ESOC Patch is unbalanced
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Let's take uhlans for example. Everyone knew that their age 2 wasn't good and their age 3 was op. The main problems about uhlans wasn't the hp but the mulitplier against vills. If you had a lower mulitplier and tweak germans age 3 cards you would actually get a normal civ. Instead of making small card changes a major change with uhlan hp was made.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
bobabu wrote:Let's take uhlans for example. Everyone knew that their age 2 wasn't good and their age 3 was op. The main problems about uhlans wasn't the hp but the mulitplier against vills. If you had a lower mulitplier and tweak germans age 3 cards you would actually get a normal civ. Instead of making small card changes a major change with uhlan hp was made.
I think in 1v1 the damage vs vills was the least of the problems lol
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
If you must rush you rush the other guy. Though if I wanted to punish Port in team games I wouldn't rush, I would pick civs which have a strong mass around 10-12 minutes and go for a timing push around then. I'd favour Japan or Brit for the infantry and perhaps China for the cavalry as anti-Port picks.gibson wrote:Lol how are you gonna punish port in team? Rushing into two town centers is suicide.
It's possible that team games need low-resource maps because otherwise boom styles are too strong. Ports are one of the civs that benefit most from EP maps. This could be a problem, but I'm not convinced yet because I notice a pattern unfolding which is very similar to how 1v1 players respond to our changes each iteration.A lot of the people who are making decisions for ep balance don't even play team, the patch isn't even intended to be balanced for team, so I don't understand why people are arguing that EP team is more balanced then re. Ask anyone who plays team at a decent level. If you just take the civs into consideration, re is more balanced for team play.
Port and Dutch were/are considered broken in 1v1 in early EP 2.0, but now it seems they are not as great as people thought. Confirmation bias and the bandwagon effect are very strong factors here and I notice that each time we change a civ for the better, the assumption is that they are now OP. This works for civs we have nerfed as well, for example Germans were/are considered useless in 1v1 but as they are played more it is apparent that they still have most of the strengths that made them win games on 1.2.
Something very similar may be happening for team games, and a possible scenario is that because the 1v1 meta evolves much faster, 1v1 players were quick to catch on compared to team players. It's important that you keep trying to find ways to counter these civs that you consider broken, and not play into their hands because that's what everyone else is doing. I should mention that, looking at the numbers alone, our balance changes were really not that big and especially on a long-term scale should not be game-breaking. Don't forget that goons were nerfed as well, something that should hit Port harder than any other civ. If anything made Ports and Dutch too strong it's the maps, but if that is the case Brits should be stronger still, and yet nobody is complaining about Brits.
Anyway, all of that makes me not easily convinced that the problem with these civs, if there is one, is caused by our balance changes. Time will tell, as it has in 1v1. Perhaps we need a team tournament where people are encouraged to find counters and play a timing-based game rather than picking the civ they are comfortable with, booming, losing to Port's civ bonus and complaining afterwards.
Again the maps encourage a playstyle which is already strong and popular in team games which if there is a problem, that's probably it. That would be hard if not impossible to fix, though. Best way to go about it is probably to make a special map pool for team games with low-resource maps, or manually pick them.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
gibson wrote:Just about every civ was at least playable on re, but on EP soiux and iro really aren't, german otto and spain are bad, while japan port dutch and possibly india and china are way way too good.
Well, if after so many buffs Spain is still not viable, then you shouldn't really blame the ESOC Patch Team, right?
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
The spain buffs were great for 1v1, but in 3v3 having 1 more lancer and then 1 more rod and then one more lancer again isnt as releventpecelot wrote:gibson wrote:Just about every civ was at least playable on re, but on EP soiux and iro really aren't, german otto and spain are bad, while japan port dutch and possibly india and china are way way too good.
Well, if after so many buffs Spain is still not viable, then you shouldn't really blame the ESOC Patch Team, right?
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
A 10-12 minute timing is way way to late. You're thinking of this like a 1v1, not a 3v3 game. Timing's dont work particularly well in team games because people aren't coordinated well together. You hit a timing, but your mate needs 30 secs to upgrade his hus and your other mate is halfway done aging so who cares? All you've done is hurt yourself by shipping a military shipment instead of eco. Brit is also very strong, but they don't scale as well into late game because first off theyre a colonial based civ, so a brit players first 8 cards are all gonna be age 2 cards, while a port player generally finds himself in fortress pretty quick, and vs a 10-12 minutes timing can get away with an incredibly greedy bo. Another reason is that the limiting factor in a brit boom is generally manor houses. You don't see brit players hitting fortress early, shipping 1000w and dropping 2 tcs. Often times the brit players eco stagnates once they get into the 60 vil range, while port is still producing 3-4 vils every 20 seconds. Port also has better goons then brit, which is huge as goons are still the unit that dominates team games. And giving port 80f vils isnt a small change in team. That's several thousand food over the course of a 20 minute games, not even taking into consideration that they age 20 seconds faster, so get out a 2nd tc and age 2 market ups faster, hit age 3 faster so get out a 3rd tc and op age 3 cards faster. Mam nerf isnt relevant, and the goon nerf doesnt really matter as much as you think it would cause you're usually fighting goon vs goon anyway. Goons were good because they had decent dps, their mobility, and not having any sort of weird animation like CA or WW have. You can't buff a already decent team civ by that much(make their eco 20% cheaper) and then put them on a resource heavy map and expect them not to be op.Goodspeed wrote:If you must rush you rush the other guy. Though if I wanted to punish Port in team games I wouldn't rush, I would pick civs which have a strong mass around 10-12 minutes and go for a timing push around then. I'd favour Japan or Brit for the infantry and perhaps China for the cavalry as anti-Port picks.gibson wrote:Lol how are you gonna punish port in team? Rushing into two town centers is suicide.It's possible that team games need low-resource maps because otherwise boom styles are too strong. Ports are one of the civs that benefit most from EP maps. This could be a problem, but I'm not convinced yet because I notice a pattern unfolding which is very similar to how 1v1 players respond to our changes each iteration.A lot of the people who are making decisions for ep balance don't even play team, the patch isn't even intended to be balanced for team, so I don't understand why people are arguing that EP team is more balanced then re. Ask anyone who plays team at a decent level. If you just take the civs into consideration, re is more balanced for team play.
Port and Dutch were/are considered broken in 1v1 in early EP 2.0, but now it seems they are not as great as people thought. Confirmation bias and the bandwagon effect are very strong factors here and I notice that each time we change a civ for the better, the assumption is that they are now OP. This works for civs we have nerfed as well, for example Germans were/are considered useless in 1v1 but as they are played more it is apparent that they still have most of the strengths that made them win games on 1.2.
Something very similar may be happening for team games, and a possible scenario is that because the 1v1 meta evolves much faster, 1v1 players were quick to catch on compared to team players. It's important that you keep trying to find ways to counter these civs that you consider broken, and not play into their hands because that's what everyone else is doing. I should mention that, looking at the numbers alone, our balance changes were really not that big and especially on a long-term scale should not be game-breaking. Don't forget that goons were nerfed as well, something that should hit Port harder than any other civ. If anything made Ports and Dutch too strong it's the maps, but if that is the case Brits should be stronger still, and yet nobody is complaining about Brits.
Anyway, all of that makes me not easily convinced that the problem with these civs, if there is one, is caused by our balance changes. Time will tell, as it has in 1v1. Perhaps we need a team tournament where people are encouraged to find counters and play a timing-based game rather than picking the civ they are comfortable with, booming, losing to Port's civ bonus and complaining afterwards.
Again the maps encourage a playstyle which is already strong and popular in team games which if there is a problem, that's probably it. That would be hard if not impossible to fix, though. Best way to go about it is probably to make a special map pool for team games with low-resource maps, or manually pick them.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
gibson wrote:The spain buffs were great for 1v1, but in 3v3 having 1 more lancer and then 1 more rod and then one more lancer again isnt as releventpecelot wrote:gibson wrote:Just about every civ was at least playable on re, but on EP soiux and iro really aren't, german otto and spain are bad, while japan port dutch and possibly india and china are way way too good.
Well, if after so many buffs Spain is still not viable, then you shouldn't really blame the ESOC Patch Team, right?
Do you have any suggestions for buffing Spain's team performance while still not making them broken in 1v1s?
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
This is esoc lol. You actually expect me to come with a solution instead of just complaining and saying everyone who's trying to improve the game is doing a bad job?pecelot wrote:gibson wrote:The spain buffs were great for 1v1, but in 3v3 having 1 more lancer and then 1 more rod and then one more lancer again isnt as releventShow hidden quotes
Do you have any suggestions for buffing Spain's team performance while still not making them broken in 1v1s?
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
pecelot wrote:gibson wrote:The spain buffs were great for 1v1, but in 3v3 having 1 more lancer and then 1 more rod and then one more lancer again isnt as releventShow hidden quotes
Do you have any suggestions for buffing Spain's team performance while still not making them broken in 1v1s?
I think they are fine personally for team. If I were to buff I would just make unction ship a few missionaries also. Or give them like an infinite 6 rod shipment, and maybe an infinite 4 lancer shipment.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
There's no reason why a 10-12 minute timing would be too late in a team game. You mention coordination, and I know that's an issue but that's a player issue not a balance issue. If Port is punishable with coordination, then coordinate. We aren't about to nerf a civ because people are unwilling to put in the effort to counter it. This is why I think we need a team tournament where people are encouraged to coordinate and play a timing-based game rather than each teammate doing their respective build with no regard of what their allies' plans may be. Recalling old RTSL matches, we see many such early game timing attacks which were planned before the game even started based on opposing and allied civ picks.gibson wrote:A 10-12 minute timing is way way to late. You're thinking of this like a 1v1, not a 3v3 game. Timing's dont work particularly well in team games because people aren't coordinated well together. You hit a timing, but your mate needs 30 secs to upgrade his hus and your other mate is halfway done aging so who cares? All you've done is hurt yourself by shipping a military shipment instead of eco.
Yes I'm aware Port scales into the late game better than Brit, however Brit have a window where they can have a much stronger mass than Ports. As we can see in 1v1, it's not a hard match up for Brit due to their midgame timing attack. If you pick Brit against Port and fail to use this window of opportunity, then there is nothing wrong with the fact that you get outscaled.Brit is also very strong, but they don't scale as well into late game because first off theyre a colonial based civ, so a brit players first 8 cards are all gonna be age 2 cards, while a port player generally finds himself in fortress pretty quick, and vs a 10-12 minutes timing can get away with an incredibly greedy bo. Another reason is that the limiting factor in a brit boom is generally manor houses. You don't see brit players hitting fortress early, shipping 1000w and dropping 2 tcs. Often times the brit players eco stagnates once they get into the 60 vil range, while port is still producing 3-4 vils every 20 seconds. Port also has better goons then brit, which is huge as goons are still the unit that dominates team games.
It's 200 food per 10 vills made. Several thousand, yes I guess technically it's 2000 if you make 100 vills. I beg to differ that this is not a small change, especially considering the goon nerf compensates it somewhat. We have seen that the Port early game economy is still poor compared to most civs and they still have trouble keeping up in military population in the midgame. I'm not convinced team games are decided by such small factors as a couple more goons at 10 min.And giving port 80f vils isnt a small change in team. That's several thousand food over the course of a 20 minute games
That seems unlikely, since in discovery age they are gaining 20 food on 13 vill age ups, and 40 on 14 vill age ups. At best they age a couple of seconds earlier.not even taking into consideration that they age 20 seconds faster
Sounds to me like a timing push based mostly on infantry would do quite well then.the goon nerf doesnt really matter as much as you think it would cause you're usually fighting goon vs goon anyway
As mentioned, the maps encouraged a playstyle which is already popular in team games, and one which Ports are very good at. This may be an issue. However, from your posts I gather that team players have not even come close to exhausting every possibility in trying to counter the civ, which to me is a red flag saying "give it time".You can't buff a already decent team civ by that much(make their eco 20% cheaper) and then put them on a resource heavy map and expect them not to be op.
To me what it sounds like you're saying is that Ports are too strong because you want to boom to 99 vills every game and Ports happen to be the best at that. Do you see the predicament the patch team finds itself in trying to keep everyone happy?
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Well, putting aside the fact that by the 10-12 minutes mark ports are already out of control and are getting out more units then just about any other civ, what's the point of balancing civs to a standard that no one plays at? I mean I know you're of the belief that with perfect play brit would be the top civ, so why haven't they been nerfed? Because civ balance isn't based on a hypothetical perfect standard, but on how players are playing now. And sure, it would be nice if every team game players coordinated a perfect strategy based on the match up, but that just doesn't happen.There's no reason why a 10-12 minute timing would be too late in a team game. You mention coordination, and I know that's an issue but that's a player issue not a balance issue. If Port is punishable with coordination, then coordinate. We aren't about to nerf a civ because people are unwilling to put in the effort to counter it. This is why I think we need a team tournament where people are encouraged to coordinate and play a timing-based game rather than each teammate doing their respective build with no regard of what their allies' plans may be. Recalling old RTSL matches, we see many such early game timing attacks which were planned before the game even started based on opposing and allied civ picks.
Yes I'm aware Port scales into the late game better than Brit, however Brit have a window where they can have a much stronger mass than Ports. As we can see in 1v1, it's not a hard match up for Brit due to their midgame timing attack. If you pick Brit against Port and fail to use this window of opportunity, then there is nothing wrong with the fact that you get outscaled.
This just isn't relevant. As I said before, it doesn't matter if brit has a timing in 1v1 that can kill port. Cause even if they have a timing where they have 60 units vs ports 30 units, every other player in the game is gonna have 50 units and now instead of the brit player having double the army like he would in 1v1( and the timing isn't anywhere near that good) its 160 units vs 130 units, and with defenders advantage that's an even fight.
It's 200 food per 10 vills made. Several thousand, yes I guess technically it's 2000 if you make 100 vills. I beg to differ that this is not a small change, especially considering the goon nerf compensates it somewhat. We have seen that the Port early game economy is still poor compared to most civs and they still have trouble keeping up in military population in the midgame. I'm not convinced team games are decided by such small factors as a couple more goons at 10 min.
Port really does not have any issue keeping up military wise after like 6 minutes lol. This isn't 1v1 where every civ is making units asap and people often cut economic things for a little extra military. This is 3v3 where every civ is getting steal traps right after they age and early military is slightly sacrificed for a better eco. And no team games generally aren't decided by a couple goons at 10 minutes. But move towards the 15 minute mark when port has 80 vils and 19 range dragoons and everyone else has 50 vils and normal goons and the game is basically just over. It's just that having your entire economy be 20% cheaper is just huge. Russia got their vils 5% cheaper and everyone's talking about how op they are, and they only have 1 towncenter.
That seems unlikely, since in discovery age they are gaining 20 food on 13 vill age ups, and 40 on 14 vill age ups. At best they age a couple of seconds earlier.
idk I just say kaiser age with 13 almost ideless several straight games while on re alot of the time people age with 14. But how are they only gaining 20 food on a 13 vil up? I thought they got -100f crate, which would mean they gain 160. And even if it was -200f crate thats still gaining 60.
As mentioned, the maps encouraged a playstyle which is already popular in team games, and one which Ports are very good at. This may be an issue. However, from your posts I gather that team players have not even come close to exhausting every possibility in trying to counter the civ, which to me is a red flag saying "give it time".
To me what it sounds like you're saying is that Ports are too strong because you want to boom to 99 vills every game and Ports happen to be the best at that. Do you see the predicament the patch team finds itself in trying to keep everyone happy?
I mean thats fair, time might change people's opinions of them, I doubt it will but it might. And that's basically what a team game is. Who can boom the best and create a big enough difference between their eco and the other teams to overcome defenders advantage+ raids.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
This patch has more evident outliers than previous one or atleast same as old one but inflicted by the patch team itself. I believe the next patch update will be more thoughtful and will try to fix the mistakes.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
That is not the case, and if it is you're playing into their hands by booming too much. Like I said if you play the long-term boom game against Ports, you're not setting yourself up to win. And yes I can imagine that if French goes FF into immediate 3 TC boom, Port may have more units than them at 12 min.gibson wrote:Well, putting aside the fact that by the 10-12 minutes mark ports are already out of control and are getting out more units then just about any other civ,There's no reason why a 10-12 minute timing would be too late in a team game. You mention coordination, and I know that's an issue but that's a player issue not a balance issue. If Port is punishable with coordination, then coordinate. We aren't about to nerf a civ because people are unwilling to put in the effort to counter it. This is why I think we need a team tournament where people are encouraged to coordinate and play a timing-based game rather than each teammate doing their respective build with no regard of what their allies' plans may be. Recalling old RTSL matches, we see many such early game timing attacks which were planned before the game even started based on opposing and allied civ picks.
We didn't nerf Brit because I am/was the only one who thinks that they are the top civ, although people seem to be coming around recently. But I do see your point and it's a valid one. The thing is, I feel like we can expect team players to coordinate and figure out how to punish an opposing team which has the upper hand in a boom war. If they can't even do that, then yes the civ with the best long-term boom is going to be the best civ. If it's not Ports then it'll be the next best one. How do you expect us to fix team when apparently all people want to do is play treaty 20 with a couple of raids to keep busy? If the players are unwilling to try to find counters, then our job is an impossible one. I hope you can see why.What's the point of balancing civs to a standard that no one plays at? I mean I know you're of the belief that with perfect play brit would be the top civ, so why haven't they been nerfed? Because civ balance isn't based on a hypothetical perfect standard, but on how players are playing now. And sure, it would be nice if every team game players coordinated a perfect strategy based on the match up, but that just doesn't happen.
This is assuming the enemy team knows this timing is coming and picked their civs accordingly. In any case, map control is vital around this time so you don't have to push into anyone's base to do damage.Yes I'm aware Port scales into the late game better than Brit, however Brit have a window where they can have a much stronger mass than Ports. As we can see in 1v1, it's not a hard match up for Brit due to their midgame timing attack. If you pick Brit against Port and fail to use this window of opportunity, then there is nothing wrong with the fact that you get outscaled.
This just isn't relevant. As I said before, it doesn't matter if brit has a timing in 1v1 that can kill port. Cause even if they have a timing where they have 60 units vs ports 30 units, every other player in the game is gonna have 50 units and now instead of the brit player having double the army like he would in 1v1( and the timing isn't anywhere near that good) its 160 units vs 130 units, and with defenders advantage that's an even fight.
Untrue.It's 200 food per 10 vills made. Several thousand, yes I guess technically it's 2000 if you make 100 vills. I beg to differ that this is not a small change, especially considering the goon nerf compensates it somewhat. We have seen that the Port early game economy is still poor compared to most civs and they still have trouble keeping up in military population in the midgame. I'm not convinced team games are decided by such small factors as a couple more goons at 10 min.
Port really does not have any issue keeping up military wise after like 6 minutes lol.
Are you saying it can't be that, or that it isn't that? Because I think it can be and it should be in certain match ups, much like in 1v1. And yes, it takes coordination.This isn't 1v1 where every civ is making units asap and people often cut economic things for a little extra military.
That's why you kill them before 15 minutes.And no team games generally aren't decided by a couple goons at 10 minutes. But move towards the 15 minute mark when port has 80 vils and 19 range dragoons and everyone else has 50 vils and normal goons and the game is basically just over. It's just that having your entire economy be 20% cheaper is just huge. Russia got their vils 5% cheaper and everyone's talking about how op they are, and they only have 1 towncenter.
Your math is way off.That seems unlikely, since in discovery age they are gaining 20 food on 13 vill age ups, and 40 on 14 vill age ups. At best they age a couple of seconds earlier.
idk I just say kaiser age with 13 almost ideless several straight games while on re alot of the time people age with 14. But how are they only gaining 20 food on a 13 vil up? I thought they got -100f crate, which would mean they gain 160. And even if it was -200f crate thats still gaining 60.
How, then, is it a surprise to you that Ports are strong? And how are we supposed to balance them without making them absolutely useless in 1v1? The "let's boom for 20 minutes" attitude is not exactly compatible with what people are doing in 1v1.As mentioned, the maps encouraged a playstyle which is already popular in team games, and one which Ports are very good at. This may be an issue. However, from your posts I gather that team players have not even come close to exhausting every possibility in trying to counter the civ, which to me is a red flag saying "give it time".
To me what it sounds like you're saying is that Ports are too strong because you want to boom to 99 vills every game and Ports happen to be the best at that. Do you see the predicament the patch team finds itself in trying to keep everyone happy?
I mean thats fair, time might change people's opinions of them, I doubt it will but it might. And that's basically what a team game is. Who can boom the best and create a big enough difference between their eco and the other teams to overcome defenders advantage+ raids.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Although I agree with you on most points GS, I think there was a methodology issue in the balance for Ports.
Ports just needed a buff early in the game, not a constant buff during the whole game (80f vills).
Ports just needed a buff early in the game, not a constant buff during the whole game (80f vills).
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Gs you might underrate ports in this patch. They're honestly not even slow early on, because they ship crates instead of vils, which artificially makes up for their weak eco, while they prod from 2 tcs and then manage to catch up in eco. Being able to ship vils is usually seen as an advantage ; but what about a civ who doesn't need to ship vils and can ship other stuff instead ? It's even more scary. That's one of the reasons why brits are good imo, they can just ship more or less anything and still end up having at very least a decent eco. It's kinda the same for ports (except they're slower early on but scale better later on). For example, you can break russian bh around 7-8 min as ports easily (unless he goes all in I guess), because you ship a lot of crates which makes your timing pretty scary, and since you still produce idleless from 2 tcs your eco will still be very strong after that. You can also do that as, say, french or german, but then you'll probably have to cut vils shipments, and just won't have nearly as good an eco as ports would, after the timing push.
And on top of that they ofc have other advantages : basically a free house thanks to 2nd tc, and also ofc free mapcontrol, musk/cav available for colonial wars.
I'm not even talking about fortress age, because most civs can't dream of beating ports in a fortress war.
And on top of that they ofc have other advantages : basically a free house thanks to 2nd tc, and also ofc free mapcontrol, musk/cav available for colonial wars.
I'm not even talking about fortress age, because most civs can't dream of beating ports in a fortress war.
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 ..
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Garja wrote:This patch has more evident outliers than previous one or atleast same as old one but inflicted by the patch team itself. I believe the next patch update will be more thoughtful and will try to fix the mistakes.
Sorry, what? Its not even clear what the top civ is atm, and the other outliers iro and sioux were also the outliers on earlier versions. The only mistake made was not adressing the issues with sioux at all.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Ports have been unchanged for like a year and now they're OP.
People change opinions on what is OP too quickly. More demonstrated OPness would be nicer instead of placebo
People change opinions on what is OP too quickly. More demonstrated OPness would be nicer instead of placebo
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Kaiser pointed that out I recall, before Ger and Fre were OP, now that they have been nerfed Ports take their place, along with Dutch, it's pretty clear, it's just it was never a popular nation to pick and also not the easiest to learn, hence not too many people play them actually.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Before it was French, Germans, China. Now it's Dutch, Ports. It's not like they win every MU or anything, just blatantly over the top in some regards.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
iNcog wrote:Ports have been unchanged for like a year and now they're OP.
People change opinions on what is OP too quickly. More demonstrated OPness would be nicer instead of placebo
dont be silly. ports are unchanged, but other civs arent. the civs that were beating ports on the previous patch got nerfed, aka china, ger and france. so them dropping in the rankings made ports go up in the rankings, because guess what, ranking is relative :O
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
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, which we are allergic to. It's also hard to find elegant solutions for an early game buff and no, I don't count free HD as an elegant solution.Rikikipu wrote:Although I agree with you on most points GS, I think there was a methodology issue in the balance for Ports.
Ports just needed a buff early in the game, not a constant buff during the whole game (80f vills).
What it ultimately comes down to is that Port is a great team civ which fits into the current team meta perfectly because of the tendency to play a boom war. We aren't going to change their civ design, so this will remain the case. If we do revert the vill cost change it will be to fix Ports in 1v1, which @Kaiserklein
I know there is still a number of players who think Ports are too strong there as well. The tournament will show how much truth there is to that.Kaiserklein wrote:notification
No matter what we do, their long term strength won't change. It's simply not possible to balance this civ for both 1v1 and team. It's like if we had to buff Japan in 1v1 because they are too weak early on, similarly team players would suffer because Japan's scaling is already amazing and their early game weakness is less punishable in team games. We aren't miracle workers and we have a strict policy about not standardizing, so it's tough for us when not a player, not even a group of players but a game mode itself (team 3v3) favours a certain playstyle so heavily.
I'd like to re-emphasize that for team to reach anything close to balance players have to start coordinating and putting thought into their civ picks before game start, then and only then can we have any clue about what the state of balance actually is in team games. As mentioned, a tournament would help that cause.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
umeu wrote:iNcog wrote:Ports have been unchanged for like a year and now they're OP.
People change opinions on what is OP too quickly. More demonstrated OPness would be nicer instead of placebo
dont be silly. ports are unchanged, but other civs arent. the civs that were beating ports on the previous patch got nerfed, aka china, ger and france. so them dropping in the rankings made ports go up in the rankings, because guess what, ranking is relative :O
top civ is different than OP though
there's ALWAYS going to be a top civ
which is partly why i argue that we should no longer be looking at nerfs, but instead buffs. balance is close enough that "top" civ doesn't mean OP, which is the patch's goal anyway
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
well... people clearly just use op when they often mean top civ. but in any case, being op is situational as well. Iro was op, but they were not op in every part of the game, they were just so op in one part of the game that other parts of the game usually didnt came to happen. Ports isn't op in every part of the game, however, they can be considered OP in the part of the game where most EP games end up due to the meta, the nerfing of early agression by nerfs of agressive civs, buff of defensive civs and EP maps.
Re: ESOC PATCH IS UNBALANCED
Iro on RE are OP in pretty much every relevant aspectof 1v1 sup (age1, rush, map control, eco progression, unit ups, fortress potential, troll strats, etc.), so they're not a good example for this argument.
Aside from that, I agree. Ports are not unbeatable, just their vills are so cheap that they trash any other civ in eco progression without really no drawback. Dutch also can be countered but they have a relatively safe semi FF play with 5 bank that is the equivalent of a 200/200 manor boom. It's just overkill. On the other hand Sioux is no remotely close to other civs in this eco meta.
There is always going to be a top civ, yes, but it's annoying when there are clear outliers. The meta also doesn't help. Super garantist maps don't help in mixing wins with anti-meta styles.
Aside from that, I agree. Ports are not unbeatable, just their vills are so cheap that they trash any other civ in eco progression without really no drawback. Dutch also can be countered but they have a relatively safe semi FF play with 5 bank that is the equivalent of a 200/200 manor boom. It's just overkill. On the other hand Sioux is no remotely close to other civs in this eco meta.
There is always going to be a top civ, yes, but it's annoying when there are clear outliers. The meta also doesn't help. Super garantist maps don't help in mixing wins with anti-meta styles.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests