ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by gibson »

Goodspeed wrote:Brits are secret top civ. At this point though I'm starting to suspect no one will ever be good enough to lame them to their full potential.

:hmm:

Well, no one will ever play any civ to their full potential. The games never had a high enough population of koreans for that to happen.....
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by momuuu »

I'm always amazed by how low many people rate brits to be honest.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by Goodspeed »

gibson wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:Brits are secret top civ. At this point though I'm starting to suspect no one will ever be good enough to lame them to their full potential.

:hmm:

Well, no one will ever play any civ to their full potential. The games never had a high enough population of koreans for that to happen.....
True enough, but there also hasn't been a top player who committed to laming Brit to the point where they came close to mastering the civ in recent times. Not after NaturePhoenix, who wiped the floor with top players playing the then-considered top civs with Brits frequently.
Brits are complex, they are an adaptive civ which means you can't just follow a build and expect to get anywhere, and I feel like there's still some unexplored potential there.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by WickedCossack »

So you are rating brits on this "untapped" potential?

Not saying there isn't any, there well could be. But from the current games I've seen I think they're a little under par though still competitive in pretty much all 13 MU's.

I've tried a few VC builds in practice, turns out you can age up with 30 vils before 5 mins and play a normal age 2 from there. Doesn't seem to do too well if it's scouted though.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by Mitoe »

From my experience, this is the state of the current patch:

A+ Tier (Favoured/Strongly Favoured in most or all matchups. No truly losing matchups.)
Portuguese
Spanish

A Tier (Favoured in most matchups. May have 1-2 counters or losing matchups.)
China
British
Aztec(?) - May be lower.

B Tier (Average. Usually does not win or lose any matchup too hard, with a couple exceptions.)
Japan
Dutch
France
German
Russia(?) - May be lower.

C Tier (Has mostly unfavourable or losing matchups. Most builds feel mediocre or high-risk, or strongly rely on the opponent to make a mistake. Usually scales poorly into the mid-late game.)
India
Ottoman(?) - May be higher.
Sioux(?) - May be higher.

F Tier (Trash. Loses all matchups. Most, if not all, builds are mediocre and awkward. Doesn't scale particularly well.)
Iroquois

If anyone cares what I think about the current state of each civ so far:

[spoiler]Balance honestly isn't all that different from the last patch. Problem civs like India and Iroquois weren't really addressed for fear of making them OP.

Most civs are only stronger this patch because of nerfs to France and Germany, rather than buffs to themselves.

A+ Tier
Portuguese are really strong this patch despite the dragoon nerf because their 2 hardest counters—France and Ger—are weaker, and they are now one of the faster fortress-reliant civs while also scaling really well the longer the game goes. Fortunately they do still have a hard (or at least, hardER) time against civs with good military upgrades—Dutch, British, Japan—so there's still some hope playing against them this patch.

Spain is still severely underrated. Was already reasonably strong last patch on ATP maps, but tons of buffs this patch + goon nerf = WTF OP.

A Tier
China is likely more-or-less fine, in terms of how it feels to play them; however, the other 2 big fortress oriented civs—France and Germany—are weaker, which leaves China still sitting higher on the tier list. Also does better against Portuguese than most of the other civs at the moment, which helps their case a bit more.

British only changed because of changes to other civs. The fortress oriented civs, Germany and France, are weaker, which means Brit has more time to reach fortress and still be safe against them, or even play a prolonged age 2 vs age 3 situation. The dragoon nerf didn't really hurt them at all, but rather helped them because they don't like to age too early, and they have decent ways of fighting vs fortress comps with longbows anyway. They could still be weaker than this, but I don't really see them losing to any of the civs in the lower tiers, and they also do well against the current high tier civs.

Aztec also only changed because of changes to other civs. Basically the same thing as Brit, their hardest counters are weaker, and fortress play is a bit weaker for some civs. Honestly though they could just be average. I've never really found Aztec to be an exceptionally strong civ despite what everyone else said. This may just be because they're the least popular civ after Iroquois, however. They're limited to really only 1 or 2 options, which makes them predictable. Their fortress builds are pretty mediocre, and even though they should scale pretty well, in order to do so in a reasonable time they have to take a lot of risks. Usually they can just win in age 2 though, so who cares right?

B Tier
Japan didn't really change. They've always been a civ that requires very precise scouting and build orders both to play as and play against. This has made them one of the most balanced civs on good maps (despite what others may think). They do better vs Germany now (probably win), but worse vs Dutch. Most other matchups should go the same as they have on previous patches.

Dutch is in a really solid spot now. They're probably similar to Japan now in the sense that they require precise scouting and build orders to play as and against, and no matter which side you're on (as or against) you can succeed if you play better than your opponent. If you were to take EP 2.0 Dutch and throw it into the previous patch, they would probably be the most balanced civ. Their wood crates going just slightly further makes all of their builds just enough smoother to make them competitive. It's possible that 5 banks may still be too many as a base build limit, and some slight adjustments to their church card or age 1 cards may fix this, but they're *probably* fine as is.

France is—according to everyone else I've played with—mediocre at the moment. I haven't really played them a whole lot yet, but they're probably still fine at the moment. They definitely still don't have any hard counters, and they should still do well in most matchups if played correctly.

Germany might be the problem civ this patch. I'll admit it, the uhlan nerf was my own suggestion, and in a sense it did do exactly what I had hoped it would, but it's probably not the best change for the civ. Germany can no longer just go pure skirm/uhlan like they could before, and have to choose their unit composition a bit more carefully with their opponent in mind, which is no doubt a good thing: nor can they simply make 20 uhlans and age super safely. However, their age 2 is now pitifully weak the longer you stay in colonial. They've never been a fantastic colonial civ, but they've never been bad either. Now this option is simply a lot worse, despite not being a problem. To top it off, uhlans are now often on the verge of uselessness the longer the game goes, which actually makes Germany's already somewhat mediocre mid-late game options worse. Ultimately, Germany's definitely not the #1 civ anymore, but they're not in a good place yet either: they can still win games, for sure, but the changes had some unintended consequences which ended up being unhealthy for Germany's gameplay in areas where they were already pretty average.

Russian change did very little to actually improve them, and honestly doesn't make much sense for a civ that scales so well except in getting them to age 2 without idle time. Everyone seems to think they're broken as hell now, which honestly makes no sense seeing as they lose still super hard to a lot of civs, including some of the low tier civs like India and Sioux. They're probably "okay" now, because they don't get countered as hard by France or Germany, but we honestly could have found a better way to change them than this.

C Tier
India. Why is everyone so afraid to buff this civ? It may have been a strong civ on RE patch where the maps were poor and let India abuse its Agra Fort and low-reliance on natural resources, but as maps have continued to improve, and the meta has continued to shift to boomier fortress play as a result, India has only gotten worse and worse. It's not like their tournament results have been all that great in the last couple of tourneys either. Most of the games they win at the moment are a result of some well-executed (or not-so-well-executed, lol) sepoy/consulate rush. If they don't 10/10 their age time is among the slowest, their fortress time is also slow, in addition to requiring vet techs on all of their core fortress units, and most—if not all—of their builds are super easy to scout, and get outpaced and outboomed by other civs at the moment. It's unfortunate that a civ with such a high skill cap (maybe the highest?) is just collecting dust in the corner. Some minor adjustments to smooth out their build would be a good start. 700w, 700c, Otto cons 4v > 5v, etc.

Ottoman. Literally do not care. Have virtually never played the civ. And the civ is honestly probably better than this, but no one's playing it at the moment. As a civ with a much lower skill cap than others, I also don't really think it matters too much that it's among the bottom.

Sioux is still in an awkward place. Whether it's really strong or really weak, this civ is just a mess. Not much to say here, except that it needs some reworking.

F Tier
Iroquois. I think it's become pretty apparent that Iroquois is a shipment reliant civ. Removing the early TP from their play has done nothing but hurt them, and they can't really mix it in very smoothly in transition to age 2 either, even if they're slow aging. Their eco is always poorer than their opponent, regardless of which build they do because in order to be on par or better than other civs it requires such a heavy investment in buildings and upgrades. Their infantry is decent, even strong if you throw in a card or two, but Kanya Horseman and Musket Riders are pretty mediocre.

Despite having a lot of really good upgrades and some solid unit shipments, they also have some really bad shipments. What even is 6 Forest Prowler? Why? 600w and 600c? Age 3 cav attack and cav hp? Meh.

I think one of two things needs to happen with Iro:
Either the crates are restored to what they were on RE patch, and the Messenger politician to Colonial grants a discovery travois (which cannot build a warhut), along with maybe some improved age times on their other fortress politicians.
OR
Some slight adjustments to their economic upgrades and shipments. The farm upgrades need to be cheaper, or the first 2 need to benefit hunts more than the last one (which would be weaker to compensate). 600w and 600c need to be 700, 6 FP needs to be 7 FP.[/spoiler]

And if anyone cares what I think future patches should test or try:

[spoiler]I actually think we went the wrong direction with EP 2.

We shouldn't be nerfing civs. Most of the weaker civs at the moment are weak because none of their builds feel any good, they're all awkward and the cards and upgrades you need to get don't really mesh very well together, which often makes the civ unfun to play as well. The opposite is true of the stronger civs. Every card and upgrade feels impactful, like you're actually accomplishing something when you get them. This also gives them a lot more versatility than other civs. By nerfing civs we're not only making the game overall feel a lot more awkward than it should, but we're also just limiting the potential this game has to offer. Instead of each civ having 2, 3, or 4 good options, they end up having only 1 or 2. Which can only be bad for the game and it's playerbase. Sure, it may be easier to balance, but it really does suck for the players.

I've been thinking that a large part of the problem with civs like France and Germany is the fast age politician. And so I'm about to suggest something crazy (maybe I should make a separate thread for this discussion?).

I think we have 2 options to make the game a lot more balance and also a lot more fun to play.

#1 (What I think is the preferable option): We revert the nerfs to France and Germany, look to buff some of the weaker civs with some quality-of-life improvements (small shipment improvements, etc.), and then we buff all other fortress politicians other than fast age. So instead of taking 110 seconds to age with 7 longbow or 2 Nobles Huts or Tower of Victory, or anything else, it takes 100, or 90 (the best number is uncertain). Suddenly civs that struggle to reach fortress or have relatively poor fortress options like Spain, British, or Aztec now have significantly better options to compete with civs that frequently use the fast age politician, such as France, Germany, Dutch, or Portugal.

There may be a few other adjustments that need to be made here, as a civ like Russia, which does use the fast age politician, don't really benefit at all from this, or another civ like Spain may benefit way too much. But overall I think the change would make gameplay overall a lot healthier. Every civ now has more options.

#2: We revert nerfs to France and Germany and look to buff some of the weaker civs, but nerf the fast age politician by 10 or 20 seconds, instead of buffing the slower politicians. While I think this is a decent alternative to the first one, I'm uncertain whether or not colonial play would start to become too strong.

Whereas the first option doesn't directly buff colonial play, nerfing fast age does. Timings will be very blatantly stronger, to the point where colonial play may even be forced in some matchups.

The first option, however, invites a higher caliber of play and a game that's more rewarding when you perform well. More people may try to age, and try to age with slower politicians, which doesn't actually make timings stronger, but invites more active scouting from both sides and actually allows for colonial play and timings to be more successful in the meta just because people will try to age more often. This only increases the diversity of games.

Would love to hear people's thoughts on this idea.[/spoiler]

This took way too long to write. *sigh*
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by lordraphael »

Mitoe wrote:From my experience, this is the state of the current patch:

A+ Tier (Favoured/Strongly Favoured in most or all matchups. No truly losing matchups.)
Portuguese
Spanish

A Tier (Favoured in most matchups. May have 1-2 counters or losing matchups.)
China
British
Aztec(?) - May be lower.

B Tier (Average. Usually does not win or lose any matchup too hard, with a couple exceptions.)
Japan
Dutch
France
German
Russia(?) - May be lower.

C Tier (Has mostly unfavourable or losing matchups. Most builds feel mediocre or high-risk, or strongly rely on the opponent to make a mistake. Usually scales poorly into the mid-late game.)
India
Ottoman(?) - May be higher.
Sioux(?) - May be higher.

F Tier (Trash. Loses all matchups. Most, if not all, builds are mediocre and awkward. Doesn't scale particularly well.)
Iroquois

If anyone cares what I think about the current state of each civ so far:

[spoiler]Balance honestly isn't all that different from the last patch. Problem civs like India and Iroquois weren't really addressed for fear of making them OP.

Most civs are only stronger this patch because of nerfs to France and Germany, rather than buffs to themselves.

A+ Tier
Portuguese are really strong this patch despite the dragoon nerf because their 2 hardest counters—France and Ger—are weaker, and they are now one of the faster fortress-reliant civs while also scaling really well the longer the game goes. Fortunately they do still have a hard (or at least, hardER) time against civs with good military upgrades—Dutch, British, Japan—so there's still some hope playing against them this patch.

Spain is still severely underrated. Was already reasonably strong last patch on ATP maps, but tons of buffs this patch + goon nerf = WTF OP.

A Tier
China is likely more-or-less fine, in terms of how it feels to play them; however, the other 2 big fortress oriented civs—France and Germany—are weaker, which leaves China still sitting higher on the tier list. Also does better against Portuguese than most of the other civs at the moment, which helps their case a bit more.

British only changed because of changes to other civs. The fortress oriented civs, Germany and France, are weaker, which means Brit has more time to reach fortress and still be safe against them, or even play a prolonged age 2 vs age 3 situation. The dragoon nerf didn't really hurt them at all, but rather helped them because they don't like to age too early, and they have decent ways of fighting vs fortress comps with longbows anyway. They could still be weaker than this, but I don't really see them losing to any of the civs in the lower tiers, and they also do well against the current high tier civs.

Aztec also only changed because of changes to other civs. Basically the same thing as Brit, their hardest counters are weaker, and fortress play is a bit weaker for some civs. Honestly though they could just be average. I've never really found Aztec to be an exceptionally strong civ despite what everyone else said. This may just be because they're the least popular civ after Iroquois, however. They're limited to really only 1 or 2 options, which makes them predictable. Their fortress builds are pretty mediocre, and even though they should scale pretty well, in order to do so in a reasonable time they have to take a lot of risks. Usually they can just win in age 2 though, so who cares right?

B Tier
Japan didn't really change. They've always been a civ that requires very precise scouting and build orders both to play as and play against. This has made them one of the most balanced civs on good maps (despite what others may think). They do better vs Germany now (probably win), but worse vs Dutch. Most other matchups should go the same as they have on previous patches.

Dutch is in a really solid spot now. They're probably similar to Japan now in the sense that they require precise scouting and build orders to play as and against, and no matter which side you're on (as or against) you can succeed if you play better than your opponent. If you were to take EP 2.0 Dutch and throw it into the previous patch, they would probably be the most balanced civ. Their wood crates going just slightly further makes all of their builds just enough smoother to make them competitive. It's possible that 5 banks may still be too many as a base build limit, and some slight adjustments to their church card or age 1 cards may fix this, but they're *probably* fine as is.

France is—according to everyone else I've played with—mediocre at the moment. I haven't really played them a whole lot yet, but they're probably still fine at the moment. They definitely still don't have any hard counters, and they should still do well in most matchups if played correctly.

Germany might be the problem civ this patch. I'll admit it, the uhlan nerf was my own suggestion, and in a sense it did do exactly what I had hoped it would, but it's probably not the best change for the civ. Germany can no longer just go pure skirm/uhlan like they could before, and have to choose their unit composition a bit more carefully with their opponent in mind, which is no doubt a good thing: nor can they simply make 20 uhlans and age super safely. However, their age 2 is now pitifully weak the longer you stay in colonial. They've never been a fantastic colonial civ, but they've never been bad either. Now this option is simply a lot worse, despite not being a problem. To top it off, uhlans are now often on the verge of uselessness the longer the game goes, which actually makes Germany's already somewhat mediocre mid-late game options worse. Ultimately, Germany's definitely not the #1 civ anymore, but they're not in a good place yet either: they can still win games, for sure, but the changes had some unintended consequences which ended up being unhealthy for Germany's gameplay in areas where they were already pretty average.

Russian change did very little to actually improve them, and honestly doesn't make much sense for a civ that scales so well except in getting them to age 2 without idle time. Everyone seems to think they're broken as hell now, which honestly makes no sense seeing as they lose still super hard to a lot of civs, including some of the low tier civs like India and Sioux. They're probably "okay" now, because they don't get countered as hard by France or Germany, but we honestly could have found a better way to change them than this.

C Tier
India. Why is everyone so afraid to buff this civ? It may have been a strong civ on RE patch where the maps were poor and let India abuse its Agra Fort and low-reliance on natural resources, but as maps have continued to improve, and the meta has continued to shift to boomier fortress play as a result, India has only gotten worse and worse. It's not like their tournament results have been all that great in the last couple of tourneys either. Most of the games they win at the moment are a result of some well-executed (or not-so-well-executed, lol) sepoy/consulate rush. If they don't 10/10 their age time is among the slowest, their fortress time is also slow, in addition to requiring vet techs on all of their core fortress units, and most—if not all—of their builds are super easy to scout, and get outpaced and outboomed by other civs at the moment. It's unfortunate that a civ with such a high skill cap (maybe the highest?) is just collecting dust in the corner. Some minor adjustments to smooth out their build would be a good start. 700w, 700c, Otto cons 4v > 5v, etc.

Ottoman. Literally do not care. Have virtually never played the civ. And the civ is honestly probably better than this, but no one's playing it at the moment. As a civ with a much lower skill cap than others, I also don't really think it matters too much that it's among the bottom.

Sioux is still in an awkward place. Whether it's really strong or really weak, this civ is just a mess. Not much to say here, except that it needs some reworking.

F Tier
Iroquois. I think it's become pretty apparent that Iroquois is a shipment reliant civ. Removing the early TP from their play has done nothing but hurt them, and they can't really mix it in very smoothly in transition to age 2 either, even if they're slow aging. Their eco is always poorer than their opponent, regardless of which build they do because in order to be on par or better than other civs it requires such a heavy investment in buildings and upgrades. Their infantry is decent, even strong if you throw in a card or two, but Kanya Horseman and Musket Riders are pretty mediocre.

Despite having a lot of really good upgrades and some solid unit shipments, they also have some really bad shipments. What even is 6 Forest Prowler? Why? 600w and 600c? Age 3 cav attack and cav hp? Meh.

I think one of two things needs to happen with Iro:
Either the crates are restored to what they were on RE patch, and the Messenger politician to Colonial grants a discovery travois (which cannot build a warhut), along with maybe some improved age times on their other fortress politicians.
OR
Some slight adjustments to their economic upgrades and shipments. The farm upgrades need to be cheaper, or the first 2 need to benefit hunts more than the last one (which would be weaker to compensate). 600w and 600c need to be 700, 6 FP needs to be 7 FP.[/spoiler]

And if anyone cares what I think future patches should test or try:

[spoiler]I actually think we went the wrong direction with EP 2.

We shouldn't be nerfing civs. Most of the weaker civs at the moment are weak because none of their builds feel any good, they're all awkward and the cards and upgrades you need to get don't really mesh very well together, which often makes the civ unfun to play as well. The opposite is true of the stronger civs. Every card and upgrade feels impactful, like you're actually accomplishing something when you get them. This also gives them a lot more versatility than other civs. By nerfing civs we're not only making the game overall feel a lot more awkward than it should, but we're also just limiting the potential this game has to offer. Instead of each civ having 2, 3, or 4 good options, they end up having only 1 or 2. Which can only be bad for the game and it's playerbase. Sure, it may be easier to balance, but it really does suck for the players.

I've been thinking that a large part of the problem with civs like France and Germany is the fast age politician. And so I'm about to suggest something crazy (maybe I should make a separate thread for this discussion?).

I think we have 2 options to make the game a lot more balance and also a lot more fun to play.

#1 (What I think is the preferable option): We revert the nerfs to France and Germany, look to buff some of the weaker civs with some quality-of-life improvements (small shipment improvements, etc.), and then we buff all other fortress politicians other than fast age. So instead of taking 110 seconds to age with 7 longbow or 2 Nobles Huts or Tower of Victory, or anything else, it takes 100, or 90 (the best number is uncertain). Suddenly civs that struggle to reach fortress or have relatively poor fortress options like Spain, British, or Aztec now have significantly better options to compete with civs that frequently use the fast age politician, such as France, Germany, Dutch, or Portugal.

There may be a few other adjustments that need to be made here, as a civ like Russia, which does use the fast age politician, don't really benefit at all from this, or another civ like Spain may benefit way too much. But overall I think the change would make gameplay overall a lot healthier. Every civ now has more options.

#2: We revert nerfs to France and Germany and look to buff some of the weaker civs, but nerf the fast age politician by 10 or 20 seconds, instead of buffing the slower politicians. While I think this is a decent alternative to the first one, I'm uncertain whether or not colonial play would start to become too strong.

Whereas the first option doesn't directly buff colonial play, nerfing fast age does. Timings will be very blatantly stronger, to the point where colonial play may even be forced in some matchups.

The first option, however, invites a higher caliber of play and a game that's more rewarding when you perform well. More people may try to age, and try to age with slower politicians, which doesn't actually make timings stronger, but invites more active scouting from both sides and actually allows for colonial play and timings to be more successful in the meta just because people will try to age more often. This only increases the diversity of games.

Would love to hear people's thoughts on this idea.[/spoiler]

This took way too long to write. *sigh*

Mitoe wrote:I've been thinking that a large part of the problem with civs like France and Germany is the fast age politician. And so I'm about to suggest something crazy (maybe I should make a separate thread for this discussion?).

I think we have 2 options to make the game a lot more balance and also a lot more fun to play.

#1 (What I think is the preferable option): We revert the nerfs to France and Germany, look to buff some of the weaker civs with some quality-of-life improvements (small shipment improvements, etc.), and then we buff all other fortress politicians other than fast age. So instead of taking 110 seconds to age with 7 longbow or 2 Nobles Huts or Tower of Victory, or anything else, it takes 100, or 90 (the best number is uncertain). Suddenly civs that struggle to reach fortress or have relatively poor fortress options like Spain, British, or Aztec now have significantly better options to compete with civs that frequently use the fast age politician, such as France, Germany, Dutch, or Portugal.

There may be a few other adjustments that need to be made here, as a civ like Russia, which does use the fast age politician, don't really benefit at all from this, or another civ like Spain may benefit way too much. But overall I think the change would make gameplay overall a lot healthier. Every civ now has more options.

#2: We revert nerfs to France and Germany and look to buff some of the weaker civs, but nerf the fast age politician by 10 or 20 seconds, instead of buffing the slower politicians. While I think this is a decent alternative to the first one, I'm uncertain whether or not colonial play would start to become too strong.

Whereas the first option doesn't directly buff colonial play, nerfing fast age does. Timings will be very blatantly stronger, to the point where colonial play may even be forced in some matchups.

The first option, however, invites a higher caliber of play and a game that's more rewarding when you perform well. More people may try to age, and try to age with slower politicians, which doesn't actually make timings stronger, but invites more active scouting from both sides and actually allows for colonial play and timings to be more successful in the meta just because people will try to age more often. This only increases the diversity of games.

Would love to hear people's thoughts on this idea.


This took way too long to write. *sigh*

Well its not a big secret that thefast age up politican is to strong. However so much is based around the age up politicans. If the exiled prince were to be nerfed, actively or passively, it could bring such huge changes one can barely foresee. I see problems especially vs civs that dont naturally have the exiled prince. Spain and brits would probably dominate the field. Shit like a spain allin ff could be even scarier than it is now. I cna see where you are coming from and im not even opposed to it , but this def wouldnt fall into the " small changes " category anymore :P :D.
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.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by Mitoe »

It wouldn't, you're right. I did say it was crazy.

I think I also have to admit I may have been wrong about the change philosophy all along.
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by lordraphael »

Mitoe wrote:It wouldn't, you're right. I did say it was crazy.

I think I also have to admit I may have been wrong about the change philosophy all along.

i support drastic changes. Im all for it assuming enough testing the game can only get better with it .
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.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by zoom »

I would simply increase the "Exiled Prince" politician from 40 to 50 train-points. Then, adjustments can be made accordingly.
No Flag watching
Crossbow
Posts: 45
Joined: Apr 6, 2015

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by watching »

Using polls to determine what to balance is wrong imo. Better to use win % statistics and then further analysis of the reason certain civs win more than others. Changes based on these polls might as well ruin things more than they actually balance.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by momuuu »

watching wrote:Using polls to determine what to balance is wrong imo. Better to use win % statistics and then further analysis of the reason certain civs win more than others. Changes based on these polls might as well ruin things more than they actually balance.

That data is extremely limited. I think it turns out skill level is still a far more important factor in this game. If H2O is playing Spain a lot then spain will look overpowered, if he switches to japan then Japan suddenly is overpowered.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by Mitoe »

Statistics are also kind of useless because AoE3 has a small competitive community, and each player only plays a few civs usually. So you may get tons of data for a civ like France and almost nothing for a civ like Aztec.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by momuuu »

The most representative thing is how much civs are picked in tournaments I think.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by Kaiserklein »

It's actually not really, some civs are just played more, regardless of how strong they are. For example azzie have always been a rather strong civ but never much played, no one plays otto so no one picks it (to such an extend that we don't even know if it's a bad civ or not), france will always be played a lot regardless of patches (unless it becomes super trash ofc), same for japan... Of couse depending on the balance players will play some civs a bit more but it's not always fully representative.
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 ..
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by momuuu »

Still the best indication, since theres nothing else out there. If ottos are super strong someone will realize and save them for a surprise pick in an important tournament series.

Ofc civ preferences matter, for example diarouga has never picked germany lots even though there was a clear german trend, especially at the higher levels.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by zoom »

watching wrote:Using polls to determine what to balance is wrong imo. Better to use win % statistics and then further analysis of the reason certain civs win more than others. Changes based on these polls might as well ruin things more than they actually balance.
You are definitely right, but it does make for a helpful indicator.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by zoom »

Jerom wrote:The most representative thing is how much civs are picked in tournaments I think.
The most representative of opinion, perhaps. The most representative of balance would be civilization performance.
User avatar
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mar 27, 2015
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by _venox_ »

From my experience Sioux has been a broken civ on RE because they are a one-trick-pony with mass bowriders that can fight against almost anything due to their high basic damage output. The way Sioux wins (on my level atleast) is through constant raiding and winning fights due to OP bowriders and good positioning through the hero speed buff. Now on EP one might argue that trading posts have gotten more frequent which buffs Sioux, but other than a tp boom they still don't have anything going for them. They still struggle against turtle play and especially against water or on non tp-maps, where other tp reliant civs can boom on water or have musketeer-type units to defend the trading posts.
Maybe I haven't found the right builds yet, but the arguments should still apply for people ranked lower than major like me. The patch shouldn't only balance gameplay at toplevel but at lower levels as well. Sioux struggles on non-tp or water maps and on maps where they don't it still doesn't feel like that they have any advantage. But since no high ranked competitive player plays them a lot nobody cares about balancing them. :c
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
User avatar
No Flag hunter
Dragoon
Posts: 456
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
Location: Rome, S.P.Q.R

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by hunter »

Goodspeed wrote:Brits are secret top civ. At this point though I'm starting to suspect no one will ever be good enough to lame them to their full potential.

:hmm:
@Aizamk
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"
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by momuuu »

zoom wrote:
Jerom wrote:The most representative thing is how much civs are picked in tournaments I think.
The most representative of opinion, perhaps. The most representative of balance would be civilization performance.

Surely not since the data is all over the place. Civilization performance adjusted for player skill could do, but the elo rankings dont really feel consistent either.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by pecelot »

_venox_ wrote:From my experience Sioux has been a broken civ on RE because they are a one-trick-pony with mass bowriders that can fight against almost anything due to their high basic damage output. The way Sioux wins (on my level atleast) is through constant raiding and winning fights due to OP bowriders and good positioning through the hero speed buff. Now on EP one might argue that trading posts have gotten more frequent which buffs Sioux, but other than a tp boom they still don't have anything going for them. They still struggle against turtle play and especially against water or on non tp-maps, where other tp reliant civs can boom on water or have musketeer-type units to defend the trading posts.
Maybe I haven't found the right builds yet, but the arguments should still apply for people ranked lower than major like me. The patch shouldn't only balance gameplay at toplevel but at lower levels as well. Sioux struggles on non-tp or water maps and on maps where they don't it still doesn't feel like that they have any advantage. But since no high ranked competitive player plays them a lot nobody cares about balancing them. :c

Their counter to turtle is the siege dance, as far as I'm concerned, which is pretty good in addition to walls' HP nerf.
Lots of civilisations lose their potential on non-TP maps, too, Sioux is not an exception here.
User avatar
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mar 27, 2015
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland

Re: ESOC patch balance poll #3 (1v1)

Post by _venox_ »

pecelot wrote:
_venox_ wrote:From my experience Sioux has been a broken civ on RE because they are a one-trick-pony with mass bowriders that can fight against almost anything due to their high basic damage output. The way Sioux wins (on my level atleast) is through constant raiding and winning fights due to OP bowriders and good positioning through the hero speed buff. Now on EP one might argue that trading posts have gotten more frequent which buffs Sioux, but other than a tp boom they still don't have anything going for them. They still struggle against turtle play and especially against water or on non tp-maps, where other tp reliant civs can boom on water or have musketeer-type units to defend the trading posts.
Maybe I haven't found the right builds yet, but the arguments should still apply for people ranked lower than major like me. The patch shouldn't only balance gameplay at toplevel but at lower levels as well. Sioux struggles on non-tp or water maps and on maps where they don't it still doesn't feel like that they have any advantage. But since no high ranked competitive player plays them a lot nobody cares about balancing them. :c

Their counter to turtle is the siege dance, as far as I'm concerned, which is pretty good in addition to walls' HP nerf.
Lots of civilisations lose their potential on non-TP maps, too, Sioux is not an exception here.


Lots of civs lose some of their potential on non-TP maps, you're right, but Sioux loses all it's potential. My point is that where other tp civs have some means to fight water or have decent builds on non-TP land maps, Sioux (for me at least) has no real means to fight under such circumstances. Most non-TP maps still have water which gives Spain and Ottomans a means to boom still. France on non-TP maps will play like they used to before the TP meta. But Sioux? Sioux loses any boom potential they had on TP maps and will always fight an uphill battle. They used to have a military advantage (even if through a broken unit) to seal the deal but not any longer. What I mean is that they still are quite a one dimensional civilisation.
I don't know how this could be changed without altering too much, my suggestion would be to give them steel traps but remove the bonus farm upgrades give to animal gathering. This would mean that they have some sort of boom early on with steel traps and 4 villagers and the additional resources gathered by their food based economy could allow for a more diverse unit composition or prolonged colonial play.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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