Let's Talk About the the ESOC Patch

[Darwin_]

It seems like the last thread I made asking if there would be a new EP before the tournament has turned into just a forum for discussion about the patch, and juvenile arguing at that. After Jerom's last post in that thread I though it would be good idea to create a thread soley for discussing possible changes in a theoretic EP 4.0, not have a thread for arguing about other things. I ask (for whatever it's worth) that if you post in this thread, please post about changes you want to see, and avoid getting into arguments over why someone else's ideas are wrong. I think that the key to creating a patch like the EP that works is through a constant outpouring of ideas, and less argument in total. I will start off with a few of my ideas of 4.0, and I would love to see people post their own ideas as well.

My ideas:
China: Old Han reforms changed to +30% attack and HP (unit cost increase removed), cost stays at 1k food.
Dutch: bank limit decreased to 4
Germany: uhlan HP restored to 190, range resist reduced to 25%
Iro: 8 villager card added in age 3, and the first food tech at the farm moved to the market
Sioux: Teepee range increased to 20, gather and attack aura to 5%, HP aura to 7.5%. Wakina speed increased to 4.5, axe rider multiplier vs. light cavalry removed, dog soldier range resistance reduced to 10%.
Spain: Shipments arrive 25% faster (30 seconds for normal shipments, 45 seconds for mercs)
India: +1 food crate, house cost reduced to 50 wood, agra fort no longer gives 2 sepoy

[momuuu]

How exactly is it a problem that you argue why you are right and the other is wrong?

[tedere12]

The balance feels good in the current patch, most civs have counters, only germany imo is a bit hard to counter and maybe brits( I feel like they lose hard to russia india and have other close mus but most people disagree). Also russia is a bit too weak imo, their strength is low hunt mas tho so I can see them being good in some maps (tibet, cascade range, fertile Cresent ). I don't see a point in changing other civs because the goal is to balance the game, not to change it, at least that's how ep started. And ofc people are going to complaining about their main civ being weak but according to the stats they are not

[EAGLEMUT]

@Darwin_ note that EP4 is now set to come out on Friday/Saturday, with the changes GS is sharing in the other thread.

[momuuu]

The balance feels good in the current patch, most civs have counters, only germany imo is a bit hard to counter and maybe brits( I feel like they lose hard to russia india and have other close mus but most people disagree). Also russia is a bit too weak imo, their strength is low hunt mas tho so I can see them being good in some maps (tibet, cascade range, fertile Cresent ). I don't see a point in changing other civs because the goal is to balance the game, not to change it, at least that's how ep started. And ofc people are going to complaining about their main civ being weak but according to the stats they are not

I'd generally agree with this. At least within the limitations that the EP makers has decided to set (don't touch crate spawns, TPs, stagecoach and have a very varied map pool) the balance is indeed really good. China might have a bit of clutter in the changes imo (some unnecessary changes I think), and yes I do agree with what you say otherwise. Sioux should be looked at, as the patch team has not left them in a great position I think. I'd argue India might be slightly weak, but they're playable for sure. All other civs seem fine really.

[jesus3]

I agree with tedere, too. The current patch is imo pretty good and only a few tweaks to sioux and china would be actually needed

[gibson]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ. Just cause something is more balanced than re doesn't mean its better. Take out all the civs but one and play on preset perfectly balanced maps and the game would be perfectly balanced. However that's not what we want is it. Unfortunately right now ep caters to one specific playstyle and anything that doesn't cater to that play style gets nerfed. I'd rather get map screwed 1 out of 5 times in quick search and play a game that actually requires adaption than ever touch ep again, cause that's why I love this game, for its strategic depth and adaption, not cause I wanna do a semi ff with every civ on every map in every mu.

[JakeyBoyTH]

How exactly is it a problem that you argue why you are right and the other is wrong?

This is pretty much ESOC now lol

[n0el]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ. Just cause something is more balanced than re doesn't mean its better. Take out all the civs but one and play on preset perfectly balanced maps and the game would be perfectly balanced. However that's not what we want is it. Unfortunately right now ep caters to one specific playstyle and anything that doesn't cater to that play style gets nerfed. I'd rather get map screwed 1 out of 5 times in quick search and play a game that actually requires adaption than ever touch ep again, cause that's why I love this game, for its strategic depth and adaption, not cause I wanna do a semi ff with every civ on every map in every mu.

This has much less to do with the EP changes than it does with the ESOC maps. Having 2 mines and 3 herds at your town center creates this play style. The problem is that when the map teams makes a map that favors aggression, they get blasted by the whole community. Can't have it both ways.

[HUMMAN]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ. Just cause something is more balanced than re doesn't mean its better. Take out all the civs but one and play on preset perfectly balanced maps and the game would be perfectly balanced. However that's not what we want is it. Unfortunately right now ep caters to one specific playstyle and anything that doesn't cater to that play style gets nerfed. I'd rather get map screwed 1 out of 5 times in quick search and play a game that actually requires adaption than ever touch ep again, cause that's why I love this game, for its strategic depth and adaption, not cause I wanna do a semi ff with every civ on every map in every mu.

Really u say hispaniola sucks when u are german.

[gibson]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ. Just cause something is more balanced than re doesn't mean its better. Take out all the civs but one and play on preset perfectly balanced maps and the game would be perfectly balanced. However that's not what we want is it. Unfortunately right now ep caters to one specific playstyle and anything that doesn't cater to that play style gets nerfed. I'd rather get map screwed 1 out of 5 times in quick search and play a game that actually requires adaption than ever touch ep again, cause that's why I love this game, for its strategic depth and adaption, not cause I wanna do a semi ff with every civ on every map in every mu.

This has much less to do with the EP changes than it does with the ESOC maps. Having 2 mines and 3 herds at your town center creates this play style. The problem is that when the map teams makes a map that favors aggression, they get blasted by the whole community. Can't have it both ways.

you're not wrong, it's a lose lose situation I guess

[Mr_Bramboy]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ. Just cause something is more balanced than re doesn't mean its better. Take out all the civs but one and play on preset perfectly balanced maps and the game would be perfectly balanced. However that's not what we want is it. Unfortunately right now ep caters to one specific playstyle and anything that doesn't cater to that play style gets nerfed. I'd rather get map screwed 1 out of 5 times in quick search and play a game that actually requires adaption than ever touch ep again, cause that's why I love this game, for its strategic depth and adaption, not cause I wanna do a semi ff with every civ on every map in every mu.

Supply and demand. Players overwhelmingly veto maps with few resources. The result is a semi-ff meta. If you remove vetoes and enforce maps with few resources the result is an agitated community. If almost everyone hates nonstandard maps, why make them?

[n0el]

Part of the other problem is that maps we only see EP play in tournaments, where maps are vetoed and safer style play prevails. If there was EP quicksearch, you would definitely see more play styles.

[Gendarme]

@Mr_Bramboy I don't think it should always be a blind assumption that people know what they want (or rather what they would enjoy).

[Goodspeed]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ.

If we want campy in-base fortress-based styles then why did we:
- Nerf dragoons
- Nerf walls
- Nerf forbidden army
- Buff cetans
- Buff dopples

Look at our changes from RE patch (you can find that comparison if you scroll down in the patch notes). You may find surprisingly few that "promote" semi-FF or campy styles. Most notably there are the Otto changes, which are an attempt at fixing a broken civ and we're definitely not done there. There's the BR nerf, which was fixing a broken unit. The key point is this: fixing broken things often has the added effect of promoting semi-FFs because the meta naturally evolves towards them. We are doing our best to counteract that by for example buffing dopples over WW, buffing Indian house cost instead of auto-upgrading gurkha (ironically suggested by many), etc.

What our changes have done, rather than promote semi-FFs they have allowed the meta to evolve towards them. It was always going to. People get really caught up in this "EP wants everyone to semi-FF into skirm goon" rhetoric, but our changes are not causing this meta movement. The widespread adoption of TPs, balanced maps and refined build orders are. It was easy to predict as far back as 5 years ago, when EP wasn't even a thing. If RE patch would have balanced maps, you would see a lot of semi-FFs there too. Actually you already do. Because of certain design choices that were made in this game, like minutemen and snare on-hit, the style tends to be superior. It's natural to go Age2, invest in some eco, see what the opponent is doing and make defensive units if necessary and then tech up further. You see the same thing happen in pretty much every RTS. Games get longer and longer, players boom and tech faster and faster. Early aggression is supposed to be gimmicky in RTS, and due to how easy scouting is in this game it tends to be less viable than in a game like SC2. You might argue then that scouting being so easy is a serious design flaw in the game and I would actually agree with you there, but it's what we have to deal with.

And I don't even see a problem when it comes to build variety. It's definitely not like every high level game is a semi-FF war. Look at last finals:
G1: Port mirror where they both forward based into colonial inf wars
G2: Brit vs Dutch semi-FF war (would be different on RE? I think not)
G3: Russian colonial timing against Dutch fortress
G4: 23 minute colonial (some water stuff)
G5: Russian colonial timing against French fortress
G6: Jan huss rush against German colonial
G7: Spain FF against Brit colonial
G8: Cons rush against French colonial

[gibson]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ. Just cause something is more balanced than re doesn't mean its better. Take out all the civs but one and play on preset perfectly balanced maps and the game would be perfectly balanced. However that's not what we want is it. Unfortunately right now ep caters to one specific playstyle and anything that doesn't cater to that play style gets nerfed. I'd rather get map screwed 1 out of 5 times in quick search and play a game that actually requires adaption than ever touch ep again, cause that's why I love this game, for its strategic depth and adaption, not cause I wanna do a semi ff with every civ on every map in every mu.

Supply and demand. Players overwhelmingly veto maps with few resources. The result is a semi-ff meta. If you remove vetoes and enforce maps with few resources the result is an agitated community. If almost everyone hates nonstandard maps, why make them?

Yea thats the problem is most of the changes on EP are due to people whining because they refuse to adapt and then blame the map when they do an awful build for said map. Eventually enough people whine for long enough and things get changed.

[gibson]

@Goodspeed every change that you mentioned is close to irrelevant next to the fact that many maps have two mines and/or the potential to have 3-4 hunts in base and/or berries. The fact remains that it's not possible to punish a semi ff with a rush if the semi ff player doesn't have to worry about having to leave his base. On top of that we've seen the two best rushing civs nerfed (otto and Iro), Russia buffed and than subsequently nerfed, India about to be nerfed, teepees, which inherently support a campy playstyle, buffed while good semi ff civs largely unchanged. You claim that it's natural that the meta is shifting towards semi ffs, it wouldn't be natural if a semi ff wasn't the best thing to do. So maybe instead of sitting back and allowing semi ffs to become the most dominant thing in the game, do something to change it.

[HUMMAN]

Btw instead of 10 min games, fortress gameplays are much fun for most players because of strategy and variety. Thats why esoc maps are preferred and people play semi ff. In most MUs if you are skilled enough you can go agressive and win, as said its people's preference to play this style. Look at aizamk and other top players, they are not that afraid to execute different playstyles. In fact they can punish predicted styles easier. I remember a game h20 vs lordraphael where h20 gone so much agressive that is punished by most builds, but when rapharl asked him way did play liked that "ı know you play india with karni"

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed every change that you mentioned is close to irrelevant next to the fact that many maps have two mines and/or the potential to have 3-4 hunts in base and/or berries. The fact remains that it's not possible to punish a semi ff with a rush if the semi ff player doesn't have to worry about having to leave his base. On top of that we've seen the two best rushing civs nerfed (otto and Iro), Russia buffed and than subsequently nerfed, India about to be nerfed, teepees, which inherently support a campy playstyle, buffed while good semi ff civs largely unchanged. You claim that it's natural that the meta is shifting towards semi ffs, it wouldn't be natural if a semi ff wasn't the best thing to do. So maybe instead of sitting back and allowing semi ffs to become the most dominant thing in the game, do something to change it.

It's not something you fix with balance changes. This is something you address with map diversity. I think our map team has done a fine job on that, which is why you don't really see the lack of build diversity you complain about in high level tournament matches.

[Hazza54321]

the finals were only that varied because bsop does unstandard anti meta shit that tries to catch people off guard

[Garja]

Ep is a joke. It promotes the same stale tp semi ff camping in base boomy play with every single civ. Just cause something is more balanced than re doesn't mean its better. Take out all the civs but one and play on preset perfectly balanced maps and the game would be perfectly balanced. However that's not what we want is it. Unfortunately right now ep caters to one specific playstyle and anything that doesn't cater to that play style gets nerfed. I'd rather get map screwed 1 out of 5 times in quick search and play a game that actually requires adaption than ever touch ep again, cause that's why I love this game, for its strategic depth and adaption, not cause I wanna do a semi ff with every civ on every map in every mu.

While your argument makes sense you need to put things into perspective. In qs you get mapscrewed more than 1 out of 5 times, in a way or another.
Also I can tell you that once you learn how to get 90% win rate with iro the perception of strategic depth and adaptation changes.

[Hazza54321]

@Goodspeed every change that you mentioned is close to irrelevant next to the fact that many maps have two mines and/or the potential to have 3-4 hunts in base and/or berries. The fact remains that it's not possible to punish a semi ff with a rush if the semi ff player doesn't have to worry about having to leave his base. On top of that we've seen the two best rushing civs nerfed (otto and Iro), Russia buffed and than subsequently nerfed, India about to be nerfed, teepees, which inherently support a campy playstyle, buffed while good semi ff civs largely unchanged. You claim that it's natural that the meta is shifting towards semi ffs, it wouldn't be natural if a semi ff wasn't the best thing to do. So maybe instead of sitting back and allowing semi ffs to become the most dominant thing in the game, do something to change it.

this, what happened to long age 2 plays

[KINGofOsmane]

wait for the water changes lolol

[Rikikipu]

@Goodspeed every change that you mentioned is close to irrelevant next to the fact that many maps have two mines and/or the potential to have 3-4 hunts in base and/or berries. The fact remains that it's not possible to punish a semi ff with a rush if the semi ff player doesn't have to worry about having to leave his base. On top of that we've seen the two best rushing civs nerfed (otto and Iro), Russia buffed and than subsequently nerfed, India about to be nerfed, teepees, which inherently support a campy playstyle, buffed while good semi ff civs largely unchanged. You claim that it's natural that the meta is shifting towards semi ffs, it wouldn't be natural if a semi ff wasn't the best thing to do. So maybe instead of sitting back and allowing semi ffs to become the most dominant thing in the game, do something to change it.

If you say that there are too many resources at base in esoc maps I totally agree with you. It should be good that players and viewers start to accept maps with less ressources for the sake of this game and its diversity

[Gendarme]

I still can't believe that Aizamk is still alone in his ways of enjoying the game and making it more enjoyable for the viewers after all this time - at least among the top players. Show some passion, people!