what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
title says all. whenever dutch or porto is being played (in team games) it's being called as lame, porto got a nice buff with villager cost reduce, but maybe their biggest problem was about mapscrewing, and it's maybe hard to make both 1v1 and team balanced at the same time, for my idea, 80 food is only option for 1v1, they are not lame for 1v1, just mid tier but, for team they are really good, and about dutch, their 1v1 is also not lame imo. just ok as porto ones, but nowadays, porto and dutch are banned civ in fp team games, i don't get why, was it the goal of the fanpatch? what do you think about it? (i'm not saying dutch not lame or porto not lame too, they just very good but not sure if they should be called lame)
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
You are a bit right. These civs actually needed a buff in the early game window, whereas the current EP changes for theses two civs also affect the late game window which is an issue.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Jun 22, 2015
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
I don't get why the age 4 increase bank trickle is less than the age 1 ones... imo the age one increase bank trickles should be like 15% and the age 4 one should be 20%. 4 vills on gold with placer mines is 2.64. a bank is 2.75. 6 banks up is 16.5g per sec. just adding 20% to that is going from 16.5 to 19.8g per sec. 5 vills on coin with placer mines is 3.30 gold per sec right? so this shipment is better than the 4 vill card already and you got 2 of them... 5 banks is 13.75 and adding 20% brings it to 16.5 so 2.75 more and that is still more gold per sec than 4 vills on coin with placer mines (2.64)..... btw I also think the vill limit should be higher than 50 maybe 60-65. is my math good enough or did I suck it up??
Got Badger Milk?
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
saveyourskill wrote:I don't get why the age 4 increase bank trickle is less than the age 1 ones... imo the age one increase bank trickles should be like 15% and the age 4 one should be 20%. 4 vills on gold with placer mines is 2.64. a bank is 2.75. 6 banks up is 16.5g per sec. just adding 20% to that is going from 16.5 to 19.8g per sec. 5 vills on coin with placer mines is 3.30 gold per sec right? so this shipment is better than the 4 vill card already and you got 2 of them... 5 banks is 13.75 and adding 20% brings it to 16.5 so 2.75 more and that is still more gold per sec than 4 vills on coin with placer mines (2.64)..... btw I also think the vill limit should be higher than 50 maybe 60-65. is my math good enough or did I suck it up??
it was already subject of fun actually. age1 UPGRADE HAS %20
AND AGE4 UPGRADE HAS %15,
amazing balance (this emotes sucks) lets make age1 cards for %10 and age4 card for %30 or stuff. and we all would be pretty satisfied with that, also bank limit 5, and dutch is pretty much balanced civ, about portos. i really dont know what of them should be nerfed is, if you make even %5 nerf, they will be bad civ again for 1v1. and i dont think it's really possible to balance porto in team, maybe. JUST RUSH AT PORTO? all civs early pressure works at porto expect spain, and also japan+china already good counter vs porto. but for long game could nerf goon power against skirmishers (not archers such as yumi,lb)and it would be pretty nice maybe.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Jun 22, 2015
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
how about we give porto vills abus guns and make them cost 100f again? 21
Got Badger Milk?
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Like I said 8 banks is too much banks should be capped at 6 banks and advanced church should increase vill limit to 75 which would give them a near perfect 95-100 vill eco in late game. age 1 both cards should be removed and replaced by 5 vill.
Jerom wrote: Garja is a better player than most of us here
Jerom wrote:Please don't bump old threads, especially when all you have to say is "lol"
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Rikikipu wrote:You are a bit right. These civs actually needed a buff in the early game window, whereas the current EP changes for theses two civs also affect the late game window which is an issue.
I don't think port actually needed a buff though, 2 tc Colonial militia(card) is enough to stop any early rushes, it was hunt screws that work against ports on most maps
Jerom wrote: Garja is a better player than most of us here
Jerom wrote:Please don't bump old threads, especially when all you have to say is "lol"
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
hunter wrote:Rikikipu wrote:You are a bit right. These civs actually needed a buff in the early game window, whereas the current EP changes for theses two civs also affect the late game window which is an issue.
I don't think port actually needed a buff though, 2 tc Colonial militia(card) is enough to stop any early rushes, it was hunt screws that work against ports on most maps.
You are maybe right, it's true that fixing maps already helps a lot ports. But rush isn't really the issue in the current meta. The main ask is how can do ports to deal with semi-ff ? I haven't got the answer, i'm not a port player at all.
hunter wrote:Like I said 8 banks is too much banks should be capped at 6 banks and advanced church should increase vill limit to 75 which would give them a near perfect 95-100 vill eco in late game. age 1 both cards should be removed and replaced by 5 vill.
I think you don't understand the philosophy of the current EP patch here. Again, this patch isn't here for uniformize all civs like the previous FP patchs. 5 vills card is really standard, whereas dutch has been designed for having eco in banks.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
hunter wrote:Rikikipu wrote:You are a bit right. These civs actually needed a buff in the early game window, whereas the current EP changes for theses two civs also affect the late game window which is an issue.
I don't think port actually needed a buff though, 2 tc Colonial militia(card) is enough to stop any early rushes, it was hunt screws that work against ports on most maps
they really needed a buff, and also still, compared to semi ff's porto not a top civ in 1v1 for sure. mid tier maybe.
german and french semi ff still good vs porto, so no point to think nerfing porto in 1v1
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Dutch are banned because in the early game they can boom better than brits and japan together.
They also have age 1 cards for banks which are like 4 vill shipment. And being able to make 6 banks (24 vills) while your mates defend and then you just steamroll because of unraidable vills.
And Ports are ports. You just need to survive until age IV and then just spam goons. (the problem on RE were hunts)
With the better maps which have alot of hunts and port vills being so cheap this isnt any problem.
They also have age 1 cards for banks which are like 4 vill shipment. And being able to make 6 banks (24 vills) while your mates defend and then you just steamroll because of unraidable vills.
And Ports are ports. You just need to survive until age IV and then just spam goons. (the problem on RE were hunts)
With the better maps which have alot of hunts and port vills being so cheap this isnt any problem.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
@Rikikipu
dutch already has 4 vill card which will be replaced by 5 vill i dont see the uniformity here, its just modifying a bit what they already have, banks will still hold eco just not overly opRikikipu wrote:notification
Jerom wrote: Garja is a better player than most of us here
Jerom wrote:Please don't bump old threads, especially when all you have to say is "lol"
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
I think people slightly overrate Dutch tbh. Their boom is pretty strong but brits and Japan still have way better lategame for example.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Partly because of Genitours and poorly chosen Dutch buffs, and partly because of overreaction.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
It's the overreaction to buffs/nerfs. Nerf something and people think it's utter shit, buff something and people think it is OP as fuck. Although Dutch might be on the strong side.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Jerom wrote:I think people slightly overrate Dutch tbh. Their boom is pretty strong but brits and Japan still have way better lategame for example.
Japan has similar lategame to Dutch and brits have slightly better eco, but Dutch wins the battles very cost effectively because they have more military pop (150 to 100).
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Jerom wrote:I think people slightly overrate Dutch tbh. Their boom is pretty strong but brits and Japan still have way better lategame for example.
In team games dutch has late game eco of brit
Jerom wrote: Garja is a better player than most of us here
Jerom wrote:Please don't bump old threads, especially when all you have to say is "lol"
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
IP Man wrote:Jerom wrote:I think people slightly overrate Dutch tbh. Their boom is pretty strong but brits and Japan still have way better lategame for example.
Japan has similar lategame to Dutch and brits have slightly better eco, but Dutch wins the battles very cost effectively because they have more military pop (150 to 100).
Well ultra lategame there's also France, China, Russia and Ports with some very OP stuff. Japan in particular definitely doesn't lose to anything with their yumis tbh.
Although Dutch is probably pretty good I am not sure they are more worthy of a ban than other civs.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Jerom wrote:IP Man wrote:Jerom wrote:I think people slightly overrate Dutch tbh. Their boom is pretty strong but brits and Japan still have way better lategame for example.
Japan has similar lategame to Dutch and brits have slightly better eco, but Dutch wins the battles very cost effectively because they have more military pop (150 to 100).
Well ultra lategame there's also France, China, Russia and Ports with some very OP stuff. Japan in particular definitely doesn't lose to anything with their yumis tbh.
Although Dutch is probably pretty good I am not sure they are more worthy of a ban than other civs.
Yumis are just overrated and everybody just makes cav vs them thinking they will win with that.
50 yumi=5000 resources=10 horse artilery from which you will lose max 2.
You are Dutch, so making artilery is easy. Also, Russia isnt very good in very lategame because they have very weak units while in lategame having strong units is very beneficial. (opri box doesnt count because thats lame and nobody will want to play again in 3vs3 with you after you do opri box). And ports isnt very good because 50 goons lose to 100 skirms np.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
team and 1v1 will never be balanced at the same time. Even sc2 who is perfectly balanced in 1v1 has some imbalances in team. Aoc players circumvent the problem by always going for mirror team games.
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.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
Because:
1) players tend to call everything lame
2) port is indeed broken in team, way too easy to get to 99 villagers
3) dutch has some weird ass changes at the moment (20% ups on age1 cards)
Dutch will be fixed next patch.
1) players tend to call everything lame
2) port is indeed broken in team, way too easy to get to 99 villagers
3) dutch has some weird ass changes at the moment (20% ups on age1 cards)
Dutch will be fixed next patch.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
No it s not an over reaction, it s just that in 3v3 you can t break port, they get 99v super early and then they can age 4, goon and feed their team lol.
Dutch is also op but a bit less. They outboom brit and jap and don t need resources, so you can t take the control of the map, and it s hard to rush them because of the 8 pikes shipment.
Dutch is also op but a bit less. They outboom brit and jap and don t need resources, so you can t take the control of the map, and it s hard to rush them because of the 8 pikes shipment.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
the real problem is that nobody play team in the right way, if you are vs porto, dutch jap you HAVE TO RUSH. Not to play a TR10-15 as i see all the time. I saw lot of 3v3 where "op" players try to overboom porto whit russia for example xD. tHE REAL PROBLEM is the way team are played.
Pizza, spaghetti, maccheroni, mandolino e tua mamma
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
In team dutch and port can hold rushes.
I agree tho that many team players just boom and have no strategy.
I agree tho that many team players just boom and have no strategy.
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
[Armag] diarouga wrote:In team dutch and port can hold rushes.
I agree tho that many team players just boom and have no strategy.
yes, i saw a lot of streaming about hight ranks in team, they looks like tr10-15. Dutch and porto ofc they can, but you can also win vs them, you have to see the map, your team combo's civ, your opponent's team combo civs.
Some days ago i seea 3v3, russia, brits porto vs jap porto french. the first team didn't rushed, tryied to get the boom, always was playing just to get the top on statistic. At the end they lost and started saying, jap is too lame...ofc it is, but if you don't rush it you can't pretend anything. I see another game where ageofkiller was streaming. I think they was playing tr. Team, expecially 2v2 have to be played fast, if you play a boom game who get the most op civs in late game will win. Becouse in Tad there are some civs that can't be stopped in late game (jap,porto to give an example)
Pizza, spaghetti, maccheroni, mandolino e tua mamma
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: what went wrong? why the dutch and porto considered "LAME" now?
i don't think dutch is that much problem, still france and german semi ff good vs them, for porto, take their map, and put them under pressure, maybe best regards. can't nerf porto they are already mid-tier in 1v1 if they get nerf would be bad civ for 1v1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest