What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Yes but can you really say it's unbalanced when the players are not playing well enough ? Their balance is not necessarily the real balance. For example, being 2 lt means any kind of rush is usually really strong, because you don't have the defensive skills required to defend properly. So you can say a russian ms will beat a german 2 lt, because the german 2 lt is not high enough to hold a rush. It actually means that russia > germany at their level (it's just an example) but we all know that in fact we have germany >>> russia. So kami is kinda right when he says that the balance doesn't work so well at low level, because it's actually biased. But it still matters ofc it's not all black and white
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
I suppose I'm wording it wrong.
You can only define good balance presupposing that player mechanics, decision-making and strategies are optimal. Anyone below PR35 doesn't really have that. x2 players at PR27 will play the game decently but not perfectly. I can do the same build Mitoe can but 20 seconds later. That in itself can throw match-ups off balance. Who is closer to ideal play from which to balance decisions can be made? Which set of players are going to feel the effects of balance more in their games, the x2 PR40s or the x2 PR25? At Lt level what decides games are very large, big mistakes. Losing 10 vills in a raid, very bad fight, etc. At PR40 what loses games can be something as little as 1 villager dying, or just getting a market upgrade too early (too greedy). Civ balance is felt much more at a high level. Look at patch changes, they're very small. W
Take the Uhlan nerf/buff. An uhlan dying in one less hit to a hussar is going to be huge at a high level. At captain level it will make absolutely no difference.
Because if I take a replay from anyone below top 30, I should be able to find a few mistakes which ended up costing them the game. It could be raids, it could be a bad engagement, it could be anything. If I lose 5 vills to a raid in Ports vs India and then lose the game, did I lose because India is just better than ports or because I lost 5 vills? When I lose games, it's always my fault. When I win games, it's because the other guy made more mistakes than me. I don't care about balance at all and nor should most people. Civ balance on RE is already very good, the problem is the maps. On EP civ balance is very close and maps are very fair. So winning/losing games is almost entirely reliant on player mistakes. I think this holds true even at the highest level. If I get hunt-fucked on Ozarks playing vs an Aztec rush, then sure the game is already lost. Otherwise no.
If you're Captain, then you're so far away from playing the game correctly that civ balance is the least important thing to consider when trying to analyze games.
You can only define good balance presupposing that player mechanics, decision-making and strategies are optimal. Anyone below PR35 doesn't really have that. x2 players at PR27 will play the game decently but not perfectly. I can do the same build Mitoe can but 20 seconds later. That in itself can throw match-ups off balance. Who is closer to ideal play from which to balance decisions can be made? Which set of players are going to feel the effects of balance more in their games, the x2 PR40s or the x2 PR25? At Lt level what decides games are very large, big mistakes. Losing 10 vills in a raid, very bad fight, etc. At PR40 what loses games can be something as little as 1 villager dying, or just getting a market upgrade too early (too greedy). Civ balance is felt much more at a high level. Look at patch changes, they're very small. W
Take the Uhlan nerf/buff. An uhlan dying in one less hit to a hussar is going to be huge at a high level. At captain level it will make absolutely no difference.
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.
Because if I take a replay from anyone below top 30, I should be able to find a few mistakes which ended up costing them the game. It could be raids, it could be a bad engagement, it could be anything. If I lose 5 vills to a raid in Ports vs India and then lose the game, did I lose because India is just better than ports or because I lost 5 vills? When I lose games, it's always my fault. When I win games, it's because the other guy made more mistakes than me. I don't care about balance at all and nor should most people. Civ balance on RE is already very good, the problem is the maps. On EP civ balance is very close and maps are very fair. So winning/losing games is almost entirely reliant on player mistakes. I think this holds true even at the highest level. If I get hunt-fucked on Ozarks playing vs an Aztec rush, then sure the game is already lost. Otherwise no.
If you're Captain, then you're so far away from playing the game correctly that civ balance is the least important thing to consider when trying to analyze games.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Jan 23, 2017
- ESO: ListlessSalmon
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
I don't think it is meaningfully "balance" when you're considering the game at less than around what the top players are meaningfully capable of,but rather just game design more generally.
For example suppose you have some aggressive build in some MU that a PR25 can execute competently but it takes a PR28 to hold (and they will win because the build isn't actually good if you can defend properly), if a PR25 beats a PR27 like that is it really because of balance? What if the build is in a mirror? Surely it isn't balance then.
To go back to the starcraft example Protoss has not actually always been the strongest race but it has almost always (in brood war and sc2) been by far the easiest to play at almost every level. That isn't because it isn't balanced properly, but because it is designed badly.
A better example is perhaps chess, suppose you have two players, A is meaningfully superior to B at playing any position, but B has learnt a bunch of opening tricks. The tricks aren't actually good, they lose against the proper response, but the proper response is non obvious so B wins a bunch of games against A. That isn't balance either, just game design.
For example suppose you have some aggressive build in some MU that a PR25 can execute competently but it takes a PR28 to hold (and they will win because the build isn't actually good if you can defend properly), if a PR25 beats a PR27 like that is it really because of balance? What if the build is in a mirror? Surely it isn't balance then.
To go back to the starcraft example Protoss has not actually always been the strongest race but it has almost always (in brood war and sc2) been by far the easiest to play at almost every level. That isn't because it isn't balanced properly, but because it is designed badly.
A better example is perhaps chess, suppose you have two players, A is meaningfully superior to B at playing any position, but B has learnt a bunch of opening tricks. The tricks aren't actually good, they lose against the proper response, but the proper response is non obvious so B wins a bunch of games against A. That isn't balance either, just game design.
- princeofkabul
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
- ESO: Princeofkabul
- Location: In retirement home with Sam and Vic
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
the balancing makes no sense in lower levels mostly cause low lvls don't know how to abuse the advantage in specific mu's, ultimately the game can go both ways, and who does most mistakes.
major mistakes are not so regular on higher levels and if both players play well the guy with the better civ wins always. cause of the knowledge how civs and matchup works.
also on higher levels the guy with the better civ can still win while playing worse and that doesn't happen as often in lower lvls I feel.
major mistakes are not so regular on higher levels and if both players play well the guy with the better civ wins always. cause of the knowledge how civs and matchup works.
also on higher levels the guy with the better civ can still win while playing worse and that doesn't happen as often in lower lvls I feel.
Chairman of Washed Up clan
Leader of the Shady Swedes
Team Manager of the Blockhouse Boomers
Leader of the Shady Swedes
Team Manager of the Blockhouse Boomers
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
I think the effect of a balance change is totally dependent on how aware the player is of it. Like if someone was playing EP germany and didn't know about the uhlan nerf, the civ would probably be balanced because they would play the same way, except fights would be less in their favour. Same with almost all of the other changes, except for maybe the dutch ones (as those change your early macro up appreciably). However, once players start to be more conscious of the changes, then they play in different styles and new strengths are abused. Personally, I think the effect of balance changes moreso has to do with the player's knowledge of them than the player's skill.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Also different at every level.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Yep totally.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
But at lower levels balance arguments become weird. "Russia beats France because I am not doing the right build order as france!" seems like a poor balance argument.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Hmm. I think it more comes down to what strategies are more viable at each skill level. Like aggression is stronger at a lower level, so EP civs like russia and otto are better at a lower level than at a high one, while dutch/ports arent as comparatively good.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Balance obviously matters to some extent at lower levels, too — 80-food vills will certainly help the Portuguese player, and even a 1st lt will utilise nicely all the wood saved on banks' buff, though naturally their sometimes basic mistakes have to be taken into consideration as well when judging or drawing any conclusions.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
pecelot wrote:Balance obviously matters to some extent at lower levels, too — 80-food vills will certainly help the Portuguese player, and even a 1st lt will utilise nicely all the wood saved on banks' buff, though naturally their sometimes basic mistakes have to be taken into consideration as well when judging or drawing any conclusions.
Of course how strong a civ is matters, but the balance is mostly different. Can you really talk about balance when the winner is determined by which player, seemingly at random (since at lower levels they dont have the required build order knowledge), does the right build order?
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Like I pointed out — you shouldn't talk about balance at such a level too much without taking into account the aforementioned aspects, however, my point was that balance changes still matter there
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Well obviously they will "matter" since they are playing with a different civilization. The outcome of the game though is unchanged, because at low levels games are won and lost depending on who makes the biggest mistakes. You can give 80f vills to a Port player instead of 100f vills, it doesn't matter if that Port player is going to lose 10 vills to a raid. I like the raid example because that has lost me so many games.
The mistakes made by a ~Captain or even Major level player will weigh far more in regard to the outcome of the game compared to the level of balance changes. 125f Cdb should slow down france by ~5x15 = 75f by the time the French player has produced 15 villagers (we don't count starting or shipped Cdb). 75f is a small-medium treasure. Hardly anything which makes a difference at low levels, I'm not even sure it matters at PR35 for that matter, since train times are unchanged.
Or even Port 80f vills. By the time the Port player has trained 20 vills, he's up 20x20 = 400f. That's about 4 infantry units, which is easily less than the amount I lose for free every game (at that point in time) due to bad rally points, skirmishes, etc. I like to skim over my VODs and replays and I see myself hemorrhaging units all the time.
I could blame the civ but how could I even begin to do that when my own play is full of holes? I don't buy it, sorry guys.
The mistakes made by a ~Captain or even Major level player will weigh far more in regard to the outcome of the game compared to the level of balance changes. 125f Cdb should slow down france by ~5x15 = 75f by the time the French player has produced 15 villagers (we don't count starting or shipped Cdb). 75f is a small-medium treasure. Hardly anything which makes a difference at low levels, I'm not even sure it matters at PR35 for that matter, since train times are unchanged.
Or even Port 80f vills. By the time the Port player has trained 20 vills, he's up 20x20 = 400f. That's about 4 infantry units, which is easily less than the amount I lose for free every game (at that point in time) due to bad rally points, skirmishes, etc. I like to skim over my VODs and replays and I see myself hemorrhaging units all the time.
I could blame the civ but how could I even begin to do that when my own play is full of holes? I don't buy it, sorry guys.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Sure, though the thing is it doesn't take the PR35+ not to lose 10 vills to a raid
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Yes but it takes at least PR36 to lose minimal assets so that balance changes are relevant to the course of the game. All I'm saying. Balance changes matter very, very little if you're under PR36 which is the only thing I've been arguing this time.
Ports got a 5f change per villager this patch. By the time you produce 20 villagers (what is that? ~7-8 minutes into the game?) that amounts to a blistering 100f. When you've made 40 villagers, 15 minutes into the game, then that amounts to 200f. That's 2 infantry units or 1 cavalry unit, at the 15 minute mark. I'm not even sure if that matters at PR40.
This is why, upon my soapbox I shall stand and say that balance is meaningless, for most of us suck too hard at the game for them to mean much. Maybe the Sioux or Otto changes are big enough for them to have effect at lower level play though. Those are big changes, I guess, but I haven't played either civ so I have no idea.
Ports got a 5f change per villager this patch. By the time you produce 20 villagers (what is that? ~7-8 minutes into the game?) that amounts to a blistering 100f. When you've made 40 villagers, 15 minutes into the game, then that amounts to 200f. That's 2 infantry units or 1 cavalry unit, at the 15 minute mark. I'm not even sure if that matters at PR40.
This is why, upon my soapbox I shall stand and say that balance is meaningless, for most of us suck too hard at the game for them to mean much. Maybe the Sioux or Otto changes are big enough for them to have effect at lower level play though. Those are big changes, I guess, but I haven't played either civ so I have no idea.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Jerom wrote:pecelot wrote:Balance obviously matters to some extent at lower levels, too — 80-food vills will certainly help the Portuguese player, and even a 1st lt will utilise nicely all the wood saved on banks' buff, though naturally their sometimes basic mistakes have to be taken into consideration as well when judging or drawing any conclusions.
Of course how strong a civ is matters, but the balance is mostly different. Can you really talk about balance when the winner is determined by which player, seemingly at random (since at lower levels they dont have the required build order knowledge), does the right build order?
I would definitely argue that there are many low-level players, myself included, who's weakness does not lie in their build orders, but in micro, macro, and other skills. All of the low-level players that are on the EP probably know the build orders.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Darwin_ wrote:Jerom wrote:pecelot wrote:Balance obviously matters to some extent at lower levels, too — 80-food vills will certainly help the Portuguese player, and even a 1st lt will utilise nicely all the wood saved on banks' buff, though naturally their sometimes basic mistakes have to be taken into consideration as well when judging or drawing any conclusions.
Of course how strong a civ is matters, but the balance is mostly different. Can you really talk about balance when the winner is determined by which player, seemingly at random (since at lower levels they dont have the required build order knowledge), does the right build order?
I would definitely argue that there are many low-level players, myself included, who's weakness does not lie in their build orders, but in micro, macro, and other skills. All of the low-level players that are on the EP probably know the build orders.
Thats honestly just what you're telling yourself. Good attack move is enough.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Jerom wrote:Darwin_ wrote:Show hidden quotes
I would definitely argue that there are many low-level players, myself included, who's weakness does not lie in their build orders, but in micro, macro, and other skills. All of the low-level players that are on the EP probably know the build orders.
Thats honestly just what you're telling yourself. Good attack move is enough.
Can confirm, my attack move micro is quite solid. Jerom did teach me a couple build orders, but still I'm often just throwing the dice on what I'm going to do in a game.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
The difference between an average 1st lt and a 1st lt after you tell him exactly what he's supposed to do is actually huge. The other part is just general decision making, it's not the micro but it's the fight that you decide to take and the army composition that you have. Aoe3 is a game of knowledge and minimal skill.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
There are no low level players who play correctly strategically. If you played correctly strategically, even with insanely bad micro and macro you would be at least probably pr 32.Darwin_ wrote:Jerom wrote:pecelot wrote:Balance obviously matters to some extent at lower levels, too — 80-food vills will certainly help the Portuguese player, and even a 1st lt will utilise nicely all the wood saved on banks' buff, though naturally their sometimes basic mistakes have to be taken into consideration as well when judging or drawing any conclusions.
Of course how strong a civ is matters, but the balance is mostly different. Can you really talk about balance when the winner is determined by which player, seemingly at random (since at lower levels they dont have the required build order knowledge), does the right build order?
I would definitely argue that there are many low-level players, myself included, who's weakness does not lie in their build orders, but in micro, macro, and other skills. All of the low-level players that are on the EP probably know the build orders.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
gibson wrote:There are no low level players who play correctly strategically. If you played correctly strategically, even with insanely bad micro and macro you would be at least probably pr 32.Darwin_ wrote:Show hidden quotes
I would definitely argue that there are many low-level players, myself included, who's weakness does not lie in their build orders, but in micro, macro, and other skills. All of the low-level players that are on the EP probably know the build orders.
boneng
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
lordraphael wrote:gibson wrote:There are no low level players who play correctly strategically. If you played correctly strategically, even with insanely bad micro and macro you would be at least probably pr 32.Show hidden quotes
boneng
Lol. Well he has terrible macro, idk about micro, and does bad BO's too sometimes. So I guess he just makes the correct strategic decisions with the eco and army his bad macro and BO gives him?
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Yes, Boneng has like 5 APM
The initial change is –20 food on each vill, though — that's way more significant.
kami_ryu wrote:Yes but it takes at least PR36 to lose minimal assets so that balance changes are relevant to the course of the game. All I'm saying. Balance changes matter very, very little if you're under PR36 which is the only thing I've been arguing this time.
Ports got a 5f change per villager this patch. By the time you produce 20 villagers (what is that? ~7-8 minutes into the game?) that amounts to a blistering 100f. When you've made 40 villagers, 15 minutes into the game, then that amounts to 200f. That's 2 infantry units or 1 cavalry unit, at the 15 minute mark. I'm not even sure if that matters at PR40.
This is why, upon my soapbox I shall stand and say that balance is meaningless, for most of us suck too hard at the game for them to mean much. Maybe the Sioux or Otto changes are big enough for them to have effect at lower level play though. Those are big changes, I guess, but I haven't played either civ so I have no idea.
The initial change is –20 food on each vill, though — that's way more significant.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
Balance changes are only significant if people adapt their playstyles to them. If they don't adapt, then they appear to not have that big of an effect to the game.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: What the patch notes for EP 3.0 should've been
pecelot wrote:Yes, Boneng has like 5 APMkami_ryu wrote:Yes but it takes at least PR36 to lose minimal assets so that balance changes are relevant to the course of the game. All I'm saying. Balance changes matter very, very little if you're under PR36 which is the only thing I've been arguing this time.
Ports got a 5f change per villager this patch. By the time you produce 20 villagers (what is that? ~7-8 minutes into the game?) that amounts to a blistering 100f. When you've made 40 villagers, 15 minutes into the game, then that amounts to 200f. That's 2 infantry units or 1 cavalry unit, at the 15 minute mark. I'm not even sure if that matters at PR40.
This is why, upon my soapbox I shall stand and say that balance is meaningless, for most of us suck too hard at the game for them to mean much. Maybe the Sioux or Otto changes are big enough for them to have effect at lower level play though. Those are big changes, I guess, but I haven't played either civ so I have no idea.
The initial change is –20 food on each vill, though — that's way more significant.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests