

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Omkar_Satapathy »

Garja wrote:
Omkar_Satapathy wrote:
deleted_user wrote:Is this a joke

Why should it be?

Because it is common knowledge in the AOE3 community that official patches were never ever close to balanced and in general balance support from devs has always been lacking.
For the rest you are right tho, it is not good to completey kill the game's originary spirit with imposed "artificial balance". However top players generally have (or should have) a grasp on the right trade off between the two necessities and that's why community based patches can be successful.

I really appreciate your work on new maps. They are great. I love them. :biggrin:
But I use them after extracting from ESOC patch.
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Gichtenlord »

Developers cared first for variety to attract more people to aoe3 (atleast for the expansions) and then tried to balance around it. Thus there are lots of flaws in civs design and basic mechanics which hinder a proper balance for aoe3.

I advise you to watch parfaits analysis on age of empires in comparison to starcraft 2:

Part 1:
phpBB [video]


Part2:
phpBB [video]
r]
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1446
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
Location: Boston

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Darwin_ »

@Mitoe
What are some of the changes that seem unnecessary? I have looked at the FP notes and there are some similarities, but I still think that they are good. Also, I totally agree with an open beta. The civ discussion forums have been very un-productive since changes can only be talked about in the abstract, and if we could update the patch each week or something to get to a good patch to keep for a tournament that would be great for balance. How would you want to facilitate an open beta?

@Garja
You are probably right and I totally understand where you are coming from. I think we could avoid these sorts of discussions if we had an open beta. Do you think so as well?

@gitchenlord
Yeah those videos are very good and I totally understand that aoe3 is inherently harder to balance. However, I think that good balance can be achieved, but patches will just have to change every few months. I don't think there could ever be a "final" patch.

@momuuu
How to some of these changes standardize things? I just proposed the india attack card changes to nerf zambs for team games but keep sowars roughly the same. Boyars is also just insane for team and 1v1 with 255f vills, and I personally think that it would be better to keep the cheaper vills but nerf their units. What do you think?

@everyone
I am sorry for how rude I was to the patch team and my general disrespect associated with this new patch release. I was hoping that I could just express some of the grievances I and many of the people I play with have with the EP, but I just ended up sounding like a dick.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: ķŒ€ ķ•˜ģš°ģŠ¤

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by n0el »

forgrin wrote:
Mitoe wrote:Honestly there just needs to be a public beta period between tournaments where changes are made every few weeks and everyone can help test them.

And tbh many of the changes you listed here don't really make any sense, and are just copied off of some old AS FP notes that shouldn't really be relevant to the current discussion.


Public beta pls pls pls. There is really no reason to not have a public beta, it's not like the patch is even used outside of this community so nobody's gonna get hung up over a couple bugs or whatever the coders are worried about. The pros of more public testing far outweigh any cons.


The whole patch is a public beta.
mad cuz bad
United States of America saveyourskill
Skirmisher
Posts: 160
Joined: Jun 22, 2015

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by saveyourskill »

pecelot wrote:
saveyourskill wrote:
Darwin_ wrote:I am not alone in feeling that the newest official patch notes released for EP 3.0 are not the best in terms of effect or method or balancing. :cry: Here is what I have talked with people about what EP 3.0 should be:

General Changes:
ā€¢ Native warriors from treasures have .25 multiplier vs. villagers
[b]Not sure if they can do that to the ones from treasures without effecting the ones you make

I think they are different units than regular ones ā€” at least tomahawks :!:


yeah those ones are from nilla
same goes with the gurkha treasure should get a 0.25 or 0.5 in age 1 vs. vills
I also think minutemen should have like a 0.25 or 0.5 vs. vills at least in age 1
and 0.5 to buildings for siege attack for those units(nat treasures) as well would be nice(in age 1 then returned to 1.0 when in age 2)
Got Badger Milk?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

  • Quote

Post by momuuu »

Darwin_ wrote:@momuuu
How to some of these changes standardize things? I just proposed the india attack card changes to nerf zambs for team games but keep sowars roughly the same. Boyars is also just insane for team and 1v1 with 255f vills, and I personally think that it would be better to keep the cheaper vills but nerf their units. What do you think?

I think its awesome that there are weirdly strong things in the game, like boyars or camel attack. Those kind of cards make the game extra interesting imo.
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1446
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
Location: Boston

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Darwin_ »

Jerom wrote:
Darwin_ wrote:@momuuu
How to some of these changes standardize things? I just proposed the india attack card changes to nerf zambs for team games but keep sowars roughly the same. Boyars is also just insane for team and 1v1 with 255f vills, and I personally think that it would be better to keep the cheaper vills but nerf their units. What do you think?

I think its awesome that there are weirdly strong things in the game, like boyars or camel attack. Those kind of cards make the game extra interesting imo.

Ah. I see what you mean. Do you think there is a way to fix zamb strength without touching camel attack?
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by momuuu »

Darwin_ wrote:
Jerom wrote:
Darwin_ wrote:@momuuu
How to some of these changes standardize things? I just proposed the india attack card changes to nerf zambs for team games but keep sowars roughly the same. Boyars is also just insane for team and 1v1 with 255f vills, and I personally think that it would be better to keep the cheaper vills but nerf their units. What do you think?

I think its awesome that there are weirdly strong things in the game, like boyars or camel attack. Those kind of cards make the game extra interesting imo.

Ah. I see what you mean. Do you think there is a way to fix zamb strength without touching camel attack?

What part needs fixing?
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1446
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
Location: Boston

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Darwin_ »

Jerom wrote:
Darwin_ wrote:
Show hidden quotes

Ah. I see what you mean. Do you think there is a way to fix zamb strength without touching camel attack?

What part needs fixing?

They are very strong in team games, especially in age 2.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

  • Quote

Post by kami_ryu »

n0el wrote:
forgrin wrote:
Mitoe wrote:Honestly there just needs to be a public beta period between tournaments where changes are made every few weeks and everyone can help test them.

And tbh many of the changes you listed here don't really make any sense, and are just copied off of some old AS FP notes that shouldn't really be relevant to the current discussion.


Public beta pls pls pls. There is really no reason to not have a public beta, it's not like the patch is even used outside of this community so nobody's gonna get hung up over a couple bugs or whatever the coders are worried about. The pros of more public testing far outweigh any cons.


The whole patch is a public beta.


Maybe you guys should do something like "here is the patch 3.0, open beta. the beta lasts for 3 weeks so adjustments may still be made in that time period". so then you go from 3.0b to 3.0
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1446
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
Location: Boston

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Darwin_ »

somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
User avatar
France Rikikipu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1679
Joined: Feb 27, 2015
ESO: p-of
Location: In your base

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

  • Quote

Post by Rikikipu »

Nothing against you guys, but the balance is not the same for master sergent, lieutenants, majors, pro players etc. Although there are of course some things that remain close, the top players still know better than anyone else what's exactly wrong in a civ and what are the best options to fix it.
Not even talking about that a discussion of balance is already kinda hard with 7 or 8 people, so imagine if we make an open beta how hard it will be.

Also, don't take it personal, but when you write something like "What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been", you are kinda explaining to people like Goodspeed, Umeu, Diarouga, Hazza, Kaiserklein, Garja that you understand better the balance of the game than them.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by deleted_user »

Reposting what I said in the other thread:

It's easy to see the final changes and react to them, and naturally so, but each of these changes was collectively argued and debated and pondered more than any one person has pondered any of them in this thread now. It's possible even a member of the team which argued for some of those very changes might have disagreed with them had you shown them before the balance process began. Again, this does not make the change in itself good but perhaps deserves the benefit of the doubt.
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by kami_ryu »

Balance is only relevant at Pr36+ as far as I'm concerned, what wins games below that level is the guy behind the keyboard. Completely agree with you on that on, Riki. (you can get map-screwed at any level though)

I think the idea behind the open beta is that people have a chance to get a feel of the new patch for themselves before it's set in stone, so to speak. Also, 8 people may have a very good understanding of the game, but their knowledge is not exhaustive to every civilization, map or match-up. Open beta has the double advantage of getting peoples' hands dirty and but also generate discussion. A captain-major won't be able to talk balance as well as a brigadier, but that doesn't mean that they will be entirely clueless about balance either. More games means more replays to analyze and to work with.

There's very little down-side to an open beta as far as I can see, but you could just implement these changes without play-testing them and let the meta evolve naturally. Play testing in a limited environment will produce limited test results to work with. When the patch is out there for anyone and everyone, the meta shifts and you can start looking at balance again. The same thing happens with SC2. Blizzard implements changes and then they work from there. They don't get balance changes right on the first try, I'm not sure if that's even possible to be quite frank.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by deleted_user »

@kami_ryu strim pls
No Flag tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3449
Joined: Jun 8, 2015

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by tedere12 »

yes balance is not that relevant on low level games, because of the mistakes that we tend to do.
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by kami_ryu »

deleted_user wrote:@kami_ryu strim pls


I can't today, got stuff to do. But tomorrow maybe
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by gibson »

kami_ryu wrote:Balance is only relevant at Pr36+ as far as I'm concerned, what wins games below that level is the guy behind the keyboard. Completely agree with you on that on, Riki. (you can get map-screwed at any level though)
i always get annoyed when people say this, although I don't think I've ever responded, cause its just not in anyway true. When two players play, balance becomes more relevant if they're closer in skill and less relevant if theyre father away in skill. Someone who's pr60 is gonna beat someone who's pr 40 no matter the matchup just like someone who's pr 25 is gonna beat someone who's pr 15 no matter the matchup. However, civ balance comes in play when a pr 18 plays a pr 20 or a pr 50 plays a pr 51. Just because they lower level players aren't playing the matchup the same way or are playing it "incorrectly" doesn't mean balance is irrelevant lol.
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by kami_ryu »

gibson wrote:
kami_ryu wrote:Balance is only relevant at Pr36+ as far as I'm concerned, what wins games below that level is the guy behind the keyboard. Completely agree with you on that on, Riki. (you can get map-screwed at any level though)
i always get annoyed when people say this, although I don't think I've ever responded, cause its just not in anyway true. When two players play, balance becomes more relevant if they're closer in skill and less relevant if theyre father away in skill. Someone who's pr60 is gonna beat someone who's pr 40 no matter the matchup just like someone who's pr 25 is gonna beat someone who's pr 15 no matter the matchup. However, civ balance comes in play when a pr 18 plays a pr 20 or a pr 50 plays a pr 51. Just because they lower level players aren't playing the matchup the same way or are playing it "incorrectly" doesn't mean balance is irrelevant lol.


In my opinion it does because when a PR18 loses the game, it's entirely their fault. When a PR50 loses a game, it could be because the match up is unfair. The difference is that the PR18 is not playing the civilization to the most of its capabilities, whereas the Pr50 is. So balance makes a difference at high PR, but not for PR20s.

Another way to look at it is that you can choose any civ and do any strategy at PR20, if you're playing against another PR20. If the Iroq player doesn't have crisp timings with their rush and doesn't macro correctly, then a Port player with CM may just be unbeatable at that level. Balance is pretty much not relevant in these situations. The analogy in SC2 is that at lower levels, you can make anything work, whether it's Battlecruiser or Carrier rush, or even mass ghost. Mass ghost is terrible from a balance perspective but since players can't get the most out of the race they're playing anyway, it doesn't matter. Balance becomes an excuse for players to blame their losses on something other than their own poor play.
User avatar
Spain yoqpasa
Lancer
Posts: 750
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: yoqpasa

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by yoqpasa »

we need 6 uhlans shipment in age 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by gibson »

kami_ryu wrote:
gibson wrote:
kami_ryu wrote:Balance is only relevant at Pr36+ as far as I'm concerned, what wins games below that level is the guy behind the keyboard. Completely agree with you on that on, Riki. (you can get map-screwed at any level though)
i always get annoyed when people say this, although I don't think I've ever responded, cause its just not in anyway true. When two players play, balance becomes more relevant if they're closer in skill and less relevant if theyre father away in skill. Someone who's pr60 is gonna beat someone who's pr 40 no matter the matchup just like someone who's pr 25 is gonna beat someone who's pr 15 no matter the matchup. However, civ balance comes in play when a pr 18 plays a pr 20 or a pr 50 plays a pr 51. Just because they lower level players aren't playing the matchup the same way or are playing it "incorrectly" doesn't mean balance is irrelevant lol.


In my opinion it does because when a PR18 loses the game, it's entirely their fault. When a PR50 loses a game, it could be because the match up is unfair. The difference is that the PR18 is not playing the civilization to the most of its capabilities, whereas the Pr50 is. So balance makes a difference at high PR, but not for PR20s.

Another way to look at it is that you can choose any civ and do any strategy at PR20, if you're playing against another PR20. If the Iroq player doesn't have crisp timings with their rush and doesn't macro correctly, then a Port player with CM may just be unbeatable at that level. Balance is pretty much not relevant in these situations. The analogy in SC2 is that at lower levels, you can make anything work, whether it's Battlecruiser or Carrier rush, or even mass ghost. Mass ghost is terrible from a balance perspective but since players can't get the most out of the race they're playing anyway, it doesn't matter. Balance becomes an excuse for players to blame their losses on something other than their own poor play.
when a pr 50 loses its his fault as well lol, you're making an assumption that the best players are playing civs perfectly and the best they could possibly be played,which is not the case. I mean even for noobs like us watching the best players we see tons of mistakes. With hypothetical perfect play you would be correct, but no one playing now is playing civs to anywhere near their full potential
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by Garja »

Past a certain arbitrary level (pr 35, pr40, w/e) players are fully capable of playing specific MUs "perfectly" with some given conditions (map, specific crate start, etc.). You dont need AI level of perfection to call it perfect. When a player msde everything that was realistiaslly needed to play the civ perfectly he just played perfect. Only thing left up to debate are potential new strats that can shove the judgement on a MU, and that is something I personally keep in mind when talk about balance changes.
Image Image Image
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by kami_ryu »

gibson wrote:
kami_ryu wrote:
Show hidden quotes


In my opinion it does because when a PR18 loses the game, it's entirely their fault. When a PR50 loses a game, it could be because the match up is unfair. The difference is that the PR18 is not playing the civilization to the most of its capabilities, whereas the Pr50 is. So balance makes a difference at high PR, but not for PR20s.

Another way to look at it is that you can choose any civ and do any strategy at PR20, if you're playing against another PR20. If the Iroq player doesn't have crisp timings with their rush and doesn't macro correctly, then a Port player with CM may just be unbeatable at that level. Balance is pretty much not relevant in these situations. The analogy in SC2 is that at lower levels, you can make anything work, whether it's Battlecruiser or Carrier rush, or even mass ghost. Mass ghost is terrible from a balance perspective but since players can't get the most out of the race they're playing anyway, it doesn't matter. Balance becomes an excuse for players to blame their losses on something other than their own poor play.
when a pr 50 loses its his fault as well lol, you're making an assumption that the best players are playing civs perfectly and the best they could possibly be played,which is not the case. I mean even for noobs like us watching the best players we see tons of mistakes. With hypothetical perfect play you would be correct, but no one playing now is playing civs to anywhere near their full potential


Balance becomes preponderant compared to player skill when top players are involved. That is why it's important there. However balance means almost nothing when playing at lower levels. Balance becomes an issue when a top player will lose a less than top player because the match-up is that bad. The top players are the legit benchmarks you should be aiming for.

A good example is marines vs banelings in SC2. Micro AI have made it so that Marines are basically the hard counter to banelings, assuming perfect splits. However no human is capable of splitting marines that perfectly, so banelings vs marines ends up being a balanced interaction. Assuming no micro / splits, such as lower league players, banelings will absolutely decimate marines, to the point where something other than marines is needed vs banelings. Are banelings a hard counter to marines? Or is it the other way around? The baneling vs Marine interaction varies drastically depending on who is playing, so when Blizzard balances the game, they do it with top level players in mind. They aren't thinking about bronze players with the balance patches.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been

Post by gibson »

kami_ryu wrote:
gibson wrote:
Show hidden quotes
when a pr 50 loses its his fault as well lol, you're making an assumption that the best players are playing civs perfectly and the best they could possibly be played,which is not the case. I mean even for noobs like us watching the best players we see tons of mistakes. With hypothetical perfect play you would be correct, but no one playing now is playing civs to anywhere near their full potential


Balance becomes preponderant compared to player skill when top players are involved. That is why it's important there. However balance means almost nothing when playing at lower levels. Balance becomes an issue when a top player will lose a less than top player because the match-up is that bad. The top players are the legit benchmarks you should be aiming for.

A good example is marines vs banelings in SC2. Micro AI have made it so that Marines are basically the hard counter to banelings, assuming perfect splits. However no human is capable of splitting marines that perfectly, so banelings vs marines ends up being a balanced interaction. Assuming no micro / splits, such as lower league players, banelings will absolutely decimate marines, to the point where something other than marines is needed vs banelings. Are banelings a hard counter to marines? Or is it the other way around? The baneling vs Marine interaction varies drastically depending on who is playing, so when Blizzard balances the game, they do it with top level players in mind. They aren't thinking about bronze players with the balance patches.

So how to you determine whether or not a player lost because of balance or because they played incorrectly? Players in this community generally like to call a close matchup completely unwinnable because they play it poorly, make mistakes, and lose it. Basically what you're saying is that since balance doesn't matter at a lower level, than the better player will win everytime regardless of the mu. This is clearly not the case. Balance is relevant at every level, if the players playing are close in skill. That doesn't mean that patches should be based off of low level play, but to say that balance is only relevant for the top 30 players in the game is just flat out stupid. A pr18 player will lose to a pr 20 player in 1 mu and than win in a different one. The better player doesn't always win lol. I've lost to players worse than myself and beaten players better than myself due to civs being imbalanced. And as for as sc2 goes, of course balance is different at different skill levels, so what? I'm just disputing when you said

Balance is only relevant at Pr36+ as far as I'm concerned, what wins games below that level is the guy behind the keyboard.


cause that's just flat out wrong on multiple levels. That demonstrates even more that balance matters at every level. A silver I Terran might lose to a Silver III zerg because of said baneling vs marine interaction. Who's the better player? The terran. Who won? the Zerg. Why? Because balance is relevant at every level.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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