Spanish Discussion Thread
Spanish Discussion Thread
Yes, the meta is the way people generally play the game, not even necessarily civ specifically. Like "TAD meta revolves around cav more than nilla meta".
An example that I believe improved balance but didn't change the meta is Sioux br nerf, which doesn't probably change the way the civ will be played, but will make it less naughty.
That said, Iro meta will probably be different, since rushing all in is not convenient anymore without a TP in age1. But that may aswell be the effect of an overnerf.
I don't think "avoiding picking Port into Japan" is a meta related decision, because meta-wise and theoretically ports have ways to beat Japan. The problem is balance related imo, as it can be solved with few tweaks on numbers. The strat will remain the same but instead of losing it would barely win.
Balance and meta are certainly related.
An example that I believe improved balance but didn't change the meta is Sioux br nerf, which doesn't probably change the way the civ will be played, but will make it less naughty.
That said, Iro meta will probably be different, since rushing all in is not convenient anymore without a TP in age1. But that may aswell be the effect of an overnerf.
I don't think "avoiding picking Port into Japan" is a meta related decision, because meta-wise and theoretically ports have ways to beat Japan. The problem is balance related imo, as it can be solved with few tweaks on numbers. The strat will remain the same but instead of losing it would barely win.
Balance and meta are certainly related.
Spanish Discussion Thread
Agree about Sioux br nerf. Fixing broken units is just necessary.
And I think you did not understand what I meant with the Port and Japan example. I did not say that making the matchup more balanced would necessarily change the way the matchup is played/won from either side. I said it affects the game's meta. Civilization matchups are part of the game's meta. When a player is in a 1v1 lobby, picks Port, and the opponent switches to Japan, that's a meta decision. When the port switches to mirror or Brit, that's a meta decision. When you change the balance of a game, you change its selection meta unless everything is done via blind pick. That's not an opinion, it's just a fact of what "meta" means. It is an extremely broad term that encompasses nearly all decisions players make in a competitive environment. Hence my initial argument that trying to balance around a meta is almost always a poor design decision--you balance for a healthy game, not to reinforce players' decisions in a broken environment. And you know that no matter what you do, when you balance the game, you will fundamentally change the "meta" in some way.
Edit:
The way you get more specific about this though, is by designating "sub-metagames". For example. Brit v Japan has a "meta" of its own. Spain fortress play has a meta. Spain colonial play (if and when it is done) has a meta. Everything imaginable has a meta for all intents and purposes, so just saying "the meta" is incredibly unspecific and can only be taken to mean "everything" unless you add some serious clarity to what you mean by it.
And I think you did not understand what I meant with the Port and Japan example. I did not say that making the matchup more balanced would necessarily change the way the matchup is played/won from either side. I said it affects the game's meta. Civilization matchups are part of the game's meta. When a player is in a 1v1 lobby, picks Port, and the opponent switches to Japan, that's a meta decision. When the port switches to mirror or Brit, that's a meta decision. When you change the balance of a game, you change its selection meta unless everything is done via blind pick. That's not an opinion, it's just a fact of what "meta" means. It is an extremely broad term that encompasses nearly all decisions players make in a competitive environment. Hence my initial argument that trying to balance around a meta is almost always a poor design decision--you balance for a healthy game, not to reinforce players' decisions in a broken environment. And you know that no matter what you do, when you balance the game, you will fundamentally change the "meta" in some way.
Edit:
The way you get more specific about this though, is by designating "sub-metagames". For example. Brit v Japan has a "meta" of its own. Spain fortress play has a meta. Spain colonial play (if and when it is done) has a meta. Everything imaginable has a meta for all intents and purposes, so just saying "the meta" is incredibly unspecific and can only be taken to mean "everything" unless you add some serious clarity to what you mean by it.
Spanish Discussion Thread
What people on AOE3 mean by meta is the build orders you do in specific matchups or in general, and the units and compositions a civ tends to make, nothing more.lesllamas wrote:Agree about Sioux br nerf. Fixing broken units is just necessary.
And I think you did not understand what I meant with the Port and Japan example. I did not say that making the matchup more balanced would necessarily change the way the matchup is played/won from either side. I said it affects the game''s meta. Civilization matchups are part of the game''s meta. When a player is in a 1v1 lobby, picks Port, and the opponent switches to Japan, that''s a meta decision. When the port switches to mirror or Brit, that''s a meta decision. When you change the balance of a game, you change its selection meta unless everything is done via blind pick. That''s not an opinion, it''s just a fact of what "meta" means. It is an extremely broad term that encompasses nearly all decisions players make in a competitive environment. Hence my initial argument that trying to balance around a meta is almost always a poor design decision--you balance for a healthy game, not to reinforce players'' decisions in a broken environment. And you know that no matter what you do, when you balance the game, you will fundamentally change the "meta" in some way.
Edit:
The way you get more specific about this though, is by designating "sub-metagames". For example. Brit v Japan has a "meta" of its own. Spain fortress play has a meta. Spain colonial play (if and when it is done) has a meta. Everything imaginable has a meta for all intents and purposes, so just saying "the meta" is incredibly unspecific and can only be taken to mean "everything" unless you add some serious clarity to what you mean by it.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Legoļ»æ
Spanish Discussion Thread
Imo civ picking is not a meta-decision. And the reason is that players don't necessarily agree on which civ is better and/or why.
It's more of a mind game, because it is based on the personal assessment of the MU and probably some consideration about how to exploit opponent's style/beliefs.
It's more of a mind game, because it is based on the personal assessment of the MU and probably some consideration about how to exploit opponent's style/beliefs.
Spanish Discussion Thread
I'm not sure if my point will ever reach you if you say that something "is not a meta-decision" and then say "it's more of a mind game". That's like saying "I don't cook food, I just heat it up with fire until I'm ready to eat it".
I accept ovi's explanation, but it's still incredibly unclear from player to player and if you want to be perfectly clear, "meta" is far too unspecific.
I accept ovi's explanation, but it's still incredibly unclear from player to player and if you want to be perfectly clear, "meta" is far too unspecific.
Spanish Discussion Thread
Anyways, do what you guys do. This discussion has become circular and shifted away from Spain. GG out
Spanish Discussion Thread
mind game =/= meta game
mind game = tricking the other's mind
meta game = broadly accepted paradigm in the game
mind game = tricking the other's mind
meta game = broadly accepted paradigm in the game
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Spanish Discussion Thread
This guy is one of the biggest troll ever.
Spanish Discussion Thread
I don't think he's trolling, his point are actually quite reasonable.
Yes we are trying to balance the game without changing the meta too much, and yes balance takes priority. That's why we changed Silk Road, because Otto needs eco options.
Spain is going to need that kind of fix as well, currently they lack long term options. The reason we didn't go for it in the first release was that there was too little time to test it properly, but we did have an unction buff in one of the earlier betas.
Changes like that are hard to get right, it's easy to overbuff it into OP territory and even easier to underbuff it making Spain gameplay end up exactly as it was. Requires a lot of testing but at the same time I don't think we should be too afraid to under- or overbuff considering how often we can update and considering that Spain will still be outscaled by many civs even if unction ends up OP in some match ups. Overall I think it would be a great change if we get the numbers right.
Yes we are trying to balance the game without changing the meta too much, and yes balance takes priority. That's why we changed Silk Road, because Otto needs eco options.
Spain is going to need that kind of fix as well, currently they lack long term options. The reason we didn't go for it in the first release was that there was too little time to test it properly, but we did have an unction buff in one of the earlier betas.
Changes like that are hard to get right, it's easy to overbuff it into OP territory and even easier to underbuff it making Spain gameplay end up exactly as it was. Requires a lot of testing but at the same time I don't think we should be too afraid to under- or overbuff considering how often we can update and considering that Spain will still be outscaled by many civs even if unction ends up OP in some match ups. Overall I think it would be a great change if we get the numbers right.
Spanish Discussion Thread
I don't think he's trolling at all. In fact, apart from disagreeing with some of his opinions, I think he is making good sense in general.
I also personally think the idea of "not wanting to change the meta" is bad. IMO it should be "not wanting to change civilization design" or "not wanting to change the meta unless necessary to achieve balance aims".
I also personally think the idea of "not wanting to change the meta" is bad. IMO it should be "not wanting to change civilization design" or "not wanting to change the meta unless necessary to achieve balance aims".
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Spanish Discussion Thread
afaik in most games patches usually change the meta. hence the term patchzerg or equivalent. if +2 range suddenly makes queen mass viable, players will do that and the meta will shift. not neccesary a bad thing, it if turns out that the game is currently more balanced than before.
Spanish Discussion Thread
Let's stop spamming about meta and focus on Spain.
Give Spain 4-5% XP boost to make it playable on TP map, atleast enough playable to execute the 700c 700w 5v on non tp map.
Make 4 lancer to 5 lancer.
Make 7 rods to 8 rods in age 3. (7 rods is in age 2 also, so 7 rods in age 3 should be 8 rods).
If possible I would like to see free veteran upgrade for rods on age up. I know it's too much but it makes sense imo.
Give Spain 4-5% XP boost to make it playable on TP map, atleast enough playable to execute the 700c 700w 5v on non tp map.
Make 4 lancer to 5 lancer.
Make 7 rods to 8 rods in age 3. (7 rods is in age 2 also, so 7 rods in age 3 should be 8 rods).
If possible I would like to see free veteran upgrade for rods on age up. I know it's too much but it makes sense imo.
Doing what you like is Freedom...
Liking what you do is Happiness...
Liking what you do is Happiness...
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Spanish Discussion Thread
+4% is too much.
Spanish Discussion Thread
Give rods +10% stats and call it a day, or something.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Spanish Discussion Thread
i would like to see
Spain send shipments 33% to 50% faster as an adition to their civ bonus of needing less XP in order to receive a shipment.
7 rods boosted to 8 rods in fortress
Return rodelero attack back to Nilla's values
possible alternatives
Tercio Tactics not only transforms pike into rods, but also bows in to skirms, allowing for more synerchy with Archaic Soldier Training
Return the XP bonus back to Nilla's value
or Spain get's an increasing XP batch with each age up. 100XP to colonial, 300 to fortress, 450 to industrial, 600 to imperial.
Spain send shipments 33% to 50% faster as an adition to their civ bonus of needing less XP in order to receive a shipment.
7 rods boosted to 8 rods in fortress
Return rodelero attack back to Nilla's values
possible alternatives
Tercio Tactics not only transforms pike into rods, but also bows in to skirms, allowing for more synerchy with Archaic Soldier Training
Return the XP bonus back to Nilla's value
or Spain get's an increasing XP batch with each age up. 100XP to colonial, 300 to fortress, 450 to industrial, 600 to imperial.
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3680
- Joined: Feb 21, 2015
Spanish Discussion Thread
I personally think nilla rods would be too good.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Spanish Discussion Thread
why? ive never heard anyone complain about nilla rods before. and while tad rods dont suck +1 attack is still nice.
Spanish Discussion Thread
subzero wrote:Let''s stop spamming about meta and focus on Spain.
Give Spain 4-5% XP boost to make it playable on TP map, atleast enough playable to execute the 700c 700w 5v on non tp map.
Make 4 lancer to 5 lancer.
Make 7 rods to 8 rods in age 3. (7 rods is in age 2 also, so 7 rods in age 3 should be 8 rods).
If possible I would like to see free veteran upgrade for rods on age up. I know it''s too much but it makes sense imo.
meta meta meta meta meta don''t change the meta meta meta meta meta
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3680
- Joined: Feb 21, 2015
Spanish Discussion Thread
I partly agree with you. But the thing is Spain is considered OP in nilla and I doubt rods are not uninvolved with its OPness. It''s a plague for skirms and range cav even in tad (especially when it lags). And I think you meant rods slightly worse than nilla''s because we have 15% bonus cards instead of 10. I''m just being picky :-*umeu wrote:why? ive never heard anyone complain about nilla rods before. and while tad rods dont suck +1 attack is still nice.
Still, I feel like Spain is already a good civ, just limited in colonial. But so is Dutch.
However I like your XP bonus alternatives because Spain is garbage on non-tp maps.
How a about a church which gives you XP like mosquee for 150w or 200w with a higher XP rate ?
Also I''m not reluctant to change 7 rods to 8, 4 lancers to 5.
@subzero free veteran upgrade for rods ? Just NO.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Spanish Discussion Thread
spain isnt limited in colonial, spain is just vulnerable when it transitions, being it from colo to fortress or trying to transition from their agressive melee early fortress comp into a more long term comp.
Spanish Discussion Thread
I don't think there's need for much change except for rods (+1 in card or boost attack) or give bk their nilla xp. Not sure about both
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3680
- Joined: Feb 21, 2015
Spanish Discussion Thread
I didn''t express myself properly. I didn''t want to mean they had no options in colonial. It''s just that they do quite bad compared to French or Brit.umeu wrote:spain isnt limited in colonial, spain is just vulnerable when it transitions, being it from colo to fortress or trying to transition from their agressive melee early fortress comp into a more long term comp.
Anyway, overall, Spain is not THAT bad.
Spanish Discussion Thread
they aren't that bad but the nerf from nilla to tad was definitely too much
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3680
- Joined: Feb 21, 2015
Spanish Discussion Thread
I agree with you on that.benj89 wrote:they aren''t that bad but the nerf from nilla to tad was definitely too much
Spanish Discussion Thread
Yeah, nilla rods attack is better than giving them free veteran upgrade.
7 rods really need to be 8 rods in age 3.
7 rods really need to be 8 rods in age 3.
Doing what you like is Freedom...
Liking what you do is Happiness...
Liking what you do is Happiness...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest