Criticism regarding EP

[tedere12]

You can play any civ on no TP.

otto ep 4? even that? : D

You can play any civ you like. Create a home city first then select the city from the lobby menu by pressing the flag. It’s as easy as that.

its not easy to play without Advanced Wonders in your deck

[EAGLEMUT]

You can play any civ on no TP.

otto ep 4? even that? : D

build a mosk

[JakeyBoyTH]

Show hidden quotes

You can play any civ on no TP.

otto ep 4? even that? : D

You can play any civ you like. Create a home city first then select the city from the lobby menu by pressing the flag. It’s as easy as that.

its not easy to play without Advanced Wonders in your deck

It is widely regarded as a terrible card. Only worth 4.5 vills. Almost as bad as sending Irregulars as Ottoman.

[princeofkabul]

You can play any civ on no TP.

otto ep 4? even that? : D

build a mosk

not going to be enough xp rate to beat any civ.

[Dsy]

Why wakinas has 5 speed?
Is it for trolling?

[Jaeger]

Why not increase mosque cost to 200w or so and have them give xp like a TP?

[HUMMAN]

Why not increase mosque cost to 200w or so and have them give xp like a TP?

If so tp would serve only as a stage coach.
I mean tps are much vulnerable thus be more rewarding. Keep in mind mosks only function is not to give xp.

[Goodspeed]

Why not increase mosque cost to 200w or so and have them give xp like a TP?

Has to do with the starting crate situation. Otto get 300 or 400w, which means they can't always get 2 TPs. Now we gave them the possibility to chop 100 for mosque + TP on 300w starts so they can have a consistently XP-heavy start, which means their SR builds are no longer reliant on the crate start.

[Garja]

Ye actually Otto on new patch is better on no TP maps than before. Mosque is better and cheaper jans allow for a slightly different style where you focus on booming and make only as many units as you need.
Forcing Otto on SR is shitty tho.

[Goodspeed]

It's not forcing SR, it's adding the option to use it. Otto's more aggressive options are barely changed, only nerfed slightly to compensate for the mosque buff which improves all of their builds.

Still planning on making a proper reply to the OP btw. Haven't had time and probably won't until mid November. In short, EP attempts to balance the game based on the most average map in the pool while trying to make sure civs that are favoured by the outliers are not too dominant there. So we do take the maps into account.

[Garja]

Aggressive options don't work anymore with both jans and abus nerfed.

[_H2O]

We absolutely see how important maps are for the meta. The maps help fix a lot of issues. They also need to be different. No TP maps are a niche map type that are used less often than tp maps in series.

[Gendarme]

Yeah having more no-TP maps doesn't mean we'll have more games on no-TP maps in the tournaments.

[tedere12]

hopefully we have more games with native TPs involved

[momuuu]

Theres a lot of side discussion compared to the original point I tried to make. What I'm saying is that realistically there are two roads to balance the game; the path EP has ultimately ended up chosing and a path where maps/gameplay stick true to the RE style of more aggressive and interactive games. And then I've tried to argue that maybe the path EP has taken doesn't actually lead to the destination but is just a dead end and that the RE path would be better.

Ultimately I can't prove myself right. You guys can't prove me wrong either, at least not if we don't actually test it. I did try to make some arguments to say that there maybe is truth to what I say, as to me it seems to kinda describe whats going on with the game and balance right now and a somewhat negative sentiment towards EP is at least shared amongst a decent group of people right now (which fits within the reasoning I have applied, I would say). And then to add to my argumentation, I've argued that maybe it's best to stick true to the RE style of games that we've all initially fallen in love with. Some side details like if otto can play on a no TP map or whatever is somewhat irrelevant with respect to the point I've been trying to make and some of the points with regards to maps are more on the side than at the core of what I've tried to argue.

Why do I think the EP path might not be the right path? First of all this is just a feeling, but I think there are others experiencing the same feel; I feel like the EP meta is really slow and not interactive, probably due to the hunt situation. There are so many match ups that make me go 'meh thats just going to be an endless boom fest until someone has more stuff than the other one' and that's actually what my first example about the dutch vs brit game was about. A little note: I did actually win that game, I'm not complaining about losing or brits being unbeatable due to hunts or something, I'm complaining that it was boring. Just today I played like 5 games on Fertile Crescent, Aztec vs Russia, which is a map that truly has only 2 safe hunts, and I had so much fun even though I lost 4 out of the 5 games I think - and trust me, I'm a terrible loser. It's this gut feeling that I also experience whenever I play on quick search, that is in the case the maps aren't completely unbalanced or hisponiola. I'd argue, like I did in my first post, that this is because early aggression is interactive and makes all games feel different from eachother. In those 5 games I played today, we ended up trading differently each game, trying to go for raids while defending and mixing up army compositions/shipments based on what happened in those trades. Some games had me defend succesfully but then appear unable to push out and get the map control that I desperately needed, the only win I had I did manage to push out and that was an interesting and engaging dynamic. It felt flexible, as if it could not ever be boring. I would stop playing after 1 typical EP no rush 15 game, I'd at least try to switch up the match up because I'd be bored. The interaction is fun, the army movement, the fact that you have to adapt to how the trades work out and what happens in the early game, the fact that holding a rush isn't only not dying but also pushing out to retake map control in time. I had fun, and I wish there were more maps like Fertile Crescent. If you're even somewhat convinced or think that I could have a point, I'd strongly recommend playing on this map to experience something the closest to a balanced RE map. I think many of us would love playing like that.

Then if you look at the changes EP is making you could interpret most of them within the category of trying to patch up something that is broken. Theres two main changes being made that could be seen as treating symptoms: Firstly, civs are getting eco options because, in my eyes, they're basically booming to the max already. In a lower resource game, maybe you'll elect to skip steel traps for a bit, maybe it's not 100% right to ship 5 villagers, maybe a dutch player makes some more units instead of that 5 bank and plays on 2 or 3 banks instead, maybe the german player will play around making a few units before shipping 3 SWs, maybe the port player will forward TC for a bit and pressure, etc. But on an average EP map, in a good portion of match ups, you're basically just gearing up to reach maximum strength at the 12-15 minute mark. So it gets a bit bland when dutch only has 4 banks, maybe otto needs an eco option (silk road, mosque upgrades), hey maybe we should give russia more options to go age 3 (17 strelets to 20 strelets), maybe germany is a bit one dimensional now because they only do an uhlan semi FF, sioux should probably get more eco options, maybe spain needs an eco style too because they're situationally bad in some match ups. There are many changes that fit into the idea that I've tried to present. Secondly, there are serious troubles balancing civs that do have aggressive options. It's so far turned out to be quite problematic to buff russia; How do you buff them without russia straight up steamrolling some civs in the early game. India - unable to really compete with eco gameplay - has been electing to go for the beefy sepoy styles to close out a game quickly. It's been hard to balance Sioux and Otto for these maps without actually changing the civs completely. These things might be problematic to balance because the second part of a rush, pushing out to regain map control after you've survived a rush, doesn't exist. Often the rush either kills or doesn't kill, so balance is really hard to achieve. I'd say that the balance would probably be pretty bad if you just were to take this patch or the RE patch and play on these maps with few safe resources, but I would also argue that this would be much easier to balance and would require much fewer design changes. This whole list of problems that are being dealt with rather ineffectively would basically disappear if you go back to more aggressive styles. Yes, maybe a russian/aztec/india contain of your third hunt is going to be hard to deal with, but then it actually becomes more possible to adjust their aggressive styles. Maybe it's actually less killing for a sepoy rush to have sepoys have 10 hp less, because india can actually still rely on their contain. Maybe its possible to actually start nerfing the russia rush or maybe you would just reduce the blockhouse hp. There's more options to balance rushy styles, so they don't have to mostly be removed or left in weak states like whats happening right now. Maybe Brits will be a bit weak, and then they can be buffed. But I think that just ends up being a much more efficient starting point to achieve great balance and a gameplay style thats engaging, interactive, fun and most similair to what the game we all fell in love with is like.

Like I said though, it's hard to prove me wrong. I'm just presenting a theory, based on a gut feeling I have and a certain pattern that seems to be present in the EP changes and problems that are arising balancing civs, as well as the generic meta that has developed and the somewhat spread resent towards that meta. But we can test this theory! Right now theres Fertile Crescent that really seems to mimic RE style, possibly there are more good maps (consistent in how they spawn) that do the same (I'd love it if people come up with maps that are similair to RE). Why we try to see what's it like to play on these maps for a bit, what it is like to play more aggressively and sit back less. My actual suggestions are probably too radical to be implemented - people are conservative and don't like change, they like to play the styles that they've learned and mastered even if they're more boring in essence - but wouldn't it be a good idea to add a pool of maps that are really standard (so a normal amount of total resources, normal TP lines, no weird water stuff or wonky map layouts) that have a consistent second hunt but don't have a very safe 2nd mine or 3rd hunt but rather one somewhat more out there on the map? This is something that has not been done or tested yet honestly. There are really only a few (one?) "balanced" RE maps. With Aoe3:DE on the horizon, shouldn't this be something that absolutely needs to be tested? I personally would say yes, and I hope some of you agree here and want to join my journey of playing on fertile crescent and campagning for more RE like maps.

[momuuu]

Anyway, you're complaining atm but if the maps had less resources you would cry too because you would struggle vs the Brit colonial builds. That would be even more boring, both guys would go for the exact same colonial build every game, thus no strat choices.

Well, I'm not suggesting for the maps to have no safe resources, I am suggestion for them to have the amount of resources that a generic RE map has when it spawns decently. I don't think this amount of resources is just some random amount: Look at Siberia for example, the amount of safe resources on that map is enough to make a small amount of units and then go to age 3 as all civs I think, and this is actually a common theme amongst all decent RE maps. This means that semi FF styles or boomy styles can definitely be viable, as you'll still have somewhat safe resources until 10 minutes. The beauty of the resources on RE is that it seemingly works out almost perfectly that when the rush is held the rushed player is on a clock to retake the map. On an EP map when the rush is held the player can just continue doing what he was doing and the roles don't actually switch. The rushing player just has to desperately go more all in. You're right though in the case that you're just having a terrible 2nd hunt, which is unfortunately also a frequently occuring thing on RE maps. Then the only viable thing is to go all out on military basically to defend your villagers that are out in the open. I'm not arguing for that sort of map style, as that is indeed limited in terms of strategies. I'm arguing for something that in my eyes makes booming, being more aggressive and aging all legitemate choices. I'd love to see france sometimes doing some musk/huss opening and then after a bit of aggression try to age up for example, or france actually xbow pike rushing for a change. I'd also love seeing some of the EP meta preserved, but not in the extreme way that it is right now.

"The resulting meta is stale in the sense that many civilizations actually literally exhaust all their economic options (France and Germany for example go for almost a maximal boom build order, and theres Dutch vs British games where Dutch makes 5 banks and gets market upgrades while brits VC booms)."

What about sending more resource shipments such as 1k wood/1k gold and taking TPs?
I'm pretty sure that Dutch with 3 stagecoach TPs, 5 banks and a market outbooms a Brit VC boom. Sure you'll tell me that he can just make some pikes to kill the TPs, then you make skirms and huss in age 2 and here is your action packed age 2 game. TPs are the reason why you can't just sit at home and boom.

Actually to begin with, the majority of the meta civs actually tend to take a trading post, so doing stagecoach is not really effective anymore. And even in this example, the problem with stagecoach is that the exact reason why you can safely boom on EP maps, namely that you dont have to move out of your base, is removed by doing stagecoach. And then suddenly it turns out that it wasn't actually possible to invest all those resources in economy so a good opponent will just continue the eco style and steal the route from you.

"Interactive gameplay is interesting to begin with, nobody likes playing against the AI trying to maximize their army at 15 minutes, which is a standard EP game except that one big gamedeciding fight is missing."

Well, tbh that's because people don't play the game the right way as I said.
Some time ago, people told me that Aztec mirrors were dumb because you would go for the same build every game and spam coyotes, well today it has changed because people have figured out the MU.
The coyote spam loses to a TP build (because coyotes don't have enough siege to kill the TP before the other guy can take advantage of that TP), that's why you want to make some pikes to siege, but as people start making pikes, maces become viable and then it's a game with a 3 unit composition and where map control really matters.
Also, people figured out that fortress is really strong in aztec mirrors, and it creates new options, you can timing in age 2 and try to punish the semi ff. You can also go for a more or less fast ff (3wp build and 700w builds both have pros and cons).
That's the same in every MU actually, you can always adapt and counter the "stale play"

Aztec is one of the civs still capable of aggression in this meta, and native civs don't actually have the defensive options that normal euro civs do have so it results in a much more interactive match up. To be honest, I love the way aztec mirrors work out right now, and I only disliked the old aztec mirrors because its 1 unit that can't be microed much and it's really hard to tell the coyotes apart from eachother. What I'm saying is that with some tweaks we could have many more of these sort of match ups, where both age 2 timing + contain and semi FF becomes possibilities, where it's viable to train units and actually be aggressive early on and also still viable to boom. Yes, if you go instantly to RE style maps with the balance changes that we have right now then everything is poorly balanced and maybe rush civs become extremely oppressive, but that's not the idea behind my suggestion: The idea is that you restart the balancing to end up with a better final product.

"Not only in the individual maps but also in the distribution of different types of maps."

Well, the issue with specific maps is that it forces one specific type of play while making others unviable, while on high resource maps everything is possible.
You also have to keep in mind that the EP balances civs off high resource maps, and that some on specific maps, some civs are totally broken.
Germany is almost unplayable on no TP maps for example while Russia becomes op as fuck.
Honestly, you don't want to play Dutch or Brit vs Russia on low hunt maps lol.

The game is balanced off of high resource maps indeed, and yes some civs are broken on low resource maps. Absolutely right. Like I said, its not that this would improve balance; it would probably make it worse. The idea is though that you have a better starting point to balance from, being closer to what RE is like and eventually the meta then being - at least so I hope - more fun. So yes while you're right, it isn't in disagreement with what I'm arguing for.

Last note about this RE style. These last years, I've seen a lot of people complaining about the Indian 10/10 or the jan rush being too strong (such as Couprider ) because there was simply nothing they could do against it as the maps were low hunt and the civs too strong. I seriously don't understand why people are sad lame rushes don't exist anymore.

If you take RE style maps as starting points and then balance from there, you can actually truly nerf "lame rushes". Rushes that have the ability to completely ignore TC fire/minutemen could end up being too strong, and they can actually be nerfed without nerfing rush styles because you can still push and then use your units to get map control. On EP maps you cant rush and use your units for map control because your opponent won't need map control for a while and will just outscale you. On RE maps this is a very viable strategy. Then we can actually easily balance civs like Russia, Aztec and India without removing rush based styles from their arsenal and without being forced to give them more eco options, changing the way the game was made and playing game designer.

Interesting. Less recourses adds more skill in the discovery/colonial age because defending is harder and people are more likely to rush. This actually means more intersting games and less boring ones early on. At the same time, while most people argree about this, players don't experience it as fun, because it's just terrible to have no recourses. ESOC maps came to give people more recourses, but now we're realising it ends up sitting in your base for 10 minutes.

I'd say pay more attention to the map pool. Diversity is important. Maps with lower recourses (but where it's fair!) are fun too! Making more of them is questionable, because people won't really appreciate it in general. Though they might be needed if the diversity (low/high hunt map) is bad.

Yeah Jim that's what I'm saying. Except that a well spawned RE map can actually have fair resources. What I'm saying is lets try to make some maps that give you a good second hunt but don't give you that very easy 3rd hunt or a 2nd mine.

[momuuu]

PS. There are other valid complaints about EP right now, like the map pool that is too diverse to allow for good balance, or the fact that there's only 2 people in the patch team really, or that there are indeed a lot of changes missing in the patch. I do agree with those. I just have been driven by this realization that this theory could be representing the truth and my first experimentation seems to agree.

[Hazza54321]

Holy fuck an autobiography

[gh0st]

Jerom pls keep your post in spoiler. Would save a lot of scrolling.

[fei123456]

is diarouga really a member of EP team? We shouldn't ban a EP team member.

[Aizamk]

the only thing locking a player into playing a civ a certain way is their own preconceptions

elifents are free
like a whale in the ocean
or cow in a tree

also, saying india can't eco is ridiculous