EP and its "mandate"

User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

EP and its "mandate"

Post by forgrin »

In recent discussions about fixed crates and the next esoc patch there has been talk of the patch's mandate and the expectation of minimal change in the community. I'd like to raise the topic of where exactly this mandate comes from and what it means.


The best solution for the question of "where is the mandate?" Comes from http://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2402 this thread. It's the initial poll asking about whether people were interested in another fanpatch or not. I'd like you to look at the results.

Especially important to point out: the #1 result, by almost double the runner-up, was that people wanted to be able to play all civs. There was talk during this process of sticking to minimal changes to achieve this; whether we've really stuck with this ethos considering what has basically been an inversion of the past tier lists is up to you. But overall, the people that delivered this mandate wanted civs to be equal wayyyy more than they "didn't want civs to change" (3%).

There have already been some drastic changes in EP, and we can't honestly say that the minimal change ethos has been stuck to (see: Iro). But how much does that matter? Undoubtedly balance is better; or at least, gaps between civs are smaller than on RE. But how can it really be improved without making EP a mess of confusing small changes for new players to adapt to?

For people who don't like the idea of fixed crates because they think that this represents too much change, I disagree. If anything, implementing fixed crates could create better balance while minimising the number of changes and at the same time reduce RNG, providing a better competitive environment.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by iNcog »

Good topic.

Well for some people the crates aren't imbalanced enough for them to be worth getting rid of. The trade off of fixed crates is making discovery age stale, as in there's a little less adaption, less variation, less micromanagement to get your build off right, etc. Some will rightfully argue that this doesn't separate good players from bad players and that the age 1 phase of the game is boring anyway (though that being boring is subjective). The way I see it, I don't see the problem with variation at the start of the game. It does add something. I think the balance issues regarding crates can be overblown, but I'm not as high a level a player as diarouga so I won't argue his points. I do want to note however, that if one argues to fix crates, one naturally argues that treasures should probably be eliminated from the game and that maps should no longer spawn randomly. After all, that is both more balanced and less RNG.

The issue with "more balance, less rng" is that Age of Empires 3 is a game which does not really suffer from the inherent randomness of maps, treasures, etc. Variation is what makes a game more deep and interesting, look at LoL with their huge champion pool, same with Dota. Variation and randomness is part of the Age of Empires package, it's what makes the game as deep as it is. For example there are several different ways to open the game: market, TP, nothing. Fixing crate starts means that every civ suddenly has one "best" opening and all the others are inferior. Sure, it's not like the different variations are what make AoE3 the good game that it is, but they're still there. Fixing crates just reduces options, which I inherently dislike. Age of Empire games are inherently about adaption and the game is designed to work with procedural generation. That's a huge plus, as far as I'm concerned. There is some good youtube material on the subject, linked here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5SAfTSIOE4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYodywXM_ps
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
Serbia Atomiswave
Lancer
Posts: 794
Joined: Dec 27, 2015

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by Atomiswave »

iNcog wrote:Good topic.

Well for some people the crates aren't imbalanced enough for them to be worth getting rid of. The trade off of fixed crates is making discovery age stale, as in there's a little less adaption, less variation, less micromanagement to get your build off right, etc. Some will rightfully argue that this doesn't separate good players from bad players and that the age 1 phase of the game is boring anyway (though that being boring is subjective). The way I see it, I don't see the problem with variation at the start of the game. It does add something. I think the balance issues regarding crates can be overblown, but I'm not as high a level a player as diarouga so I won't argue his points. I do want to note however, that if one argues to fix crates, one naturally argues that treasures should probably be eliminated from the game and that maps should no longer spawn randomly. After all, that is both more balanced and less RNG.

The issue with "more balance, less rng" is that Age of Empires 3 is a game which does not really suffer from the inherent randomness of maps, treasures, etc. Variation is what makes a game more deep and interesting, look at LoL with their huge champion pool, same with Dota. Variation and randomness is part of the Age of Empires package, it's what makes the game as deep as it is. For example there are several different ways to open the game: market, TP, nothing. Fixing crate starts means that every civ suddenly has one "best" opening and all the others are inferior. Sure, it's not like the different variations are what make AoE3 the good game that it is, but they're still there. Fixing crates just reduces options, which I inherently dislike. Age of Empire games are inherently about adaption and the game is designed to work with procedural generation. That's a huge plus, as far as I'm concerned. There is some good youtube material on the subject, linked here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5SAfTSIOE4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYodywXM_ps


I haven't heard anyone suggesting removal or even symmetrical treasure placement.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by iNcog »

Double post because the theme of this post is different.

I like this topic because I would like to openly question the community as to what changes they would deem acceptable and which they would not deem appropriate.

For example, an idea I thought of regarding Ports would be to bring the villager cost back to 100f, give them back the wood crate and then replace their musketeer entirely with a new musk unit entirely. The modding team can do this with ease. You could make the new musk unit cost less food, adjust stats accordingly and you would have a new version of ports which have the 100f villagers (so we can curtail the complaints about 80f ports having too strong a boom, but I digress talking about this). This new version of Ports is less food reliant than before, addressing a potential balance weakness they have. You don't touch Port's core design, just adjust their unit set a little so as to address one of the problems they face.

The question is whether or not such an idea is over the top or not. I think the answer is yes, but on the other hand, if the community is OK with such a relatively big change, then I believe that many new, interesting and balanced possibilities open up.

I guess the question I'm asking myself is what kind of changes are acceptable to go forward with?
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by forgrin »

iNcog wrote:Good topic.

Well for some people the crates aren't imbalanced enough for them to be worth getting rid of. The trade off of fixed crates is making discovery age stale, as in there's a little less adaption, less variation, less micromanagement to get your build off right, etc. Some will rightfully argue that this doesn't separate good players from bad players and that the age 1 phase of the game is boring anyway (though that being boring is subjective). The way I see it, I don't see the problem with variation at the start of the game. It does add something. I think the balance issues regarding crates can be overblown, but I'm not as high a level a player as diarouga so I won't argue his points. I do want to note however, that if one argues to fix crates, one naturally argues that treasures should probably be eliminated from the game and that maps should no longer spawn randomly. After all, that is both more balanced and less RNG.

The issue with "more balance, less rng" is that Age of Empires 3 is a game which does not really suffer from the inherent randomness of maps, treasures, etc. Variation is what makes a game more deep and interesting, look at LoL with their huge champion pool, same with Dota. Variation and randomness is part of the Age of Empires package, it's what makes the game as deep as it is. For example there are several different ways to open the game: market, TP, nothing. Fixing crate starts means that every civ suddenly has one "best" opening and all the others are inferior. Sure, it's not like the different variations are what make AoE3 the good game that it is, but they're still there. Fixing crates just reduces options, which I inherently dislike. Age of Empire games are inherently about adaption and the game is designed to work with procedural generation. That's a huge plus, as far as I'm concerned. There is some good youtube material on the subject, linked here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5SAfTSIOE4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYodywXM_ps


I'd argue fixed starts are no more or less interesting than rotating crates (the only thing that actually changes is whether market or TP first...) and depending on the fixed start decided upon it could actually be the more micro-intensive one. There's not really adaptation there, people will always just try to do the most optimal thing with their crate start so it's not like anything changes.
I don't see how it correlates with treasures, because you at least have some degree of control over treasures. You have literally 0 control about which crate start you spawn with.

Variation, yes. Randomness... no. Variation is procedurally generated maps, treasures (for the most part), etc., which is good. Randomness is an advantage or disadvantage for no reason at all (crate starts in some MUs). There's a distinct difference there. I really like the procedural generation and adaptation in this game, but that doesn't mean supporting "randomness." For a bunch of civs there is no "adaptation," you just get dealt a good hand or a shit one at the beginning of the match and you either rejoice or make do. There are really only a handful of civs that have real options from changing crate starts.

Also yeah I watched those vids before, they are pretty interesting. The guy is a bit of an aoe3 hater :P
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by iNcog »

That guy is an ex-aoe3 player

can't remember who though
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by pecelot »

forgrin wrote:In recent discussions about fixed crates and the next esoc patch there has been talk of the patch's mandate and the expectation of minimal change in the community. I'd like to raise the topic of where exactly this mandate comes from and what it means.


The best solution for the question of "where is the mandate?" Comes from http://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2402 this thread. It's the initial poll asking about whether people were interested in another fanpatch or not. I'd like you to look at the results.

Especially important to point out: the #1 result, by almost double the runner-up, was that people wanted to be able to play all civs. There was talk during this process of sticking to minimal changes to achieve this; whether we've really stuck with this ethos considering what has basically been an inversion of the past tier lists is up to you. But overall, the people that delivered this mandate wanted civs to be equal wayyyy more than they "didn't want civs to change" (3%).

There have already been some drastic changes in EP, and we can't honestly say that the minimal change ethos has been stuck to (see: Iro). But how much does that matter? Undoubtedly balance is better; or at least, gaps between civs are smaller than on RE. But how can it really be improved without making EP a mess of confusing small changes for new players to adapt to?

For people who don't like the idea of fixed crates because they think that this represents too much change, I disagree. If anything, implementing fixed crates could create better balance while minimising the number of changes and at the same time reduce RNG, providing a better competitive environment.

IMO you draw too simplistic conclusions. Changes are relative. Fixed spawns would kill randomness and variety, but still would be a huge change from RE. That I think everyone wants to prevent from happening.
There were a lot of complaints not so long ago about semi-FF meta being dominative in comparison with other choices. Not imagine Germany, France, Portuguese etc. would get an early TP every single game.
Iroquois nerfs were historically justified. Now of course the EP team seems to be concerned and we've all heard that they will be targeted in the next iterations, along with the Sioux.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by forgrin »

pecelot wrote:
forgrin wrote:In recent discussions about fixed crates and the next esoc patch there has been talk of the patch's mandate and the expectation of minimal change in the community. I'd like to raise the topic of where exactly this mandate comes from and what it means.


The best solution for the question of "where is the mandate?" Comes from http://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2402 this thread. It's the initial poll asking about whether people were interested in another fanpatch or not. I'd like you to look at the results.

Especially important to point out: the #1 result, by almost double the runner-up, was that people wanted to be able to play all civs. There was talk during this process of sticking to minimal changes to achieve this; whether we've really stuck with this ethos considering what has basically been an inversion of the past tier lists is up to you. But overall, the people that delivered this mandate wanted civs to be equal wayyyy more than they "didn't want civs to change" (3%).

There have already been some drastic changes in EP, and we can't honestly say that the minimal change ethos has been stuck to (see: Iro). But how much does that matter? Undoubtedly balance is better; or at least, gaps between civs are smaller than on RE. But how can it really be improved without making EP a mess of confusing small changes for new players to adapt to?

For people who don't like the idea of fixed crates because they think that this represents too much change, I disagree. If anything, implementing fixed crates could create better balance while minimising the number of changes and at the same time reduce RNG, providing a better competitive environment.

IMO you draw too simplistic conclusions. Changes are relative. Fixed spawns would kill randomness and variety, but still would be a huge change from RE. That I think everyone wants to prevent from happening.
There were a lot of complaints not so long ago about semi-FF meta being dominative in comparison with other choices. Not imagine Germany, France, Portuguese etc. would get an early TP every single game.
Iroquois nerfs were historically justified. Now of course the EP team seems to be concerned and we've all heard that they will be targeted in the next iterations, along with the Sioux.


you do realise that coin start is suggested for all those 3 civs specifically to solve that issue?
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by lemmings121 »

someone said thats paifait. not sure...
Image
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by iNcog »

lemmings121 wrote:someone said thats paifait. not sure...


yeah i think it's parfait but don't quote me on that
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by pecelot »

iNcog wrote:For example, an idea I thought of regarding Ports would be to bring the villager cost back to 100f, give them back the wood crate and then replace their musketeer entirely with a new musk unit entirely. The modding team can do this with ease. You could make the new musk unit cost less food, adjust stats accordingly and you would have a new version of ports which have the 100f villagers (so we can curtail the complaints about 80f ports having too strong a boom, but I digress talking about this). This new version of Ports is less food reliant than before, addressing a potential balance weakness they have. You don't touch Port's core design, just adjust their unit set a little so as to address one of the problems they face.

A new unit like that IMO is as much of a departure from the norm as 80f vills. The latter one, however, is quite controversial, but yet very appreciated by some good players.

lemmings121 wrote:someone said thats paifait. not sure...

Yes, it's him. It was checked a while ago, I believe Jim asked about it.

forgrin wrote:you do realise that coin start is suggested for all those 3 civs specifically to solve that issue?

Sorry, I must have missed that exact suggestion. Still, I wouldn't personally support it.
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by lemmings121 »

iNcog wrote:yeah i think it's parfait but don't quote me on that

YOU DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!
Image
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by iNcog »

pecelot wrote:A new unit like that IMO is as much of a departure from the norm as 80f vills. The latter one, however, is quite controversial, but yet very appreciated by some good players.


Yeah it's actually quite similar, hence why I brought up the example. If we consider a new unit as over the top (even if it's just a musketeer with its cost reduced), then this may as well also be. I still love 80f though, Ports are so silky smooth when you play them.

lemmings121 wrote:
iNcog wrote:yeah i think it's parfait but don't quote me on that

YOU DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!


:cry:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by pecelot »

But why even a musketeer? Ports are an age-3-oriented civ, I guess it would be quite irrelevant.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by forgrin »

pecelot wrote:
forgrin wrote:you do realise that coin start is suggested for all those 3 civs specifically to solve that issue?

Sorry, I must have missed that exact suggestion. Still, I wouldn't personally support it.


What's your reasoning then? Too big a change from RE? Let's face it; EP has literally flipped the civ tier list on its head and changed the way many civs play. We're already at the point of "big change" from RE. Fixed crates are actually small in comparison.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by zoom »

The ESO-Community Patch and the Mankldate of heaven(ly balance)
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by deleted_user »

It's parfait he's confirmed it multiple times.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by Mitoe »

forgrin wrote:There have already been some drastic changes in EP, and we can't honestly say that the minimal change ethos has been stuck to (see: Iro).

For the record, the only difference between RE Iro and EP Iro at this point is this:

EP Iro -200w +100f crates.

Everything else is exactly the same.

In fact, the only civs with lots of changes are Otto and Spain. The biggest difference between RE and EP is the maps, and given how bad Iro seems to be on EP, maybe they wouldn't have even been the undisputed best civ on RE patch if the same maps were used?

Maps have had the biggest influence on balance, not direct changes.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by forgrin »

Mitoe wrote:
forgrin wrote:There have already been some drastic changes in EP, and we can't honestly say that the minimal change ethos has been stuck to (see: Iro).

For the record, the only difference between RE Iro and EP Iro at this point is this:

EP Iro -200w +100f crates.

Everything else is exactly the same.

In fact, the only civs with lots of changes are Otto and Spain. The biggest difference between RE and EP is the maps, and given how bad Iro seems to be on EP, maybe they wouldn't have even been the undisputed best civ on RE patch if the same maps were used?

Maps have had the biggest influence on balance, not direct changes.


Oh I definitely agree it's mostly the map changes for sure. I just think it's silly when people say that "not much has changed" overall. But also let's be honest about Iro, that is a pretty massive change (free TP or no).
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by zoom »

Forgrin is Parfait!?
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by gibson »

zoom wrote:Forgrin is Parfait!?
Chunfuckingfirmed
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by forgrin »

zoom wrote:Forgrin is Parfait!?

Yeah, just extremely rusty :lol:
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by Mitoe »

forgrin wrote:
Mitoe wrote:
forgrin wrote:There have already been some drastic changes in EP, and we can't honestly say that the minimal change ethos has been stuck to (see: Iro).

For the record, the only difference between RE Iro and EP Iro at this point is this:

EP Iro -200w +100f crates.

Everything else is exactly the same.

In fact, the only civs with lots of changes are Otto and Spain. The biggest difference between RE and EP is the maps, and given how bad Iro seems to be on EP, maybe they wouldn't have even been the undisputed best civ on RE patch if the same maps were used?

Maps have had the biggest influence on balance, not direct changes.


Oh I definitely agree it's mostly the map changes for sure. I just think it's silly when people say that "not much has changed" overall. But also let's be honest about Iro, that is a pretty massive change (free TP or no).

If that's a massive change, then pretty much every single change in the patch notes is a massive change, maybe even more massive.



Also I'm unsure about whether I should post this here or in one of the other fixed crates threads, but this is the post I just made in the internal discussion forum for the EP team regarding fixed crates:

[spoiler]Context: n0eL is addressing someone who was arguing that random crates offer more diversity than fixed crates.
Mitoe wrote:
n0eL wrote:I disagree with that. Having fixed resource opens up the same variation. For example as Japan. If it's 300 w start you can do std consulate. You can do market. You can do tp and you can do double shrine. 200w start, you can't really do must of those things because you're age up is too slow. So you are limited by it.

That's only if you decide to give a civ it's ideal crate start after fixing the crates, which we inevitably won't for some civs. And this could affect matchups a lot actually, since I would imagine people wouldn't give a civ like Germany their wood crates. We could end up buffing a civ like Japan a lot actually by making this change, and swinging a lot of their current matchups. Now don't get me wrong, I actually do think fixed crates has potential to be more balanced than random crates, but let me try to explain how I've been thinking about it.

If we want to get to the root of the problem with random crates, it's not that a coin start is too bad for Germany while a wood start is too good, as the other civ should, in theory, be at just as much of an advantage or disadvantage as Germany. The problem arises when a coin start turns out to be bad for a civ like Germany, and good for another civ, let's say, Dutch—for the record I'm not even sure a coin start is much better for Dutch than it is for Germany, but we'll use this for the sake of example. This is the situation you get matchups that are potentially swingy depending on the crate start. Not when Japan and Germany both get coin or both get wood.

For the most part, however, most civs will be just as happy or unhappy as other civs with the same crate start.


Now let's just assume we decided to follow through with the fixed crate change. Great. We could potentially undo a lot of other changes to civs like Germany and France in favour of this simpler starting crate change.

But now you have new problems: you gave Japan that wood crate, but you left Germany with a coin crate. This matchup that used to be relatively balanced (debatable, but for the sake of argument let's assume it was balanced) is suddenly Japan favoured. And let's say this suddenly swung in Japan's favour in a lot of other matchups as well. Suddenly Japan is a top civ, and we're looking to make other nerfs to it that weren't necessary before.

On the other hand there could also be a civ that's suddenly disadvantaged in a lot of matchups that they weren't disadvantaged in before because of the crate change, and we have to give this civ buffs that weren't necessary before.


On the flip side, maybe fixed crates won't even change anything. If we were to assume that the Japan/German matchup is 5% in favour of let's say Germany, for example, on a wood start, and more or less equal on any other crates start, then what happens if we change the starting crates forever and the matchup is suddenly always 5% in Japan's favour. Maybe neither civ will move up or down on the tier list, so we don't bother applying any further changes to either civs, but the matchup will be forever changed, and the fact that the matchup is favourable for one side over the other will also remain unchanged forever. Isn't this potentially even more imbalanced than random crates? I'm sure clicking into a matchup where the difference between each civ is between 0-5% is more balanced than where it's guaranteed to be 5% for one side.


So I guess my point is, yes we could potentially solve some issues with some of those swingy matchups with fixed crates, but it's not going to magically balance the game. There will be more work that needs to be done.

I think maybe the problem isn't so much that random crates are inherently imbalanced, but the few civs that are much happier with crates that the majority of civs are unhappy with, e.g. Dutch, China (because they can always get wood when their opponents get gold), and probably a couple of others that aren't coming to mind immediately. Obviously we can solve their happiness with these crates pretty easily by fixing them, but how many other problems do we create in the process? how many other changes do we need to make in a world with fixed crates? If it's less changes than we need to with random crates, then maybe it's worth it. If not, then maybe we should try to solve this particular issue with these few civs.

I know my argument is going to be instantly shut down by someone arguing that a wood crate start is clearly way better for Germany than it is for Japan or something equally subjective, but what can you do I guess.
[/spoiler]

After thinking about it I'm more or less neutral on the fixed crates discussion (maybe slightly in favour of random crates simply because I don't like change), but I'll throw this out here as food-for-thought anyway since there aren't many people offering good arguments for random crates.

I guess the main question we have to answer is whether or not fixed crates will actually create less imbalances and go from there.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by forgrin »

Imma put my comments in bold.


Mitoe wrote:On the other hand there could also be a civ that's suddenly disadvantaged in a lot of matchups that they weren't disadvantaged in before because of the crate change, and we have to give this civ buffs that weren't necessary before.


On the flip side, maybe fixed crates won't even change anything. If we were to assume that the Japan/German matchup is 5% in favour of let's say Germany, for example, on a wood start, and more or less equal on any other crates start, then what happens if we change the starting crates forever and the matchup is suddenly always 5% in Japan's favour. Maybe neither civ will move up or down on the tier list, so we don't bother applying any further changes to either civs, but the matchup will be forever changed, and the fact that the matchup is favourable for one side over the other will also remain unchanged forever. Isn't this potentially even more imbalanced than random crates? I'm sure clicking into a matchup where the difference between each civ is between 0-5% is more balanced than where it's guaranteed to be 5% for one side.
If anything then this is preferable for balance, to know what kind of MU you're clicking into when you do and not just crossing fingers and hoping for a good crate spawn? Also, it opens up more avenues for the MU to be decided by adaptations in BO and playstyle rather than just abusing that free advantage from the beginning.

So I guess my point is, yes we could potentially solve some issues with some of those swingy matchups with fixed crates, but it's not going to magically balance the game. There will be more work that needs to be done.
Agree, it's not a final or complete solution.

I think maybe the problem isn't so much that random crates are inherently imbalanced, but the few civs that are much happier with crates that the majority of civs are unhappy with, e.g. Dutch, China (because they can always get wood when their opponents get gold), and probably a couple of others that aren't coming to mind immediately. Obviously we can solve their happiness with these crates pretty easily by fixing them, but how many other problems do we create in the process? how many other changes do we need to make in a world with fixed crates? If it's less changes than we need to with random crates, then maybe it's worth it. If not, then maybe we should try to solve this particular issue with these few civs.
Probably on the side of fewer changes at this point. It also simplifies balance because you don't have to worry about things like MUs that can be swung by start crates alone. It seems most people agree that the problem with certain RE civs, such as Germans, was partially the ability to start TP some games. Removing that factor could allow us to revert ulhan nerf which would make alot of people happy. That's just one example. Germany still remains a perfectly strong civ starting market, they're just not as OP as they were on RE/FP 1.0.

After thinking about it I'm more or less neutral on the fixed crates discussion (maybe slightly in favour of random crates simply because I don't like change), but I'll throw this out here as food-for-thought anyway since there aren't many people offering good arguments for random crates.
I appreciate actually seeing a real argument for random crates, ty Mitoe.

I guess the main question we have to answer is whether or not fixed crates will actually create less imbalances and go from there.
Testing time!
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
India drsingh
Dragoon
Posts: 273
Joined: Jun 10, 2016
ESO: drsingh

Re: EP and its "mandate"

Post by drsingh »

I don't really support one or the other side of this argument. Mostly because I don't have that good understanding of matchups and current difficulties in balancing. Though I would like to say somethings.

Variation is good. Aoe has always had variation as a core concept. Aoe stressed always on adaptability of player as compared to memorised build+apm. Here with variation I mean having more options available to player. Variation in control of player.
Random starting crates is not variation. For most players except the most high skilled player it seems like a random buff or nerf to their civ at the starting of game. Random crates don't give players more option in game. Unless you consider playing handicap +/- randomly for variation. All this was considering any one civ alone.

But in a game eg1v1 there are two civ. The same crate start would be perfectly fine if it meant the same buff or nerf to each civ.
But that can't be, given the diversity of 14 civ. Each has different mechanics. A 100w start would have different scale of impact on Germany, japan and India eg.

Coming to balancing the game. Balancing up till now had been good. But after a bit more it will be impossible nearly to get the civ further close. Till this randomness persists. Having fixed crates, will narrow down the possible scenarios and make balancing lot easier, simpler and with more perfect balance possible than could be achieved ever with random crates.

About scale of change from re patch. I always feel changes should be restricted to underlying economics of civs rather than unit stat or cost change, as much as possible. I mean starting crates and villagers. Then the good players will be fine with the changes since it brings balance and low level players won't notice the change much, since the civ individually would have the same feel and play.
Just a random example - re port +100 food crate + fixed 100 wood instead of random. Will be equal to and slightly stronger than ep port till it reaches 17-18 villager pop. After that will play like re port. It might survive from there, might not. But this type of approach will always balance if both for 1v1 or team or large map with lots of tp.

Against it - it will decrease the skill cap required to play most civ. As with any change, there could be unintended consequences - like finding new imbalances.(but they shouldn't be anything which can't be fixed with tweaking crates again in subsequent patch)

My personal opinion - I only know one civ very well. When I joined this forum I was supporting fixed 400 wood start for India.
But now after practising age 1 macro a lot I see it is more a perceived disadvantage than actual. Aging up with 13-16 vill you are only 2-3 sec ahead or behind with different starts. 10/10 can't be done without wood start but is not viable on ep anyways. So now I don't think fixed start is actually going to affect India.
But if I consider a matchup. Eg India dutch. And 2 starts wood and gold. The small changes to both civ can add up if crates affect them differently. But still if it becomes eg 6-8 sec difference or 100vs difference, it would probably affect only the most highest level of ganeplay. So I'm not sure, because I can't be judge of that.
Also after reading the thread it seems 100w start is much bigger change for semi ff civ like Germany.

What I want to stress is - changes should be minimal in the sense of minimally perceived during game. Changes to crates >>unit stat or cost changes.
Changes should allow for easier balancing and faster too..
Along with balance game should develop more options (variation) for player, to keep game interesting. That means balance within various options of a civ, so one of them doesn't overshadow all other. To make civ viable buff to only one specific build of the civ should be avoided.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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