User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Skirmisher
Posts: 150
ESO: Milky__

01 Mar 2016, 00:28

Hi guys! Unfortunate I have been very busy with work over the last 5 months however in the last 3 days I have finally put together a draft of the Treaty 40 balance changes that myself and other top TR players think are suitable. This started out as me just fooling around with booms, but it has grown and I'm stoked with the amount of messages and interest I get whenever I log onto ESO.

I welcome any suggestions you have that I may have looked over or missed. I'm no expert in most civs however I have tried to consult where I can to the appropriate players. Please take a look and if you have any questions please post them in this thread!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P6Q ... Hzp7U/edit

My goal is to have open testing in about a months time so please don't spam me about sending you the files. I want to have some kind of launcher before this gets out in the wild to avoid computer-novices from destroying their files.

Some may question as to why there are so many changes, especially compared to the EP. You must realise that treaty has always been in a terrible state of balance where 4 civs are banned, 4 civs are over played and the rest are terrible.

We hope to run a second treaty tournament on this "patch" so we can get a large sample of games to check. Special thanks to Charlemagen, Cometk, dicktator_, Gichtenlord, Lukas_L99, _PI.
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me


howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 01
Posts: 1739
ESO: _NiceKING_

01 Mar 2016, 00:33

Good job!
Btw do you consider implementing anti-cheat from EP?
Image
ImageImage
User avatar
United States of America musketeer925
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 01
Posts: 1437
ESO: musketeer925

01 Mar 2016, 00:34

Hey, not sure how you guys are hoping to switch between your patch and RE at the moment, or how you're doing it now, but a mod switching feature is part of the next update to the EP launcher, and would be perfectly capable of doing this if you don't have a method.

Could also include the EP's anticheat as well, but that'd only be possible with EP team collaboration.
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 01
Posts: 1739
ESO: _NiceKING_

01 Mar 2016, 00:38

musketeer925 wrote:Hey, not sure how you guys are hoping to switch between your patch and RE at the moment, or how you're doing it now, but a mod switching feature is part of the next update to the EP launcher, and would be perfectly capable of doing this if you don't have a method.

Could also include the EP's anticheat as well, but that'd only be possible with EP team collaboration.


It would be awesome!
Image
ImageImage
User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Skirmisher
Posts: 150
ESO: Milky__

01 Mar 2016, 00:42

I currently have no kind of launcher or any anti-cheating systems in place. I will definitely be in contact with the EP team in the near future. No point in trying to split the community when we can collaborate!
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me


howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
United States of America musketeer925
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 01
Posts: 1437
ESO: musketeer925

01 Mar 2016, 00:43

I look forward to working with you on that!
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 02
Posts: 1062

01 Mar 2016, 00:45

I dont like the changes on iroquese. First you nerf their eco hard and then reduce their army pop by like ~35-40 pop(no population dance, light cannons take one more pop), while also weaken their lategame eco even more, since they heavily rely on gold, when wood is out and they have to switch to different units than huamincas + less vills + still no option for faster gold gatherrate
User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Skirmisher
Posts: 150
ESO: Milky__

01 Mar 2016, 01:01

I have to agree gich. I think I wrote in the notes that Iro and Sioux were the civs I'm changing last and I haven't finished them. My theory is that they will actually have the same fur trade that they had previously due to less wood costs with tomas and kanya. Their military pop was already insane especially with native shipments and LC mass was the most cancerous thing to deal with. There has literally been no testing with iro as I've barely touched them. It will be interesting.
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me


howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
No Flag thebritish
Jaeger
Posts: 3769

01 Mar 2016, 01:15

ocemilky wrote:Hi guys! Unfortunate I have been very busy with work over the last 5 months however in the last 3 days I have finally put together a draft of the Treaty 40 balance changes that myself and other top TR players think are suitable. This started out as me just fooling around with booms, but it has grown and I'm stoked with the amount of messages and interest I get whenever I log onto ESO.

I welcome any suggestions you have that I may have looked over or missed. I'm no expert in most civs however I have tried to consult where I can to the appropriate players. Please take a look and if you have any questions please post them in this thread!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P6Q ... Hzp7U/edit

My goal is to have open testing in about a months time so please don't spam me about sending you the files. I want to have some kind of launcher before this gets out in the wild to avoid computer-novices from destroying their files.

Some may question as to why there are so many changes, especially compared to the EP. You must realise that treaty has always been in a terrible state of balance where 4 civs are banned, 4 civs are over played and the rest are terrible.

We hope to run a second treaty tournament on this "patch" so we can get a large sample of games to check. Special thanks to Charlemagen, dicktator_, Gichtenlord, Lukas_L99, _PI.

Why British Longbowmens werent touched?
British needs a skirm unit to deal with HI
krichk wrote: For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge thebritish
User avatar
Netherlands Mr_Bramboy
ESOC Media Team
Posts: 4169
ESO: mr_bramboy
Location: Amsterdam

01 Mar 2016, 01:20

thebritish wrote:
ocemilky wrote:Hi guys! Unfortunate I have been very busy with work over the last 5 months however in the last 3 days I have finally put together a draft of the Treaty 40 balance changes that myself and other top TR players think are suitable. This started out as me just fooling around with booms, but it has grown and I'm stoked with the amount of messages and interest I get whenever I log onto ESO.

I welcome any suggestions you have that I may have looked over or missed. I'm no expert in most civs however I have tried to consult where I can to the appropriate players. Please take a look and if you have any questions please post them in this thread!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P6Q ... Hzp7U/edit

My goal is to have open testing in about a months time so please don't spam me about sending you the files. I want to have some kind of launcher before this gets out in the wild to avoid computer-novices from destroying their files.

Some may question as to why there are so many changes, especially compared to the EP. You must realise that treaty has always been in a terrible state of balance where 4 civs are banned, 4 civs are over played and the rest are terrible.

We hope to run a second treaty tournament on this "patch" so we can get a large sample of games to check. Special thanks to Charlemagen, dicktator_, Gichtenlord, Lukas_L99, _PI.

Why British Longbowmens werent touched?
British needs a skirm unit to deal with HI

lol this guy
User avatar
United States of America Durokan
ESOC Maps Team
Posts: 893
ESO: Durokan

01 Mar 2016, 01:21

british can deal with HI with their own HI + cannons
Check out my Custom Map Workshop here!
viewtopic.php?p=98718#top
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Lancer
Posts: 626
ESO: Lukas_L99

01 Mar 2016, 01:23

Hmm I feel like these are a bit too many changes and I don't understand some of them, I will list them and explain why:

Overall:
-why would you change the cheaper native card? I think it's totally fine how it is now
-Native Warrior Societies (+33% native unit build limit) removed - Why? I understand that it's OP as a team card but I think it's alright for Sioux, Iro, Aztecs and Dutch to have it
-Why make macehualtin and tomahawks cost coin? This will make the aztec/iro eco worse after all because they gather wood extremely fast while their coin gather rate is really really bad. I understand that you want to make them playable on other maps but these changes will hurt their eco more than you would think

Aztecs:
-I don't understand why you would make arrow knights cost wood/coin from food/coin when you change mace cost from food/wood to food/coin, with that change aztec will have wood problems on other maps than Andes aswell
-I don't feel that jaguar prowl knights are too good vs heavy inf, they barely reach their targets anyways

China:
-Imo leave China train their units via the already existing banner armies, let all art cards influence every piece of artillery (flying crows will suck without them) and Idk if I like the keshik change, I think they're fine

Dutch:
-We will need many test games with Dutch, but the changes look interesting

France:
-France needs also a lot of testing, I don't see the point in making grenadiers trainable, they're useless anyways

Germans:
-Making the German XP generation normal will make them much stronger cause they'll probably be able to send both training cards and all eco cards during boom while I think Germany is perfectly balances ad it is now (except maybe massing HC which you limited anyways), no other change needed for Ger I think

Iro:
-Let Iro still have their 20 Vill age up imo, I think removing the art population card and making their inf cards not improve natives is enough (along with the tomahawk/kanya changes), people just need to learn how to play versus them

Japan:
-Japan needs lots of testing, changes look interesting

Ottoman:
-I think the only change Ottoman needs is slightly faster janissary training, a 2,5 multiplier vs cav, an infinite bombard shipment and abus having an x2 multiplier versus light cavalry (up from 1,5 which means they had a 0,75 multiplier vs goon type units), that's it

Port:
-removing the 2 explorer card is the only change ports need IMO

Russia:
-I like that ger is the only civ that has an infinite heavy cannon, its just something which makes them unique, maybe just make the strelet hp/dmg card also buff musketeers aswell, I also think that cossacks are fine (they're pretty expensive and you'll drain hard vs a decent opponent)

Sioux:
-interesting idea with the cetan bows, I think that, less infantry training time and the infinite 7 bison card is enough

Spain:
-Spain is totally fine imo, no changes needed
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Lancer
Posts: 833
ESO: black_thought

01 Mar 2016, 01:24

i think finding ways to integrate the treaty patch into a supremacy patch is crucial, but it requires some rethinking of the changes currently listed:

imo,
Image
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Lancer
Posts: 626
ESO: Lukas_L99

01 Mar 2016, 01:29

Cometk wrote:i think finding ways to integrate the treaty patch into a supremacy patch is crucial, but it requires some rethinking of the changes currently listed


I totally agree with that, 1 patch that balances both sup and treaty would be awesome
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
Ninja
Donator 03
Posts: 12111
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

01 Mar 2016, 01:30

Mr_Bramboy wrote:
thebritish wrote:
ocemilky wrote:Hi guys! Unfortunate I have been very busy with work over the last 5 months however in the last 3 days I have finally put together a draft of the Treaty 40 balance changes that myself and other top TR players think are suitable. This started out as me just fooling around with booms, but it has grown and I'm stoked with the amount of messages and interest I get whenever I log onto ESO.

I welcome any suggestions you have that I may have looked over or missed. I'm no expert in most civs however I have tried to consult where I can to the appropriate players. Please take a look and if you have any questions please post them in this thread!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P6Q ... Hzp7U/edit

My goal is to have open testing in about a months time so please don't spam me about sending you the files. I want to have some kind of launcher before this gets out in the wild to avoid computer-novices from destroying their files.

Some may question as to why there are so many changes, especially compared to the EP. You must realise that treaty has always been in a terrible state of balance where 4 civs are banned, 4 civs are over played and the rest are terrible.

We hope to run a second treaty tournament on this "patch" so we can get a large sample of games to check. Special thanks to Charlemagen, dicktator_, Gichtenlord, Lukas_L99, _PI.

Why British Longbowmens werent touched?
British needs a skirm unit to deal with HI

lol this guy

He couldve been a great head of propaganda. Typical case of born at the wrong place at the wrong time.

OT: skimming through that list it appears to me that EP and trP are not really combinable like Id hoped they could be. Thats a pity. At least, I dont think the sup community is willing to do concessions large enough to meet the tr player demands.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Brazil Buckethead
Retired Contributor
Posts: 350

01 Mar 2016, 02:10

Lukas_L99 wrote:
Cometk wrote:i think finding ways to integrate the treaty patch into a supremacy patch is crucial, but it requires some rethinking of the changes currently listed


I totally agree with that, 1 patch that balances both sup and treaty would be awesome


As Zoi said the segment EP 1.2 update, If the Treaty Comm. suggest changes that do not much affect negatively the Supremacy, I think we can implement these changes.

Go to forum "ESOC Patch Discussion" and open a thread like "Treaty Discussion Thread" Then, make suggestions and try to get into an agreement with the EP Balance Team.
User avatar
United States of America dicktator_
Lancer
Posts: 602

01 Mar 2016, 02:23

Lukas_L99 wrote:Hmm I feel like these are a bit too many changes and I don't understand some of them, I will list them and explain why:

Overall:
-why would you change the cheaper native card? I think it's totally fine how it is now Agree on this point, hopefully milky or tanner can provide an explanation.
-Native Warrior Societies (+33% native unit build limit) removed - Why? I understand that it's OP as a team card but I think it's alright for Sioux, Iro, Aztecs and Dutch to have it It's far too influential in nat fight, it's not fair for some civs to be able to make 32 huamincas and other civs to only be able to make 26. Maybe we could just nerf but not remove it.
-Why make macehualtin and tomahawks cost coin? This will make the aztec/iro eco worse after all because they gather wood extremely fast while their coin gather rate is really really bad. I understand that you want to make them playable on other maps but these changes will hurt their eco more than you would think Yeah, we wanted to make them less tree dependent because of the limited amount of trees. Further testing will be required to see how much of a problem it is.

Aztecs:
-I don't understand why you would make arrow knights cost wood/coin from food/coin when you change mace cost from food/wood to food/coin, with that change aztec will have wood problems on other maps than Andes aswell The idea was that all other anti-art units cost either wood/coin or food/coin so Arrow Knights should as well.
-I don't feel that jaguar prowl knights are too good vs heavy inf, they barely reach their targets anyways Agree lol, but remember we did buff their HP iirc.

China:
-Imo leave China train their units via the already existing banner armies, let all art cards influence every piece of artillery (flying crows will suck without them) and Idk if I like the keshik change, I think they're fine Keshiks were pretty weak IMO. We could extend the artillery cards (at least the combat one maybe) to effect Flying Crows as well. We didn't want them to have heavy cannons stronger than their european counterparts but we ended up removing heavy cannons from China's consulate anyway.

Dutch:
-We will need many test games with Dutch, but the changes look interesting

France:
-France needs also a lot of testing, I don't see the point in making grenadiers trainable, they're useless anyways Agree lol

Germans:
-Making the German XP generation normal will make them much stronger cause they'll probably be able to send both training cards and all eco cards during boom while I think Germany is perfectly balances ad it is now (except maybe massing HC which you limited anyways), no other change needed for Ger I think I think it will make Germany slightly stronger but it won't be gamebreaking. Remember they lost to brits out of nats.

Iro:
-Let Iro still have their 20 Vill age up imo, I think removing the art population card and making their inf cards not improve natives is enough (along with the tomahawk/kanya changes), people just need to learn how to play versus them Like milky said the overpop shipments make Iro's army insane, however I understand your concerns. More testing will be needed for this, we might have to revert back to vills (maybe make it 10 instead) and/or increase their coin gathering.

Japan:
-Japan needs lots of testing, changes look interesting

Ottoman:
-I think the only change Ottoman needs is slightly faster janissary training, a 2,5 multiplier vs cav, an infinite bombard shipment and abus having an x2 multiplier versus light cavalry (up from 1,5 which means they had a 0,75 multiplier vs goon type units), that's it They need an eco boost as well IMO as their coin gathering was quite shit. Remember whenever I played German against Gitchenlord's otto 2014-now I would win by like 500 points.

Port:
-removing the 2 explorer card is the only change ports need IMO They're too weak in natives then though imo. Also IMO mortar card had to be nerfed because although in a 1v1 situation mortars aren't imbalanced at all, when mortaring with teammates they can be.

Russia:
-I like that ger is the only civ that has an infinite heavy cannon, its just something which makes them unique, maybe just make the strelet hp/dmg card also buff musketeers aswell, I also think that cossacks are fine (they're pretty expensive and you'll drain hard vs a decent opponent) I was also iffy about giving Russia heavy cannons. The idea was that it would be difficult to buff Russia's infantry without making them OP, and since Russia relies heavily on artillery already, adding heavy cannons would be the best way to boost their military.

Sioux:
-interesting idea with the cetan bows, I think that, less infantry training time and the infinite 7 bison card is enough I'm not sure, they're eco was pretty fucking weak with only 74 vills gathering resources (25 on firepit). More testing will be needed on this.

Spain:
-Spain is totally fine imo, no changes needed They were too weak out of nats/without Andes nats and lancers did a bit too well against huamincas/other HI.
Thanks for your input.
Image
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Lancer
Posts: 626
ESO: Lukas_L99

01 Mar 2016, 02:48

dicktator_ wrote:
Lukas_L99 wrote:Aztecs:
-I don't understand why you would make arrow knights cost wood/coin from food/coin when you change mace cost from food/wood to food/coin, with that change aztec will have wood problems on other maps than Andes aswell The idea was that all other anti-art units cost either wood/coin or food/coin so Arrow Knights should as well.
-I don't feel that jaguar prowl knights are too good vs heavy inf, they barely reach their targets anyways Agree lol, but remember we did buff their HP iirc.


Iro:
-Let Iro still have their 20 Vill age up imo, I think removing the art population card and making their inf cards not improve natives is enough (along with the tomahawk/kanya changes), people just need to learn how to play versus them Like milky said the overpop shipments make Iro's army insane, however I understand your concerns. More testing will be needed for this, we might have to revert back to vills (maybe make it 10 instead) and/or increase their coin gathering.

Ottoman:
-I think the only change Ottoman needs is slightly faster janissary training, a 2,5 multiplier vs cav, an infinite bombard shipment and abus having an x2 multiplier versus light cavalry (up from 1,5 which means they had a 0,75 multiplier vs goon type units), that's it They need an eco boost as well IMO as their coin gathering was quite shit. Remember whenever I played German against Gitchenlord's otto 2014-now I would win by like 500 points.


Spain:
-Spain is totally fine imo, no changes needed They were too weak out of nats/without Andes nats and lancers did a bit too well against huamincas/other HI.
Thanks for your input.


Ah, I didn't know you buffed jaguar prowl knight's hp, well we could just make the age 4 card for 2000 coin also give them 20% or so more HP additional to the 25% dmg buff, x3 multiplier is still fine IMO (would also be good if we want to make one FP for both sup and tr since it wouldn't influence sup as much)

Probably only make one native shipment allowed to be sent at a time if that's possible, or just remove one of it?

Hmm the infinite bombard shipment will "buff" their eco slightly since you get units for free which will usually last for a long time, we need more testgames with them to see if it's enough, if not maybe add rum distillery like we did in the previous version?

Also idk if spain is that bad out of nats (obviously it is vs runs), but we barely used them there since they're obviously better in nats, though I think theyre alright out of nats
User avatar
United States of America dicktator_
Lancer
Posts: 602

01 Mar 2016, 02:49

Cometk wrote:i think finding ways to integrate the treaty patch into a supremacy patch is crucial, but it requires some rethinking of the changes currently listed:

aztec:
- macehualtin: instead of buffing the base stats, change imperial upgrade to +75%/+75% See my response to France.
- arrow knights: cost 1 population (down from 2). this would offset warrior priests costing population. We tried making arrow knights cost 1 pop, we determined it was too imbalanced as arrow knights are kinda impossible to kill with ERK protecting them.

british:
- rockets: do they really need a nerf to cavalry? ;d I think so.

china:
- keshiks: would need to know how the ep team feel about that
- banner armies: i wouldn't like it if china could train individual units; banner armies are a part of the civ's flavor, and are also a way in which the civ is balanced. Lukas said the same thing, if more people feel this way we'll probably just keep banner armies.

dutch:
- ageup politician: if you're buffing the villager limit, a nerf to the industrial ageup politician is unnecessary No, because with ageup vills, if you lose those vills you can't retrain them.
- banks and the eco upgrades: could probably be made in line with what the EP does, instead of buffing coffee trade you can buff tulip speculation or the imperial upgrade as these are irrelevant to supremacy early and midgame.
- ruyters: not gonna do the maths but tag the buffs to the imperial upgrades instead of the base stats Ruyters are weak enough that an increase in base stats is needed imo.

france:
- age 2 improved native warriors: idk if this really needs to be removed. a nerf would be fine imo The age 3 card was kept but nerfed to 10 percent. One card which boosts native combat is more than enough imo.
- cavalry: i think these changes need a complete overall to ever be compatible with supremacy jesus christ what have we done As Jerom stated, I don't think it's possible to combine our treaty patch with the supremacy patch. If we did that I wouldn't be happy tbh, treaty and supremacy are two separate game types and thus should have separate patches balancing them. It would be like trying to balance DM and supremacy in the same patch. My idea was that we would do something along the lines of what musketeer925 suggested, make it so that people can start up the treaty patch from the EP launcher.
- garde imperial 3: fix this, as it's an age 4 tech that gives age 5 upgrades lol. maybe there can be a shadow tech to french grenadiers. but if you were to use this card in supremacy, it'd be completely broken to have imperial grens in industrial

german:
- shipments: uhlan shit needs to be reworked idk. like, taking the uhlans away the uhlans from the heavy cannon shipment is fine but idk if there's a real need to remove it from the other shipments From a treaty perspective there's no reason for shipments to even have uhlans either They just make booming more awkward and award opponents exp.

india:
- siege eles: change the imperial upgrade. these eles would be broken in fortress age
- tigers: are they like musk or like coyote runners? i think the latter is fine but the former would make them super UP Like musk, I have the same concern tbh.

iroquois:
lol wtf Iro needs a lot of testing/work.

japan:
- villagers: no need to be 75 -> 80, just buff one of the rice paddy upgrades that are being combined Idk. Vill limit is a good way to buff their eco and nerf their military pop at the same time.
- ashi/yumi military cards: keep them as normal, but make the imperial upgrades +40%/+40% in accordance

ottoman:
- mosque villager upgrades: i actually like these and think they would be interesting to try in supremacy. it would need testing though
- janissary: imperial upgrade gives +0.5 multiplier to cavalry and LI
- cav archers: i think the armor thing needs to be rethought Other goons have ranged resistance, right? Why not CA?

portuguese:
- treaty of tordesillas: does the besteiro tech need to be removed? is it possible to make the native upgrade tech it's own thing? 22 Xbows for 2400 wood was kinda meh in the first place.

russia:
- strelet: imperial upgrade gives +2 range
- cossack: imperial upgrade gives +45%/+40%
- national redoubt: this needs testing. imo blockhouses/stables/artillery foundry would actually be a stronger running tool than simply forts. could just give muskets the ability to build only blockhouses. I like the battlefield construction TBH, it lets them retain mobility despite forts being removed. Might be nerfed if through testing it ends up being too OP.
- oprichniks: these changes to opris don't make sense when you're removing hussars from france; what purpose do these units have to exist but be autistic cossacks? changes to opris need to be rethought Hmm wow, I didn't notice they were killing Opri as a siege unit. I thought we were just reducing their speed :/. I agree changes need to be rethought, Opris should be nerfed as a siege unit but not killed.

sioux:
- great hunter: doesn't need a nerf. they have spice trade lol Didn't nerf it, we made it effect all resources.

spain:
- ageup politicians: i like that it's the small eco boost spain need for their treaty boom, but changes like these go against the EP mantra. so i think they'd need to be rethought
As always, thanks for your input.
Edit: I'll give you guys an example as to why treaty patch and EP shouldn't be combined into one patch as I'm sure I'll have multiple people that will argue with me on this point. Goon range for ports will definitely be nerfed at some point in the EP. In the supremacy late game, goons with 20 range are too op. However, in treaty, they are perfectly balanced as is, and a nerf to their range could possibly make them weaker and a lot more beatable.
Image
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Howdah
Posts: 1714
ESO: lemmings121

01 Mar 2016, 03:16

Lukas_L99 wrote:
Cometk wrote:i think finding ways to integrate the treaty patch into a supremacy patch is crucial, but it requires some rethinking of the changes currently listed

I totally agree with that, 1 patch that balances both sup and treaty would be awesome


I dont think thats a huge problem to have 2 patches, if it is possible to just make one laucher where you select in witch patch to launch the game, so its easy to alternate if you play both modes..

If treaty only required small changes I think that both could be done together, but looking into that huge list of changes.... is probably impossible to make it compatible with sup 1v1, so better having 2 good and separeted patchs then one strange messy big patch...
Original llama, since March 2015.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Lancer
Posts: 833
ESO: black_thought

01 Mar 2016, 03:22

lots of text regarding balance inside V

spoiler
Image
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Jaeger
Donator 03
Posts: 3238

01 Mar 2016, 04:02

I pretty strongly disagree with the idea of getting rid of team bonuses. I think specific ones are a bit too much (Portuguese team wall improvement and Russia's fast training infantry) but having team bonuses makes team games more fun and creates more possibilities. Why are they being removed?
User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Skirmisher
Posts: 150
ESO: Milky__

01 Mar 2016, 04:06

I'm not going to try to make balance changes to treaty for supremacy, if that makes sense. I think trying to merge them is a bad idea because some changes affect both too much. I'd appreciate it if your comments on the balance changes are actually in the context of treaty balance, not sup balance.

My idea with the cheaper natives card was that with certain civs like spain, brit, and ger,you can spam them and not get punished as hard as a port. Also thinking of lowering the build limit of humanicas to 10 per post but I'm unsure.

I wanted to keep 2 explorers because port should remain the utility civ that they are. It's an interesting and mostly unique mechanic, it was just over powered.

With aztec, you won't need to gather as much wood as before with mace costing coin, so you should still be able to sustain gold production. That's the theory anyway, and as with most of these changes, it needs testing.

With the China art cards, yes they should affect crows. I didn't mean for them not to.

Iroquois and Sioux I don't really know how to balance, and not many ideas were thrown around. My idea behind the pop dance removal was with 20 vills from age up gone, their overpop from the get go will just be nuts. perhaps removing siege pop card might be enough but with an economy less reliant on wood, they can focus on a bigger trade, or the same trade but with 20 less vills. I'm very unsure about iro.
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me


howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Lancer
Posts: 833
ESO: black_thought

01 Mar 2016, 04:09

also, something of note about the dutch ageup politician. assuming absolutely no downtimes in regard to vill production/ageup times/upgrade times, and no walking time, here are some calcs

the current dutch boom tries to finish aging up to industrial as the 50th villager pops. the ageup politician grants them 4 villagers, allowing for an overpop of 54/50. dutch age to industrial around 16~ minutes, meaning for 24 minutes of the boom, dutch have this overpop working for them. but, even still, dutch can't really age up earlier than the time they hit this 50th vill. they hit 2000f 1200c at ~40 vills. so dutch doesn't really lose much for waiting till the right time to queue for industrial. for the sake of ease, lets assume these vills are tasked to fully upgraded mills

base gather rate for mill: 0.67 food p/s
fully upgraded mill gather rate (235%): 1.5745 food p/s
adjusted base gather rate for mill (accounting for walking time): 0.5 food p/s
adjusted fully upgraded mill gather rate: 1.175 food p/s

24m x 60s x 4v x 1.175 food p/s = 6768 resources gathered by these vills. significant value, wow very nice.

if dutch have a vill cap of 65, then to get an overpop with the industrial politician you must delay your industrial ageup by 125 seconds (5 vills per tc, 25s per vill).

thus, 22m x 60s x 4v x 1.175 food p/s = 6204 resources gathered by these vills

however, something is lost when you delay your ageup time: you lose 2 minutes of factories, 2 minutes of tulip speculation, 2 minutes of imperial upgrades. now let's calculate what that entails

base gather rate for factory: 5.5 res p/s
upgraded gather rate for factory: 7.15 res p/s
tulip speculation upgrade for 1 bank: 0.4125 coin p/s
tulip speculation upgrade for 8 banks: 3.3 coin p/s
imperial wood upgrade for 65 vills: 32.5 wood p/s

unupgraded factory resources gathered: 5.5 x 30 = 165
upgraded factory resources gathered (accounting for two facs): 7.15 x 90 x 2 = 1287
tulip speculation resources gathered: 3.3 x 120 = 396
imperial wood upgrade resources gathered: 32.5 x 120 = 3900

so: 165 + 1287 + 396 + 3900 = 5748 resources lost.

a normal dutch boom loses nothing and gains 6700 resources for using the 4v trick.
a fan patch dutch boom would lose 5750 resources and gain 6200 resources for doing the 4v trick. for his trouble the dutch player who delays his imperial by 2 minutes gets ~500 resources for it. well, fuck my ass and call me silly, but i don't think it's really worth it. whether you want to remove it or not, idk
Image
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 01
Posts: 1739
ESO: _NiceKING_

01 Mar 2016, 04:13

fightinfrenchman wrote:I pretty strongly disagree with the idea of getting rid of team bonuses. I think specific ones are a bit too much (Portuguese team wall improvement and Russia's fast training infantry) but having team bonuses makes team games more fun and creates more possibilities. Why are they being removed?

If, for example, your opponent gets team sw/mills or team fast training infantry and you don't, that's a distinct advantage that they got for free. It is not very fair.
Image
ImageImage

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests