deleted_user wrote:Omkar_Satapathy wrote:deleted_user wrote:Is this a joke
Why should it be?
Because it's really dumb
How?
deleted_user wrote:Omkar_Satapathy wrote:deleted_user wrote:Is this a joke
Why should it be?
Because it's really dumb
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.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
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.
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. Here is what I have talked with people about what EP 3.0 should be:
General Changes:
• 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 — at least tomahawks
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?
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.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
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?
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?
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
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.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
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.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)
gibson wrote: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.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)
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 potentialkami_ryu wrote:gibson wrote: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.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)
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.
gibson wrote: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 potentialkami_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.
kami_ryu wrote:gibson wrote: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 potentialShow hidden quotes
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.
Balance is only relevant at Pr36+ as far as I'm concerned, what wins games below that level is the guy behind the keyboard.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?