ESOCommunity

Face armor? What does that have to do here?
I thought we were talking strictly about China colonial units in a colonial scenario.

Some input on China colonial/semi FF play.

Thanks.

The problem with china colonial is that its colonial lol. Few civs have the setup to go colonial while china is mostly facing some handicaps (slow, cant easily fb, and doesnt have the greatest army).

I'm not talking about double-faced armor, just ranged resistance reducing Keshik damage. So in reality, when you build Ming, the Qiang are dealing 70 damage per 1.5 seconds, while the Keshiks are dealing 57.6 damage per 1.5 seconds against 20 RR and wiithout Mongolian Scourge.

Since I'm bored and I haven't shit-posted enough, why not move Old Han Reforms to Colonial? Discuss.

Not everyone knows the honor the see his/her posts liked by sudmakmak, though.

just revert china to re, with the exception perhaps of old han reforms. that can be tweaked to 75%-90%. Obviously with 50% it sux Something like that.

i agree

I would have made Reforms 50%/0% and kept the 1000f cost. Other than that, I think Chinese should be in a good spot with the current changes.

nah, livestock change is unnecessary. Cav change is also unnecessary. Of those 2 one should be reverted at least. Preferably cav train time. China was always in a good spot already. This was just totally fear change cause of mappool + some ppl upsetting with china. old han was really the only thing about china that needed change.

Every change is unncessary. Both of those changes are good, I think. If anything, Forbidden Army is still overly prevalent, and Chinese is still disproportionately powerful on livestock maps.

yea i agree with umeu, forbidden army trains faster because its only a batch of 4 cav, livestock change it fking takes so much longer than a livestock pen in terms of fattening rate, besides its a benefit of a village for a reason.

zoom wrote:Every change is unncessary. Both of those changes are good, I think. If anything, Forbidden Army is still overly prevalent, and Chinese is still disproportionately powerful on livestock maps.

so because germany are disproportionately powerful on tp maps, were gonna change german tps too now?

All civs have a map type they excel on, and for china that is livestock maps. China definitely doesn't excel more on livestock maps than tp civs do on tp maps.

imo, if the change was unnecessary, than it's not a good change. they aren't horrible (actually the old han change is horrible atm, the idea was fine, but it needs more tweaking), china is playable without it. but theyre worse for it, while they were never in a position where they needed to be nerfed.

Iirc China was nerfed pretty much because of one map: Tibet. Especially since the ESOC map pool is so big now I don't think we need most of those nerfs anymore, except maybe Old Han.

forgrin wrote:Iirc China was nerfed pretty much because of one map: Tibet. Especially since the ESOC map pool is so big now I don't think we need most of those nerfs anymore, except maybe Old Han.

a lot of the early esoc maps had livestock. kamchatka, tibet, indonesia, manchuria, hudson bay. but ye the pool has been expanded a bit more now. but even on those maps i think china wasnt that op. that said, i dont remember if villages already fattened slower than pens, i think they did. just like farms fatten slower. the idea of the change was fine, but i think its been overdone. but of all the changes i'm least concerned with that one. it doesnt really have a huge impact on most games.

China is weak atm in my opinion. I'm not sure they're really viable in competitive games unless it's a no TP/livestock map.
The old han nerf indeed isn't a big deal balance-wise, but I really dislike it.

Stop fucking changing every civ a million times. Since when is China so weak that they can't win games?

yemshi wrote:Stop fucking changing every civ a million times. Since when is China so weak that they can't win games?

They can win, but they're a bottom tier civ on standard maps.

Isn't that fine then? Do you simply want to tweak everything until AoE III: DE comes out just for the sake of it?

China is most likely one of the top civs in the current balance state. It does decent vs all civs and on all maps, including current top civs (Brits, India, Dutch). On the other hand doesn't win any MU super hard and requires quite some time before becoming a ridicolous civ which I repute the bottom line to consider nerfing a civ significantly at the moment.
I don't mind reverting the nerfs since they're very marginal and doesn't change the civ much, if by any extent. Especially the livestock fattening rate nerf makes no sense to me, since it was well within the boundaries of an acceptable civ bonus, considering it is by default already penalized compared to other civs.
Cav training time nerf is perhaps more coherent since it was a bit out of par while the unit are also very good. Again 29 secs or 33 secs is not something to lose the sleep on.
My only problem with the civ is that the classic FF is traditionally too powerful in its unharmed version, shortening the "ridicolous civ point" by quite a fair margin. It is because of the combination of various civ perks and not just one, but for sure China fortress shipments are outstanding and could very well be nerfed if we wanted things to be coherent (brit intervention, 10 skirms, 11 changdao, all are crazy good shipments).
In the end I think the civ can be left untouched at his RE or EP version, since none seems interested in reworking it, nerfing the Fortress age and buffing colonial instead.

Hazza54321 wrote:yea i agree with umeu, forbidden army trains faster because its only a batch of 4 cav, livestock change it fking takes so much longer than a livestock pen in terms of fattening rate, besides its a benefit of a village for a reason.

FA trains faster beyond that, which is why it was changed in the first place. We looked at this in detail at the time. Livestock fattening was nerfed because Chinese overperforms on livestock maps to a significant enough degree, and is basically fine otherwise, apart from FA being evidently dominant.

umeu wrote:

zoom wrote:Every change is unncessary. Both of those changes are good, I think. If anything, Forbidden Army is still overly prevalent, and Chinese is still disproportionately powerful on livestock maps.

so because germany are disproportionately powerful on tp maps, were gonna change german tps too now?

All civs have a map type they excel on, and for china that is livestock maps. China definitely doesn't excel more on livestock maps than tp civs do on tp maps.

imo, if the change was unnecessary, than it's not a good change. they aren't horrible (actually the old han change is horrible atm, the idea was fine, but it needs more tweaking), china is playable without it. but theyre worse for it, while they were never in a position where they needed to be nerfed.

If that were a realistic option that's indeed exactly what we would have done, remember? Chinese definitely did excel more on several livestock maps than TP-civilizations do on TP-maps. 5000f at 9 minutes says "hai".

IMO every change is unncessary. The question is whether a change is desirable and essential enough.

The whole overperforms is a judgement given based on pretty much nothing. It's not like since you have data from a tournament (a bunch of games in fact) that you can draw conclusions like this.
It's clear China has an advantage on livestock maps and that naturally translates ot a higher win rate. Whether or not it overperforms is up for discussion. In doubt you shouldn't touch it and focus on stuff that is less controversial, e.g. over the par shipments.
For the record, EP maps generally have less livestock than RE maps and also more evenly spread. It's unlikely for China to even saturate 2 villages while that is an actual possibility on RE maps.

And no, there are some civs that are necessary because imbalances are damn obvious.
Without digging into this phylosphical topic, some features are inherently broken. Those require changes.
Desiderable changes are more related to where you want to push the meta.

Garja wrote:The whole overperforms is a judgement given based on pretty much nothing. It's not like since you have data from a tournament (a bunch of games in fact) that you can draw conclusions like this.
It's clear China has an advantage on livestock maps and that naturally translates ot a higher win rate. Whether or not it overperforms is up for discussion. In doubt you shouldn't touch it and focus on stuff that is less controversial, e.g. over the par shipments.
For the record, EP maps generally have less livestock than RE maps and also more evenly spread. It's unlikely for China to even saturate 2 villages while that is an actual possibility on RE maps.

And no, there are some civs that are necessary because imbalances are damn obvious.
Without digging into this phylosphical topic, some features are inherently broken. Those require changes.
Desiderable changes are more related to where you want to push the meta.

You seem to misunderstand my usage of the term "overperforming" then. Chinese most definitely is overperforming on Livestock maps, compared to non-livestock maps. Before the change, it was considered a problem – hence the change.