Jerom wrote:Well you keep saying you don't want to change things because you don't know where the civs stand, which means they'll never really end up fixed unless you abandon that way of thinking. It's just so much quicker when you step of this ridiculously slow philosophy and actually start doing somewhat more aggressive balancing when there's actually the opportunity to do so. The only time you was "tricked" into making a pretty aggressive balance change you completely fixed a civ.
we didn't have the manpower to playtest and discuss changes for civs whose position on the balance scale was somewhat of an unknown.
Jerom wrote:Well you keep saying you don't want to change things because you don't know where the civs stand, which means they'll never really end up fixed unless you abandon that way of thinking. It's just so much quicker when you step of this ridiculously slow philosophy and actually start doing somewhat more aggressive balancing when there's actually the opportunity to do so. The only time you was "tricked" into making a pretty aggressive balance change you completely fixed a civ.
I don't keep saying that, I said it last iteration because we didn't have the manpower to playtest and discuss changes for civs whose position on the balance scale was somewhat of an unknown, as we also needed to deal with other issues. Now we can focus on these civs and make solid changes instead of guessing. Let's agree to disagree.
Id agree to disagree if your opinion showed understanding of what I tried to say. It doesnt really show that unfortunately.
umeu wrote:lets not dramatize, its quite fine. GS just doesnt want to see that the revert of iro is only temporary, doesnt even have to go on the released patch, can just be on the test beta. have players play on it, and rebalance again from there. Otherwise, the thing that garja says is fine as well, return 100w. and if thats not enough, revert something again. I just dont want to add more changes where reverting changes is sufficient. It's like adding another buff to china in IV because of the old han nerf making their IV shitty, instead of just tweaking or reverting the old han nerf.
Why would you buff china if its already strong? Noone want to see unkillable pike and bows i guess. Their stats hurts peoples eyes.
Jerom wrote:Well you keep saying you don't want to change things because you don't know where the civs stand, which means they'll never really end up fixed unless you abandon that way of thinking. It's just so much quicker when you step of this ridiculously slow philosophy and actually start doing somewhat more aggressive balancing when there's actually the opportunity to do so. The only time you was "tricked" into making a pretty aggressive balance change you completely fixed a civ.
I don't keep saying that, I said it last iteration because we didn't have the manpower to playtest and discuss changes for civs whose position on the balance scale was somewhat of an unknown, as we also needed to deal with other issues. Now we can focus on these civs and make solid changes instead of guessing. Let's agree to disagree.
Id agree to disagree if your opinion showed understanding of what I tried to say. It doesnt really show that unfortunately.
so what are you trying to say, perhaps you are just not very good at making yourself clear if you are being misunderstood all the time
Iro are not far from playable. Let's face it, people don't like TWC civs and more importantly they don't know shit about them because they tend to play with the nice boomy euro style. It actually takes just one buff or so for iros to be competitive again. Like a starting TP (+100w) would change everything. Sioux are different. Sioux rely by design on damaging the opponent, just like Otto. EP meta kinda killed Sioux natural advantage.
n0eL wrote:Revert iro is fine. One of the reasons they are broken on re is because of maps having no safe resources. They are like opposite of ports. RE port on ESOC maps are strong. RE port on RE map are shit.
umeu wrote:lets not dramatize, its quite fine. GS just doesnt want to see that the revert of iro is only temporary, doesnt even have to go on the released patch, can just be on the test beta. have players play on it, and rebalance again from there. Otherwise, the thing that garja says is fine as well, return 100w. and if thats not enough, revert something again. I just dont want to add more changes where reverting changes is sufficient. It's like adding another buff to china in IV because of the old han nerf making their IV shitty, instead of just tweaking or reverting the old han nerf.
Why would you buff china if its already strong? Noone want to see unkillable pike and bows i guess. Their stats hurts peoples eyes.
Its not strong, China is average at best atm. Nobody said reverse Han to re status, just lessen Han nerf to be viable again. Many agreed to -25% or more until we find sweet spot. 50 is too much....
Jerom wrote:Well you keep saying you don't want to change things because you don't know where the civs stand, which means they'll never really end up fixed unless you abandon that way of thinking. It's just so much quicker when you step of this ridiculously slow philosophy and actually start doing somewhat more aggressive balancing when there's actually the opportunity to do so. The only time you was "tricked" into making a pretty aggressive balance change you completely fixed a civ.
I don't keep saying that, I said it last iteration because we didn't have the manpower to playtest and discuss changes for civs whose position on the balance scale was somewhat of an unknown, as we also needed to deal with other issues. Now we can focus on these civs and make solid changes instead of guessing. Let's agree to disagree.
Id agree to disagree if your opinion showed understanding of what I tried to say. It doesnt really show that unfortunately.
ok that's probably my bad. Where did I misunderstand you?
umeu wrote:lets not dramatize, its quite fine. GS just doesnt want to see that the revert of iro is only temporary, doesnt even have to go on the released patch, can just be on the test beta. have players play on it, and rebalance again from there. Otherwise, the thing that garja says is fine as well, return 100w. and if thats not enough, revert something again. I just dont want to add more changes where reverting changes is sufficient. It's like adding another buff to china in IV because of the old han nerf making their IV shitty, instead of just tweaking or reverting the old han nerf.
Why would you buff china if its already strong? Noone want to see unkillable pike and bows i guess. Their stats hurts peoples eyes.
Its not strong, China is average at best atm. Nobody said reverse Han to re status, just lessen Han nerf to be viable again. Many agreed to -25% or more until we find sweet spot. 50 is too much....
50 is totally fine for them. There is no reason to make pike and bow better than their sword and rifle inf. And it still can be optional if all coin mines runs out. I dont want see china make only 1 type of army all games long cause its op sorry.
Jerom wrote:Well you keep saying you don't want to change things because you don't know where the civs stand, which means they'll never really end up fixed unless you abandon that way of thinking. It's just so much quicker when you step of this ridiculously slow philosophy and actually start doing somewhat more aggressive balancing when there's actually the opportunity to do so. The only time you was "tricked" into making a pretty aggressive balance change you completely fixed a civ.
What balance change are you talking about here ?
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 ..
umeu wrote:lets not dramatize, its quite fine. GS just doesnt want to see that the revert of iro is only temporary, doesnt even have to go on the released patch, can just be on the test beta. have players play on it, and rebalance again from there. Otherwise, the thing that garja says is fine as well, return 100w. and if thats not enough, revert something again. I just dont want to add more changes where reverting changes is sufficient. It's like adding another buff to china in IV because of the old han nerf making their IV shitty, instead of just tweaking or reverting the old han nerf.
Why would you buff china if its already strong? Noone want to see unkillable pike and bows i guess. Their stats hurts peoples eyes.
Its not strong, China is average at best atm. Nobody said reverse Han to re status, just lessen Han nerf to be viable again. Many agreed to -25% or more until we find sweet spot. 50 is too much....
50 is totally fine for them. There is no reason to make pike and bow better than their sword and rifle inf. And it still can be optional if all coin mines runs out. I dont want see china make only 1 type of army all games long cause its op sorry.
Problem is China doesn't have other viable age 4 options. Alternative is to upgrade all 4 main units it uses(changdao, arquebuster, fail, hammer) which costs tons of resources for subpar late game eco even if you manage to get russian factory. In terms of upg. cards there is manchu combat and western reforms which suck as age 4 cards. It has to go Han at least partially in order to be competitive late game.....
umeu wrote:lets not dramatize, its quite fine. GS just doesnt want to see that the revert of iro is only temporary, doesnt even have to go on the released patch, can just be on the test beta. have players play on it, and rebalance again from there. Otherwise, the thing that garja says is fine as well, return 100w. and if thats not enough, revert something again. I just dont want to add more changes where reverting changes is sufficient. It's like adding another buff to china in IV because of the old han nerf making their IV shitty, instead of just tweaking or reverting the old han nerf.
Why would you buff china if its already strong? Noone want to see unkillable pike and bows i guess. Their stats hurts peoples eyes.
Its not strong, China is average at best atm. Nobody said reverse Han to re status, just lessen Han nerf to be viable again. Many agreed to -25% or more until we find sweet spot. 50 is too much....
50 is totally fine for them. There is no reason to make pike and bow better than their sword and rifle inf. And it still can be optional if all coin mines runs out. I dont want see china make only 1 type of army all games long cause its op sorry.
I wouldn't say 300w banks "completely fixed the civ"...
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 ..
I feel like dutch pretty stronk if not top civ atm, and if anyone says otherwise their name is probably Jerom. Did dutch even lose a game past the RO8?
eh? dutch is fine, its strong but not too strong i think.
Russia beats it, spain does, vs ports its close (probably ports win water, dutch win land), Aztec FI beats dutch, Brits wins barely, don't know about japan and ger, they probably still barely win. Dutch probably beats all other civs.
Well india is one of their best mus and you're saying eco india even beats dutch so I'm saying dutch would then be super shit. I just don't think that eco india beats dutch unless eco india karni or whatever you're proposing is like super strong.