ESOC Patch suggestions, comments and discussion

[[Armag] diarouga]

+10000

[thebritish]

the water on new england isnt very good in 1vs1 which means land>water

[deuxballesman]

TP or non-TP maps ? That influences the civ choice by a lot

[momuuu]

I think it's currently not really decent to have a 'competitive map pool' that includes maps not featuring a TP. The difference between having a TP and not is too big. Also some civs are borderline unplayable on water maps. On the other hand, it's probably the top dogs that profit most from having a TP so I dont care much.

But maybe it's more of a design issue that some civs depend on TPs so much and that TPs offer them so much. In terms of water, I think there are some maps that are really over the top. It would really improve gameplay, imo, if the water maps didnt feature these annoying islands that allow someone to actually go full water and survive/do well for way too long. Im interested as to if Garja considered this aspect, and if so, why he decided to give islands to many water maps.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Every civs are playable vs sea except on maps like hispaniola, indonesia.

[zoom]

Why the hell would you want to remove Patagonia, other than it being a water map? Also, New England is more or less fine.
: S

The rest are more or less different, although I think "balanced" is a poor choice of words for what you want to say. "Extremely conform and normal" seems more like it...

[Garja]

The map sets have been discussed at lenght before deciding which maps to put in and which to exclude. Also how to weight each map within the set.
TP vs non TP argument came up but we agreed that afterall isn't necessarily game deciding, and even if it were it would be true the opposite aswell (e.g. germans benefiting greatly from TPs).
Water, on the other hand, was a less discussed topic simply because water maps that are included in the current competitive set don't present any particular issue coming from the water aspect.
In fact you're better off just playing traditional land style on those maps and water play is objectively just an addiction to mix your play.
On top of all of this, even if water were any better than land that would only be an addition to the map set in terms of variety.

[momuuu]

I must say a little part of me don't liking water maps is that I don't like water gameplay. If that was all there was, I'd have been playing other games long long ago. Im not even sure I'd have gotten past 200 ESO games really, so I'd like to option to just banish these full on water maps as much as possible tbh.

[thebritish]

If you think you cant win vs sea on New England, you probably havent build 4 tp's with train upgrade vs someone playing sea

[zoom]

The map sets have been discussed at lenght before deciding which maps to put in and which to exclude. Also how to weight each map within the set.
TP vs non TP argument came up but we agreed that afterall isn't necessarily game deciding, and even if it were it would be true the opposite aswell (e.g. germans benefiting greatly from TPs).
Water, on the other hand, was a less discussed topic simply because water maps that are included in the current competitive set don't present any particular issue coming from the water aspect.
In fact you're better off just playing traditional land style on those maps and water play is objectively just an addiction to mix your play.
On top of all of this, even if water were any better than land that would only be an addition to the map set in terms of variety.

You know I love you when you make sense to me. Which of course means I'm making sense!

[evilcheadar]

Are you saying that not only should you have to scout their base, but should also have to walk your explorer along the trade route to check how many tps they are building? Tps are already too strong so they hardly need a buff. As for natives, the only time they are built is for cree so hiding them would only make early cree booming a lot stronger.

You should have to do that yes, it should be expected anyway that players will make trade sites and alliances with native people as this is a game about establishing a new colony...

[britishmusketeer]

Are you saying that not only should you have to scout their base, but should also have to walk your explorer along the trade route to check how many tps they are building? Tps are already too strong so they hardly need a buff. As for natives, the only time they are built is for cree so hiding them would only make early cree booming a lot stronger.

You should have to do that yes, it should be expected anyway that players will make trade sites and alliances with native people as this is a game about establishing a new colony...

nope, my point is that trade route tps are overpowered so making them harder to scout would buff something already too strong.

[Marco1698]

Tp are very good but not as much as to be nerfed imo. Also about wall, you nerfed their hp, I would've make them a bit more expensive instead

[deleted_user0]

I haven't calculated for all but for example jaegars are slightly less cost efficient than skirms, and I wouldnt be surprised if most other mercs were slightly less cost efficient too. The only bonus is when you're using germany because you get 5% more than a normal upgrade card, and if youre making/shipping more than 1 type of merc, you get an upgrade for your whole army with just 1 card.

There's also an advantage in that the macro is way easier.

Also I saw you saying that mamelukes should be an age 3 merc because they're available to ship in age 3, but just a few days ago you said that just because germany can ship 4 lands in age 2 doesn't mean lands are an age 2 merc

fusilisiers and ninjas are only available as an age4 shipment, but can be trained in saloon in age3. so i think its fine that mams are moved to 4. even though its an age3 shipment. as free trainable unit theyre just too epic. and as a shipment they are needed in the unit roster.

[Jaeger]

I haven't calculated for all but for example jaegars are slightly less cost efficient than skirms, and I wouldnt be surprised if most other mercs were slightly less cost efficient too. The only bonus is when you're using germany because you get 5% more than a normal upgrade card, and if youre making/shipping more than 1 type of merc, you get an upgrade for your whole army with just 1 card.

There's also an advantage in that the macro is way easier.

Also I saw you saying that mamelukes should be an age 3 merc because they're available to ship in age 3, but just a few days ago you said that just because germany can ship 4 lands in age 2 doesn't mean lands are an age 2 merc

fusilisiers and ninjas are only available as an age4 shipment, but can be trained in saloon in age3. so i think its fine that mams are moved to 4. even though its an age3 shipment. as free trainable unit theyre just too epic. and as a shipment they are needed in the unit roster.

YUMIYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[Kaiserklein]

I know I'm probs the only one who seems to care about mercs (ah no there's aiz right), but I still gotta say something. After many games making full mercs, I noticed we need to nerf manchus. They are definitely too strong. Try them in the editor :
- 1 manchu > 1 jaeger (tho it costs barely more), and more meaningfully : 1 manchu > 2 vet skirms ! So this unit can basically kill its counter, skirms, with equal investment. For example, a 9 manchus shipment would easily kill a 2 x 8 skirms shipment (if that existed, that is). Isn't this weird ?
- So, obviously, manchus can also kill musks : 1 manchu can almost 3v1 normal musks, and can easily 2v1 vet musks.
- Manchus kill other ranged cav : try 27 manchus vs 22 black riders (tip : I had 20 manchus left). And since black riders are already strong, it's even worse against goons or ww for example, the closest being vs cav archers ; but manchus still win vs those.
- Manchus can ofc kite any melee unit since they have 7.25 speed, unlike most other cav archers who have only 6.75.
- And manchus kill falcs.

So what the hell can beat full manchus from the saloon ??? Except more manchus or more skirms ?
Add to what I listed that they have 40% melee resist so if somehow they get caught, even by melee inf, they won't die easily at all. I'm not even sure whether hand inf actually counters not-kiting manchus... And add that they are extremely mobile, which should mean their stats are buffed somehow for balance purposes (that's not the case at all). Their siege attack is really their only drawback... Even the multiplier they have vs vils isn't that significant since they still deal 27 damage per 3 seconds, at range and with great mobility.

Now consider the German advanced mercs card, and you come to wonder if those guys can be stopped by anything ?

[yemshi]

I dunno if that was mentioned somewhere else already, didn't read the full thread but pleas, please make High Plains have less TP's. At least 4; preferably 3, like it was on the old GP.

[DogSoldier_]

make german houses cost 80w since they need lot pop

[Jaeger]

I dunno if that was mentioned somewhere else already, didn't read the full thread but pleas, please make High Plains have less TP's. At least 4; preferably 3, like it was on the old GP.

I'm more from going back to the original version of high plains. This map actually used to be called Wyoming and the original high plains had a TP route that curved more toward each player's base at the end, so it was extremely difficult to control all the TP's. But Wyoming was just renamed to the new HP

[Rikikipu]

I dunno if that was mentioned somewhere else already, didn't read the full thread but pleas, please make High Plains have less TP's. At least 4; preferably 3, like it was on the old GP.

I'm more from going back to the original version of high plains. This map actually used to be called Wyoming and the original high plains had a TP route that curved more toward each player's base at the end, so it was extremely difficult to control all the TP's. But Wyoming was just renamed to the new HP

I disagree with you guys.
I don't remember having seen someone taking all 5 tps.
It provides also some intersting situations which are different from other maps, so it's nice.

[Garja]

I dunno if that was mentioned somewhere else already, didn't read the full thread but pleas, please make High Plains have less TP's. At least 4; preferably 3, like it was on the old GP.

I'm more from going back to the original version of high plains. This map actually used to be called Wyoming and the original high plains had a TP route that curved more toward each player's base at the end, so it was extremely difficult to control all the TP's. But Wyoming was just renamed to the new HP

Current HP is a mix of the 2 (wyoming and old HP). New HP has a more balanced trade route when it comes to first passage.

Reducing the post number to 3 would cause the same problem of Great Plains where whoever gets the middle TP receives the first shipment 40-60 secs earlier.

[britishmusketeer]

I dunno if that was mentioned somewhere else already, didn't read the full thread but pleas, please make High Plains have less TP's. At least 4; preferably 3, like it was on the old GP.

I'm more from going back to the original version of high plains. This map actually used to be called Wyoming and the original high plains had a TP route that curved more toward each player's base at the end, so it was extremely difficult to control all the TP's. But Wyoming was just renamed to the new HP

Current HP is a mix of the 2 (wyoming and old HP). New HP has a more balanced trade route when it comes to first passage.

Reducing the post number to 3 would cause the same problem of Great Plains where whoever gets the middle TP receives the first shipment 40-60 secs earlier.

and reducing it to 4?

[Garja]

Same thing. Previous version had 4 in fact.

[momuuu]

I think 5 TP's is just plain overkill though.

[zoom]

I think 4 TPs would be perfect, as I've said before.