ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Therein, indeed, the disagreement: the Settler cost buff actually downplays the unique strength of both the Portuguese and the Russians by introducing to the former a feature distinctive of the latter – a hallmark of standardization. To me, standardization is one or more ways of homogenization, by which definition I fail to see how Changing a civilization's general strength is standardizing. That, it seems to me, is in fact precisely neither diversifying nor standardizing, and selective diversification – by enhancing and expanding the unique features of civilizations, is something we should pursue, in my opinion.Goodspeed wrote:... Both were an option, I think the reason why we went for the more general buff is that it plays to Port's unique strength of having strong vill production throughout the game while keeping their weaker early economy intact. Buffing their early game would be more of a standardizing move ...
In summary, I don't think the change a significant issue; I just think its selection a wrong one.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
I wonder whether 90f Settlers with 100f less starting crates would be a buff in the first place.deleted_user wrote:gibson wrote:Yea I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to mart when you say port can't keep up with military early..... They can either send crates and keep up that way or just send straight up military shipments without sacrificing eco
Add CM to that as well. Ports seem quite strong. I would not be opposed to a simple change like 90f villa instead of 80 and play test that.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Try Ramadan.forgrin wrote:Gendarme wrote:I'm guessing if you make forward Agra, you still can't harass Iroquois well enough, but you're forced to stay colonial nonetheless, because you need to defend the Agra - and Iroquois economy will probably give them the edge. So you gotta go defensive Agra and go for a strong colonial mass and push when Iroquois hits fortress (they probably have to go fortress, because gurkhas outrange aennas, but maybe I'm wrong) - but Indian economy is pretty slow, and your mass is probably not that huge at the time Iroquois hits fortress. Third option is that you both semi FF, but the better economy of Iroquois will probably prevail here.
Anyways, I'm PR 10 so don't take me too seriously. I just like to join discussions.
Ok I see how hitting fortress is pretty good for Iro, but the problem I see is that EP iro's eco is actually trash... I don't understand why people think that it's good.
They don't have any bonuses other than the ageup travois, which is about 500w a game tops;
they start with 5v and bad crates(std crates > Iro crate + travois 99â„… of games because of early TP or market options);
they have crap market ups;
they have wise woman which is generally worse than 400w;
their cav costs wood;
their fortress army is really gold heavy...
It's beyond shit.
Oh, and also they don't get any usable siege units in fortress, and adding cav is super awkward because wood cost (not to mention they're not that good either). So you're stuck with a civ with horrible eco and expensive units only avaliable in fortress, and with their colonial play hamstrung by the lack of a TP.
WP patch team, WP.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
zoom wrote:I wonder whether 90f Settlers with 100f less starting crates would be a buff in the first place.deleted_user wrote:gibson wrote:Yea I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to mart when you say port can't keep up with military early..... They can either send crates and keep up that way or just send straight up military shipments without sacrificing eco
Add CM to that as well. Ports seem quite strong. I would not be opposed to a simple change like 90f villa instead of 80 and play test that.
I assume you're being sarcastic?
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
zoom wrote:Therein, indeed, the disagreement: the Settler cost buff actually downplays the unique strength of both the Portuguese and the Russians by introducing to the former a feature distinctive of the latter – a hallmark of standardization. To me, standardization is one or more ways of homogenization, by which definition I fail to see how Changing a civilization's general strength is standardizing. That, it seems to me, is in fact precisely neither diversifying nor standardizing, and selective diversification – by enhancing and expanding the unique features of civilizations, is something we should pursue, in my opinion.Goodspeed wrote:... Both were an option, I think the reason why we went for the more general buff is that it plays to Port's unique strength of having strong vill production throughout the game while keeping their weaker early economy intact. Buffing their early game would be more of a standardizing move ...
In summary, I don't think the change a significant issue; I just think its selection a wrong one.
Typical Zoom post. All pomp, little substance.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Jerom wrote:Darwin_ wrote:Show hidden quotes
I mean, in terms of what you feel in games, brits, ports and dutch feel like outliers on the much higher end, and sioux and iro are very much lower-end outliers. The data gathered thus far is innacurate I think, just because the map pool from 128/64 was very unique and the skill difference between players was far greater than it is now. I would very much like to see data from the Ro16 onwards, once skill stops to be a major factor.
I dont actually get how people think dutch is supposed to be OP. Do you guys even play the game?
I do. They cant be rushed effectively cause they have skirms, nice base protection, and 8 pikes/3 huss; however they are weak from 7-8 minutes. Once they get to fortress, they are so bloody good. They can produce from 2 raxes and 2 stables, and can mix an early TP, allowing them to get 9 ruyters, 8/7 skirm out very quickly once they get to fortress. They are slow, and that is their main difficulty and weakness. But, if you are good enough and can get to fortress safely, they win against many civs.
I have played dutch in 1v1 about 5 times, but probably 15+ times in 2v2/3v3. In team they are still really good, but not as comparatively good as they are in 1v1,
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
gibson wrote:zoom wrote:I wonder whether 90f Settlers with 100f less starting crates would be a buff in the first place.Show hidden quotes
I assume you're being sarcastic?
How should he know what your assumptions are?
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
zoom wrote:Try Ramadan.forgrin wrote:Gendarme wrote:I'm guessing if you make forward Agra, you still can't harass Iroquois well enough, but you're forced to stay colonial nonetheless, because you need to defend the Agra - and Iroquois economy will probably give them the edge. So you gotta go defensive Agra and go for a strong colonial mass and push when Iroquois hits fortress (they probably have to go fortress, because gurkhas outrange aennas, but maybe I'm wrong) - but Indian economy is pretty slow, and your mass is probably not that huge at the time Iroquois hits fortress. Third option is that you both semi FF, but the better economy of Iroquois will probably prevail here.
Anyways, I'm PR 10 so don't take me too seriously. I just like to join discussions.
Ok I see how hitting fortress is pretty good for Iro, but the problem I see is that EP iro's eco is actually trash... I don't understand why people think that it's good.
They don't have any bonuses other than the ageup travois, which is about 500w a game tops;
they start with 5v and bad crates(std crates > Iro crate + travois 99â„… of games because of early TP or market options);
they have crap market ups;
they have wise woman which is generally worse than 400w;
their cav costs wood;
their fortress army is really gold heavy...
It's beyond shit.
Oh, and also they don't get any usable siege units in fortress, and adding cav is super awkward because wood cost (not to mention they're not that good either). So you're stuck with a civ with horrible eco and expensive units only avaliable in fortress, and with their colonial play hamstrung by the lack of a TP.
WP patch team, WP.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with my post...
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Forgive him. He lives in Ramandanistan and occasionally gets outbursts like this.
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Just have a little faith guys. So far I think we have improved balance significantly with each iteration, but we aren't quite there yet. Balancing 14 civs takes time and it's not easy. Sioux, Iro and Otto will be addressed next update, Port is on our radar and Brit being a top civ has been known to us even if not to the community for a while now. We do have a little bit of a clue of what we're doing. Remember there is literally no one who agrees with every change. Our focus right now is getting a grasp on the state of inter-civ balance, and this should be the focus of any discussion nearing the end of the tournament.
For team games, what would help us is players making more of an effort to coordinate and find creative ways to counter current-meta playstyles. After the event I will make not only the usual 1v1 public balance poll but a team poll as well. Be prepared
For team games, what would help us is players making more of an effort to coordinate and find creative ways to counter current-meta playstyles. After the event I will make not only the usual 1v1 public balance poll but a team poll as well. Be prepared
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
zoom wrote:I wonder whether 90f Settlers with 100f less starting crates would be a buff in the first place.deleted_user wrote:gibson wrote:Yea I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to mart when you say port can't keep up with military early..... They can either send crates and keep up that way or just send straight up military shipments without sacrificing eco
Add CM to that as well. Ports seem quite strong. I would not be opposed to a simple change like 90f villa instead of 80 and play test that.
yeah honestly i wonder how much the removal of CM would hurt port. I think it would hurt quite a bit. While its not necessarily being sent in every game its def in every deck and the pure existence of the card makes colonial based play kinda useless and also making shit like water play or turtle play in general so much stronger.
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: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Iroquois can train Rams in the Fortress Age, can they not? Rams are incredibly good siege units.forgrin wrote:zoom wrote:Try Ramadan.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with my post...
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
CM is not really a good card. It becomes good when the opponent doesnt play against it properly, which is a good thing to have in the game. Also it is obviously good if the other civ has no other way to beat Port eco progression, which is just more likely with 80f vills.
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
On most maps, for most civs, I think it should be possible to starve a CM Port or at least keep enough distance from TCs to not die to it. Highly doubt the card is viable.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Ye cm suxorzzz soldier beat irish double cm cm pop ez pz man.
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Garja wrote:CM is not really a good card. It becomes good when the opponent doesnt play against it properly, which is a good thing to have in the game. Also it is obviously good if the other civ has no other way to beat Port eco progression, which is just more likely with 80f vills.
So just because port sent CM instead of another card they will be forever behind the enemy civ if the enemy civ just backs away and booms....
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Garja wrote:CM is not really a good card. It becomes good when the opponent doesnt play against it properly, which is a good thing to have in the game. Also it is obviously good if the other civ has no other way to beat Port eco progression, which is just more likely with 80f vills.
It's not a good card when it takes the place of a better card but on early TP starts CM becomes essentially free, since youll have enough shipments to send your gold and wood crates.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Goodspeed wrote:On most maps, for most civs, I think it should be possible to starve a CM Port or at least keep enough distance from TCs to not die to it. Highly doubt the card is viable.
It's hard to starve a civ that receives a free TC upon age up. Port + CM can still gain nasty map control.
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
When [you think] a civ is strong everything they do suddenly looks OP. For now I'm assuming there's no CM problem. Recs always welcome
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Smart words from a (s)Mart man – a Martian!?Goodspeed wrote:Just have a little faith guys. So far I think we have improved balance significantly with each iteration, but we aren't quite there yet. Balancing 14 civs takes time and it's not easy. Sioux, Iro and Otto will be addressed next update, Port is on our radar and Brit being a top civ has been known to us even if not to the community for a while now. We do have a little bit of a clue of what we're doing. Remember there is literally no one who agrees with every change. Our focus right now is getting a grasp on the state of inter-civ balance, and this should be the focus of any discussion nearing the end of the tournament.
For team games, what would help us is players making more of an effort to coordinate and find creative ways to counter current-meta playstyles. After the event I will make not only the usual 1v1 public balance poll but a team poll as well. Be prepared
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Goodspeed wrote:Just have a little faith guys. So far I think we have improved balance significantly with each iteration, but we aren't quite there yet. Balancing 14 civs takes time and it's not easy. Sioux, Iro and Otto will be addressed next update, Port is on our radar and Brit being a top civ has been known to us even if not to the community for a while now. We do have a little bit of a clue of what we're doing. Remember there is literally no one who agrees with every change. Our focus right now is getting a grasp on the state of inter-civ balance, and this should be the focus of any discussion nearing the end of the tournament.
For team games, what would help us is players making more of an effort to coordinate and find creative ways to counter current-meta playstyles. After the event I will make not only the usual 1v1 public balance poll but a team poll as well. Be prepared
I will be eternally grateful of the EP team, and I think my constructive criticism is a way of showing how grateful I am and how invested in our collective enjoyment of the game. I just think that many of the changes that have been made thus far have odd consequences, or there was knowledge of those but the team didnt really care or made an weird decision. I would like to see a long beta period for the next EP version like there was for the TR patch. Specific thoughts:
Take the -100f change for french. It was and still is a minor change, but made French far more annoying to play than more balanced IMO. I would have much rather seen lower CDB HP or their cost increased to 125. Almost all of the changes in the patch have made 1v1 balance better, however flawed their approach may seem to me, but have sacrificed team balance. Many changes could have been made to civs that would have increased both 1v1 and team balance: Germany age 3 shipments could have been nerfed or negative multiplier against vills for uhlans instead of -10 hp, Ports could have been given an extra wood crate(s) or just 90f vills instead of 80, and/or a cassador buff.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Darwin_ wrote:Jerom wrote:Show hidden quotes
I dont actually get how people think dutch is supposed to be OP. Do you guys even play the game?
I do. They cant be rushed effectively cause they have skirms, nice base protection, and 8 pikes/3 huss; however they are weak from 7-8 minutes. Once they get to fortress, they are so bloody good. They can produce from 2 raxes and 2 stables, and can mix an early TP, allowing them to get 9 ruyters, 8/7 skirm out very quickly once they get to fortress. They are slow, and that is their main difficulty and weakness. But, if you are good enough and can get to fortress safely, they win against many civs.
I have played dutch in 1v1 about 5 times, but probably 15+ times in 2v2/3v3. In team they are still really good, but not as comparatively good as they are in 1v1,
So theyre not OP in 1v1 or what are you even trying to say? If youve played five games with them you should probably just keep your judgement to yourself.
- britishmusketeer
- Howdah
- Posts: 1845
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Jerom wrote:Darwin_ wrote:Show hidden quotes
I do. They cant be rushed effectively cause they have skirms, nice base protection, and 8 pikes/3 huss; however they are weak from 7-8 minutes. Once they get to fortress, they are so bloody good. They can produce from 2 raxes and 2 stables, and can mix an early TP, allowing them to get 9 ruyters, 8/7 skirm out very quickly once they get to fortress. They are slow, and that is their main difficulty and weakness. But, if you are good enough and can get to fortress safely, they win against many civs.
I have played dutch in 1v1 about 5 times, but probably 15+ times in 2v2/3v3. In team they are still really good, but not as comparatively good as they are in 1v1,
So theyre not OP in 1v1 or what are you even trying to say? If youve played five games with them you should probably just keep your judgement to yourself.
You really shouldn't take balance input from master sergeants so seriously...
Re: ESOC Patch is unbalanced
You really shouldn't belittle it either. Let's just say that regardless of opinion, a small number of games isn't as conclusive.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests