Treasures

So?

Poll ended at 18 Jun 2018, 22:18

Status quo
19
53%
Removed
2
6%
Reformed
15
42%
 
Total votes: 36

User avatar
No Flag Djigit
Howdah
Posts: 1605
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Treasures

Post by Djigit »

It's for sure not a priority, but I'm curious to see what people think on that matter.

I see the following options:
1. The treasure system is good as it is.
2. We should remove all the treasures.
3. Only low-tier treasures (80w, 75c, 1 cdb...) should be kept? Or any other change that would improve balance, consistency...

I'd rate these options as follows: 3>1>2. I honestly don't see the relevancy of big treasures held by renegades and comancheros, unless you FI. Removing treasures doesn't sound good either. Age 1 would be only about exploration and it might lead to less innovative BOs and strategies.

What do you guys think?
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Treasures

  • Quote

Post by Kaiserklein »

Treasures just need to be a bit harder to take (like most of the new wadmalaw treasures, for example) and probably overall grant less extreme rewards (like nerf the huge 100+ res treas with polar bears etc). They definitely shouldn't be removed because age 1 would be pretty useless then, and also because despite what a lot of people like to say, there is some skill in treasuring. Of course there's a big part of luck, but there is also a part of skill (knowing good scouting patterns on various maps, being able to micro treasures fast and without losing too much hp, fight against other explos/units...). Honestly if treasuring was just luck you wouldn't see some players consistently win or lose the age 1.

On top of that, treasures are a part of the balance, because the civs have various age 1 potentials. Sioux benefits way more from treasures than otto does, for example. And if you remove treasures, or nerf them to the ground, it will affect these civs and change the balance (and I think we have enough balance changes already, on a regular basis, without adding this kind of stuff).
There's also some decision making regarding treasures. For example going for a TP means that you won't be able to take treasures for a while, which you can compare to more or less losing one treasure I'd say (typical stuff on kamchatka, where one player goes for early TP while the other just races to the middle and gets a 85w treasure). You sometimes also need to choose between going for the livestock or going for the treasures.

So yeah, don't remove treasures of course, just nerf them a bit maybe. A special case is the nat treasures, that definitely needs some rework. Today when I played vs garja I lamed his fb vils with an inca treasure, because it was a tourney and I didn't feel confident in brit mirror, but it's nothing to be proud of. It just makes no sense that some nats can siege so much or kill villagers so easily. Of course there is sometimes a way to use your explo to micro your vils to try and not lose a vil to the nat, but sometimes it's just impossible and you get your fb denied and/or lose a vil. I guess nats just need a multiplier vs vils, at least in age 1. They need to still do some damage, so maybe a 0.5 multiplier would be reasonable.
Image
Image
Image
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 ..
User avatar
Netherlands Bachscharfschütze
Skirmisher
Posts: 108
Joined: Nov 28, 2017
ESO: michel103

Re: Treasures

Post by Bachscharfschütze »

i main aztec on yukon
''brits c'est vraiment une civ de fdp''
- Kaiserklein, 2018
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: Treasures

Post by Mitoe »

Treasures are (mostly) fine, for many of the same reasons Kaiser already pointed out.

It's true that there are a few outlying treasures that aren't very good or shouldn't exist in their current form, though: 8 Outlaw Renegados for 100% explorer hp is pretty worthless, and really should have no place whatsoever in the game. I also kind of feel like level 3 and higher treasures (AKA the massive treasures), have no place in 1v1 usually, unless the map has coded them to spawn in one or two locations very consistently. They're just too impossible to take, so what ends up happening if the treasure spawns are too loose on any given map is that you will scout 2 massive untakable treasures on your half of the map, while you're opponent has just finished picking up 90f and is walking over to the native scout treasure.

In general, however, most treasures have a good balance between time, hp to take, and resources so that it's more or less fair.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Treasures

Post by deleted_user »

Nat treasure can just decide a game at minute 2 (depending on match up) which is kind of competitively lame. A good nat treasure can seemingly bridge a 3-5 PR gap. They're my biggest gripe.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: Treasures

Post by Mitoe »

It's possible that some nat treasures are too easy to take, yeah. 1 Nootka for 3 wolves is insane.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Treasures

Post by gibson »

Most treasure guarded by wolves or coyotes are too easy to take I think
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Treasures

Post by Kaiserklein »

Btw...
Djigit wrote:3. Only low-tier treasures (80w, 75c, 1 cdb...) should be kept? Or any other change that would improve balance, consistency...

I don't think we have the same definition of low-tier treasures.

@Mitoe yeah I agree with the huge treasures thing. Sometimes on hudson for example you get 2 of these shit treas on your side while your opponent most likely has a 100w treasure or something like that instead. That's not really fair, and it's pretty useless. Plus they tend to bug easily and start to shoot at vils for no reason (or maybe because vils try to punch them because they stand on their way, like they do with hunts sometimes?), or for example they can start sieging an agra fort if you abuse the area damage with your explo.
But I kind of disagree that most treasures have a good balance. I mean, on every map you have some useless and some broken treasures. For example by killing 3 wolves you can get 150g, or you can get 60w... or even a fucking tamed wolf. For 2 polar bears you get 20% hp on your explo, or 125w. And there's a lot more examples of these aberrations regarding treasure design. I think treasures overall deserve to be reworked a bit for this reason; I really like the wadmalaw treasures, they almost always give you a relevant reward, but they're also a bit harder to take than their RE counterparts, imo it's a great design.

Mitoe wrote:It's possible that some nat treasures are too easy to take, yeah. 1 Nootka for 3 wolves is insane.

The inca for 2 blowgunners is a real joke, you literally lose only 75 hp, and after 25 sec you get an unkillable unit in age 1
Image
Image
Image
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 ..
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: Treasures

Post by Mitoe »

Yeah Hudson is actually the map I was thinking of when I said that.

And yeah, that's true. There's a few outliers that are just kinda bad/unfair a bit. Forgot about the Hauminca treasure, that one is probably the best nat treasure in the game. Unless you're playing a native civ and find the Cherokee treasure for a Renegado/Pistolero.

Maybe a treasure rework isn't that bad of an idea.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Treasures

  • Quote

Post by Garja »

I think the only treasures that can be very deciding occasionally are nootka and inca treasure. Mostly because they spawn alone. Maps with tomahawks and cherokee have multiple nat treasures for example. And also those 2 nats don't snare which I believe is the real problem. Without snare most of times you just lose gathering time and that balances out with other treasures you took instead of the native. Even if you lose the vill it should be fine as long as it doesn't completely change your strat and you got some other treasure instead.

All other treasures are fine. Even the very big ones, like those on winter Hudson, are fine if present only in a few maps. I think they add diversity and that's good.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: Treasures

Post by Mitoe »

I think the massive treasures are O.K. if there are proper constraints on their spawn locations, but there doesn't seem to be any on Hudson as far as I can tell. Not that there'd be a much better way to contain them on Hudson, I suppose.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Treasures

Post by Garja »

Well, constraints are similar for all maps, they just change in values and occasionally lvl3-4 are restricted to some areas. Hudson treasures are all lvl 2. If anything the problem is that some of them are garbage and others very good. But again that makes it so that you can't know where good ones are beforehand.
Image Image Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Treasures

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Yea Nootka and the other snaring native (I don't remember the name) should not exist, that's just lame.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Treasures

Post by deleted_user0 »

nah should exist. scouting is skill. if you cant deal with nootka you are noobcake and shouldn't exist in the game! NOOTKA FOR LIFE!!!

taking any tres is risky, but taking a warrior tres is doubly so, because if you lose it, you're most likely super rekt. ish awesome! I never feel so alive in aoe as when I am contesting a inca huaminca treasure!
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Treasures

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

umeu wrote:nah should exist. scouting is skill. if you cant deal with nootka you are noobcake and shouldn't exist in the game! NOOTKA FOR LIFE!!!

taking any tres is risky, but taking a warrior tres is doubly so, because if you lose it, you're most likely super rekt. ish awesome! I never feel so alive in aoe as when I am contesting a inca huaminca treasure!

=>Euro rafuuuu
User avatar
Spain Snuden
Jaeger
Posts: 4276
Joined: Dec 28, 2016
ESO: Snuden
Location: Costa del Baphomet

Re: Treasures

Post by Snuden »

I like the 20-30 gold ones you just pick up without any problems at all.
[Sith] - Baphomet
User avatar
United States of America _H2O
ESOC Business Team
Donator 06
Posts: 3409
Joined: Aug 20, 2016
ESO: _H2O

Re: Treasures

Post by _H2O »

The Nootka and huaminca are very strong but also mostly fine. You are giving up other sure resource treasures for a chance that you might control the map during transition. Your opponent can also use their explorer to help deal with the nat and you have to if you want to go forward vs it. I think there is a lot of counter play available, it’s not that strong. Removing snare from them would make them much like the native scout now.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Treasures

Post by Garja »

Ye except they have 6-8 times more siege than the native scout and 2x more HP and attack. Besides the native scout still gives a mild advantage in explorer fights.
I agree nat treasures are part of the game and it's possible to deal with them. But the snaring argument doesn't hold. There is a reason afterall if nilla nat treasures don't snare.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: Treasures

Post by lemmings121 »

I love playing india in arkansas, 90% of the time the other players finds a nookta or a toma in the first minute of the game and im forced to hide my 2 explorers until 5mins game time because there is a spy-equivalent on the map, that one hits them.
also, forces in base wonder... yea, a lot of counter play available.
Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Treasures

Post by Garja »

There is no nootka on arkasans. If you really park your explorers for all age1 then you are playing that bad.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Treasures

Post by momuuu »

All things considered I actually think the game would be better if age 1 and the related treasures did not exist. Treasures have to be there because age 1 is just a waste of time, but tbh I feel like age 1 is a waste of time in general and treasures don't seem to bring anything to the table that makes the game better. Treasures are 'skill based' in the sense that there surely are some decisions to be made and skills to have, but it's not hard nor is it really fun to do, and the luck factor is still really big.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Treasures

  • Quote

Post by Garja »

From a design POV treasuring is, first of all, a mechanic introduced to have interaction since the start. Early interaction is something normally desired in RTS. Given that treasuring is at least 60% skill based (scout pattern, engaging decision, micro, etc) it also rewards the better player in that department, adding to the game competitiveness.
Another effect of treasuring - which might very well be a design choice - is to create imbalances, regardless if skill of luck based. Imbalances are a way to break the symmetry and test players strategic planning. Playing from ahead or from behind is different. Also working on different type of boosts is different.
Nat treasures can be an extremization of this argument.

From a balance POV treasures can play in favor or against a certain civ. Some civs are better at treasuring and age1 in general and that is taken into account for their overall strenght.
Also the amount and quality of treasures is a way to modulate how dry or boosted your progression will be. This leads to different games (e.g. low vs high eco) and again test players in different situations.
Image Image Image
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: Treasures

Post by lordraphael »

momuuu wrote:All things considered I actually think the game would be better if age 1 and the related treasures did not exist. Treasures have to be there because age 1 is just a waste of time, but tbh I feel like age 1 is a waste of time in general and treasures don't seem to bring anything to the table that makes the game better. Treasures are 'skill based' in the sense that there surely are some decisions to be made and skills to have, but it's not hard nor is it really fun to do, and the luck factor is still really big.

i agree if you look at aoc age 1 is quite different compared to aoe 3. Builds differ depending on what strat you wanna do later in the game. Things like bore or deer luring are quite hard to pull of and even scouting is harder because the map is bigger and you need to constantly scout in order to get enough info about the map and where your opponent is located. If you were to play a top aoc player youd basically lose the game in age 1 alread, sth which isnt really possible in aoe 3. Theres little differences between top players and bottom ones in aoe 3 concerning the first age.
I get why the devs decided to have a first age in aoe 3 but after 15 years its safe to say that this has been a mistake. It makes aoe slower, while giving little in return. Theres no interesting shipments that can be sent theres no rush strat that can be done in age 1. Its just always the same. You dont even alter your build in any, like in aoc, if you wanna do an ff or semi ff or colonial based play. Its always the same. It pretty much adds nothing to the game except for boredom
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.
Australia Hazza54321
Pro Player
Winter Champion 2020 x2Donator 01
Posts: 8049
Joined: May 4, 2015
ESO: PrinceofBabu

Re: Treasures

Post by Hazza54321 »

0.1 multiplier vs vills seems fine to me, they still good vs heroes and sieging fbs so they would still be really good
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Treasures

Post by deleted_user0 »

i don't agree with that. age 1 can make or break some civs or mu's. Play otto vs spain, and a good spain player will hunt down your hero asap, on many maps while ur building ur tp, youre gonna lose your hero just after the tp goes up. That means otto can't get more tp's effectively until a few mins into age2. If spain gets one or 2 nat tres, that also means no forward base is possible any more. In some cases you can deny russia or even iro forward bases in the same way. When playing sioux vs iro for example, age1 makes or breaks that mu, or atleast it did on nilla. Where sioux just wanted to get those op tres, preferably renegado or otherwise pistoleros or pirates, and hunt down that age2 travois asap. denying fb or potentially even killing the travois. A good iro player would know this, and try to build their own age1 tres and deny sioux from doing this.

You can severely delay an agra if you do it properly, and in some cases even deny it from going up mid map depending on size/layout of the map. Playing vs japan as well, as TWC civs, getting those renegadoes and hunting the jap heros, that's an artform, and it can be so huge if not countered properly by the jap player.

Not to mention when playing vs atp civs, getting nats just means vils can't safely build tps, and if you hunt down the explorer as well, you just deny atp entirely. On a further note, even MM in age1 is way underused from a strategic perspective, as well as strategic backherding, because it's considered lame. But in fact it's actually very smart play. And ofc its lame lol. But who cares. And tres help there as well. Getting that 150 coin for mm in tres, that's really big. And then just use it to deny blockhouses, travois or even atp.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV