ESOCommunity

oh wow, another thread about Garja being Garja.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

Garja wrote:Did you keep track of it? So far it's basically my word against yours.

I haven't but I will from now.
Still, here is what I can remember of:
1) Russia is tier 1
2) Rams are op
3) China colonial is good and can beat Brit's
4) Russia is op and rapes Germany, Aztecs and France on EP 1.0
5) Aztec FI is trash
6) Current EP Port is op
7) EP 1.0 Sioux were good
8) When playing water on the RE you should build one or two docks max, 3-4 is bad
9) Water is extremely good and viable as Aztecs, especially vs otto
10) bow/pike beats musk/huss

I'll stop here but could find a lot more.

I never said those things. Those are jsut meme created by you trying to make fun of me. Except it just shows how childish or simply plain stupid you are.

1) Russia is not tier 1. Russia is however just fine.
2) Rams are OP at sieging and in fact they are. Combined with strongest skirms and very high HP goons it measn you can quickly siege stuff while battling with the two other units. This gives Iro the option to no commit to cav in order to cause ecodamage when armies are about equal. I'm not surprised you can't understand this. After all you don't play Iro and you're simple not intelligent enough.
3) Yes China colonial is not bad. No TAD civ was provided with weak colonial. In fact no TAD civ is provided with any major design weakness compared to civs from nilla and twc. That's simply how they designed the expansion. As for beating Brits it will eventually do in a hypotetic late colonial scenario. Again the fact that you can't aknowledge that just shows how idiot you are claiming to be a top player but ignoring these basic things.
4) Never said anything of that. In general I never go that in detail and display that certainty about specific MUs. That's just your imagination.
5) Aztec FI is sort of trash ye. The fact that is highly abusable by just aging and clicking on shipments doesn't make it any less trash. With that said I use it myself from time to time and ye it's funny.
6) Current EP Port is OP in team. And it is. Their scaling in mid game is retarded. Most importantly tho, and you omitted it, their design is crap with cheaper vills.
7) EP 1 Sioux were better than what people thought. My games posted on this site prove that. Again don't ridicule yourself.
8) Ye let's waste 800w in docks to produce 30 boats, 10 of each will be idle after 5 min of booming because fish runs out so they have to talk for 1 minute to the other side of the map. Instead of just using 400w and building 20-25 and use the extra resources saved on land (or for earlier fishing upgrades).
9) Water is extremely good as Aztec. Period. And vs Otto is an option, under certain circumstances.
10) bow/pike beats musk/huss per cost, yes.

You are just a clown.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:No, he dodged the showmatch because he knows he has no chance.

I didn't dodge shit. I'm playing every day, while you're just writing shit on forums.

momuuu wrote:

Goodspeed wrote:Guys can we reserve this thread for meaningful EP feedback please?

Tell that to garja. He has a pretty solid record of ruining serious aoe discussion with garjuments that make zero sense.

It's not my fault if my personality is 10 times yours and you have to attack me in mass because one by one you are worth zero.

Garja wrote:

momuuu wrote:

Goodspeed wrote:Guys can we reserve this thread for meaningful EP feedback please?

Tell that to garja. He has a pretty solid record of ruining serious aoe discussion with garjuments that make zero sense.

It's not my fault if my personality is 10 times yours and you have to attack me in mass because one by one you are worth zero.

"Your personality is 10 times mine"? Are you trying to say you in fact have so much more ego (personality) than normal people that you can't think sensically? Seems like a decent analysis.

Pls

The problem here is that there is basically no change that can benefit Iro on non-TP maps only. The change umeu suggests makes them slightly too strong on TP maps with a wood start in my opinion.
(I'm also not sure why Iro being "unplayable" on non-TP maps is being brought up only now)

Just ignore no TP maps. There's no point in handicapping yourself over a map style that is simply limiting in viable options.

Really feels like the old days.

Garja wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

Garja wrote:Did you keep track of it? So far it's basically my word against yours.

I haven't but I will from now.
Still, here is what I can remember of:
1) Russia is tier 1
2) Rams are op
3) China colonial is good and can beat Brit's
4) Russia is op and rapes Germany, Aztecs and France on EP 1.0
5) Aztec FI is trash
6) Current EP Port is op
7) EP 1.0 Sioux were good
8) When playing water on the RE you should build one or two docks max, 3-4 is bad
9) Water is extremely good and viable as Aztecs, especially vs otto
10) bow/pike beats musk/huss

I'll stop here but could find a lot more.

I never said those things. Those are jsut meme created by you trying to make fun of me. Except it just shows how childish or simply plain stupid you are.

1) Russia is not tier 1. Russia is however just fine.
2) Rams are OP at sieging and in fact they are. Combined with strongest skirms and very high HP goons it measn you can quickly siege stuff while battling with the two other units. This gives Iro the option to no commit to cav in order to cause ecodamage when armies are about equal. I'm not surprised you can't understand this. After all you don't play Iro and you're simple not intelligent enough.
3) Yes China colonial is not bad. No TAD civ was provided with weak colonial. In fact no TAD civ is provided with any major design weakness compared to civs from nilla and twc. That's simply how they designed the expansion. As for beating Brits it will eventually do in a hypotetic late colonial scenario. Again the fact that you can't aknowledge that just shows how idiot you are claiming to be a top player but ignoring these basic things.
4) Never said anything of that. In general I never go that in detail and display that certainty about specific MUs. That's just your imagination.
5) Aztec FI is sort of trash ye. The fact that is highly abusable by just aging and clicking on shipments doesn't make it any less trash. With that said I use it myself from time to time and ye it's funny.
6) Current EP Port is OP in team. And it is. Their scaling in mid game is retarded. Most importantly tho, and you omitted it, their design is crap with cheaper vills.
7) EP 1 Sioux were better than what people thought. My games posted on this site prove that. Again don't ridicule yourself.
8) Ye let's waste 800w in docks to produce 30 boats, 10 of each will be idle after 5 min of booming because fish runs out so they have to talk for 1 minute to the other side of the map. Instead of just using 400w and building 20-25 and use the extra resources saved on land (or for earlier fishing upgrades).
9) Water is extremely good as Aztec. Period. And vs Otto is an option, under certain circumstances.
10) bow/pike beats musk/huss per cost, yes.

You are just a clown.

1) lol, all the community can witness that you've said that. I even have some screenshots of you saying that, even «Russia is fucking op, you have no clue»
2) So you did say that but so far I haven't seen a single ram in a competitive game.
3) Well again you did say that and lost to a captain on stream.
4) Again I can provide some screenshots of you claiming that.
5)So you did say that.
6) I'm not talking about team but about 1v1
7) Your games prove that? Bro you literally got molested by everybody. I remember you getting mad on stream after losing 4-0 to a captain playing India, you're living in an illusion.
8) I don't expect you to understand water anyway. The fact that the only guys doing good on water build 4 docks if not 5, and that your water play is very questionable suggests that you're wrong again.
9) Well I wasn't sure myself so I just tried the build you suggested in the aztecs vs otto thread, and it's total trash.
You end your wp boom at 6min, get your docks up at 6min, and then you can barely make 10 boats because you don't have enough wood, and you have 10 coyotes/a 45v eco a 8min30, time where a fre guy is going to come with 5 cuirs/5huss/2falcs. You're not anywhere close to start fortress, you have no army and your eco isn't even good.
Honestly, I'd say that it is bad in every situation without exceptions, but the fact that you claimed that it is the «should go build» on water map shows how disconnected from reality you are.
10) Sure

Anyway, I know that all in all, you're not a bad player, and that most of the time you don't believe what you claim, or you just claim it because you're mad, you prove it by saying that you've never said these things, but still, it's hard for us to know when you're serious, and when you're just having another unreasonable opinion. Right now you seem to be mad and thus I wouldn't bet a lot on you being right.

PS: Sorry GS

Cba really. Let's just disagree. You have no clue anyway of what you're saying in most cases. And no I didn't say those things, it's just you putting words on my mouth.

Yea let's just disagree.
I'm not at home atm but next week I'll post screenshots of you claiming this to prove I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Cool, you putting lot of effort in this crusaide. Curious to see what you screenshotted.

Garja wrote:Cool, you putting lot of effort in this crusaide. Curious to see what you screenshotted.

K I'll post it on Saturday. Remind me if I don't.

Garja, its not a crusade. Its just that every time something about aoe is discussed, you come in with the weirdest arguments possible and cant be reasoned with. You annoy people with that, hijack the discussion with your ridiculoud arguments, and then eventually when you start losing the discussion you'll end up claiming everyone but you is stupid and that nobody is as good or has the gameunderstanding that you have.

Its extremely weird, you'll even go as far as calling one of the players with the most strategic insight stupid. It makes no sense. Its not a crusade, but you just hijack topics with your stupid trolling time and time again.

the german change seems kinda pointless to me, 181hp uhlans if youre so bothered about them being a broken unit

zoom wrote:

umeu wrote:

Show hidden quotes

zoom wrote:

umeu wrote:

gamevideo113 wrote:Well, idk. Your suggestion is surely interesting but iro isn't even that bad in the first place. They might underperform on non-TP maps but it's the same for french/ger/ports/etc, so i don't think it's an issue that necessarily needs to be solved

They don't underperform on no tp, they are terrible, as diarouga said it. Ports and fre are totally fine on no tp maps, and ger indeed underperforms, which could be fixed by an xbow buff. If that doesnt work, it's possible to check out different changes.

It's funny that everyone who says it cant be balanced on both maptypes refuses to consider any changes that possibly achieve that. Ofc, that way your bias will confirm reality.

I think it can't be balanced on multiple map-types and I certainly don't refuse to consider changes that improve balance on all map-types. It is simply the case that the extent to which you can achieve balance on multiple map-types is, in general, limited. One who cannot understand these limitations, I think, is being biased.

K, you say you don't refuse to consider it, and then you don't consider it. Nice job! You say that the balance we can achieve on multiple map type is limited. Why? You don't explain it, you just state it. It's not been tried. It's not been tested. It's just an idea in your mind that you refuse to change. So, anyone who just sees limitations without actually testing the limits, I think, is being biased.

TL:DR: I say the opposite. Nice talking to you.

I do consider it; note how I said the extent is limited, not zero. So there goes your argument. As for the reason: Because civilization strength will unavoidably vary quite the deal depending on map-related factors. I did not state this because I've been over it so many times before, as have you, and I assumed you know. My mistake. Testing is not required to see that there are definitive limitations, again barring bias.

I meant you arent considering the specific changes. If you would say its simply too much work, that would be acceptable. But don't pretend its a fact just because you say so and lack the imagination to see how other options would work out. I have yet to hear a good argument about why balance would be limited on multiple map types. Its (more) difficult doesnt mean its impossible.

momuuu wrote:Garja, its not a crusade. Its just that every time something about aoe is discussed, you come in with the weirdest arguments possible and cant be reasoned with. You annoy people with that, hijack the discussion with your ridiculoud arguments, and then eventually when you start losing the discussion you'll end up claiming everyone but you is stupid and that nobody is as good or has the gameunderstanding that you have.

Its extremely weird, you'll even go as far as calling one of the players with the most strategic insight stupid. It makes no sense. Its not a crusade, but you just hijack topics with your stupid trolling time and time again.

Weirdest argument possible, lol. It's called having a different opinion from yours. And I couldn't care less if there more people against my argument than the other way around. If popularity was a thing in opinion then you wouldn't have revolutionary thinking at all.

For the record I don't hijack anything. It's always my haters going against me, just like you and Diarouga are doing here.
And no Diarouga doesn't have nearly as close game undersanding as I have.

Whether it's possible or not (I don't think it is) is irrelevant here. We don't have a testing team so rethinking the EP approach entirely would be a disaster.

Garja wrote:

momuuu wrote:Garja, its not a crusade. Its just that every time something about aoe is discussed, you come in with the weirdest arguments possible and cant be reasoned with. You annoy people with that, hijack the discussion with your ridiculoud arguments, and then eventually when you start losing the discussion you'll end up claiming everyone but you is stupid and that nobody is as good or has the gameunderstanding that you have.

Its extremely weird, you'll even go as far as calling one of the players with the most strategic insight stupid. It makes no sense. Its not a crusade, but you just hijack topics with your stupid trolling time and time again.

Weirdest argument possible, lol. It's called having a different opinion from yours. And I couldn't care less if there more people against my argument than the other way around. If popularity was a thing in opinion then you wouldn't have revolutionary thinking at all.

For the record I don't hijack anything. It's always my haters going against me, just like you and Diarouga are doing here.
And no Diarouga doesn't have nearly as close game undersanding as I have.

I don't want to start an ego war, nor do I want to be offensive, but, let's say we're at the same level on aoe3 (I don't think you can argue that you're on level above), you have better mechanics than I do right? Better micro, better knowledge of the small tricks.
How come you're not one level above me then? Think about it, if you're better mechanically, and my understanding isn't close to your, then why can I beat you that often?

Thats why you open beta. A beta patch that can switch to easily like you can switch between ep and treaty patch would be a good start.

Well this is not a good argument. Or at least it is if you pick games where I actually play at said level, which is pretty rare nowadays.
I mean half of my games I blow up 20 score advantage or good positions overall because of mistake of focus.

And as for our games, you can't claim anything based on that. Example: you won the Aztec mirror in the tourney back then but it's not like going TP is the right decision and you can advocate for it. It's just that I wasn't focused enough to answer that properly or simply didn't play the MU again beforehand to include those possibilities. It's hard to use game knowledge on the fly while playing.

@Garja @Diarouga Please drop this argument, or at least have it in private. You aren't going to agree and it's pushing a very important thread off topic.

umeu wrote:Thats why you open beta. A beta patch that can switch to easily like you can switch between ep and treaty patch would be a good start.

We had betas in the past. Since nobody played it there's no beta anymore.
However, if you suggest some changes, ask the devs to open a beta, and test it, I'm sure they'd do it :)

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

umeu wrote:Thats why you open beta. A beta patch that can switch to easily like you can switch between ep and treaty patch would be a good start.

We had betas in the past. Since nobody played it there's no beta anymore.
However, if you suggest some changes, ask the devs to open a beta, and test it, I'm sure they'd do it :)

maybe i am missing something, but I thought we are discussing in the current beta thread right now. so surely there must be a beta right? the way it's now is a step in the right direction, before it was just much too inconvenient with the beta. it could still be made easier, but i'm not sure how difficult that is.