User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4091
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

05 Nov 2018, 16:13

There's been some talk recently about how the Fortress age could potentially be too strong, and how it could potentially be nerfed to allow for more Colonial-oriented strategies to shine through.

It occurred to me, however, that you don't necessarily have to nerf Fortress age times and stuff like that to make aggressive strategies more appealing.

What about adjusting kill xp bounties?

For anyone who's not familiar with how the resource/xp reward system works in AoE3, every 100 resources you spend rewards you with 20xp (unless it's an upgrade). However, when you kill/destroy something worth 100 resources things are a bit different. When killing units, you receive the same amount of xp for killing them as was received for training them. So for a musketeer (100 resources), you receive 10 xp for training it and 10 xp for killing it. For a building, though, you receive 2x as much experience for killing it as it costs to construct it: 20 xp for constructing a house, 40 xp for killing a house.

If we wanted to make aggressive play more rewarding than it currently is, we could consider adjusting kill xp on buildings to 3x instead of 2x. If we were to couple this with some minor HP nerfs to a lot of the common buildings (houses/markets), you could see aggressive play being a lot more successful than it currently is without really affecting a lot of the current builds too much, and if you want to get away with getting to Fortress you need to be a bit more skilled to do it safely and be more mindful of building placement, etc.


We should stay away from adjusting bounties on units though. Killing units benefits the defender more than the aggressor, and it would also make winning a fight really hard snowball a bit harder than it already does.


Edit: I guess a downside to nerfing hp on markets/houses is that it could affect team games negatively?
User avatar
Great Britain Interjection
Lancer
Donator 04
Posts: 946
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

05 Nov 2018, 17:08

I like this idea

Mitoe wrote:We should stay away from adjusting bounties on units though. Killing units benefits the defender more than the aggressor, and it would also make winning a fight really hard snowball a bit harder than it already does.


In a similar vein then, perhaps kill xp bounties could be reduced a little (20% - 30%). This would make defending less valuable which might make colonial play / aggro stronger. (I'm not personally a huge fan of nerfing something like this though as it would slow the flow of the game but it is interesting)

Alternatively, perhaps unit build boounties could be adjusted upwards slightly (e.g., 20% - 30%). This would make it slightly more rewarding to train units in colonial rather than investing them in the fortress age. Though it would also favour higher eco builds and impeed lower ones (Fast fortresses). Maybe that's a good thing though.
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2174
ESO: lemmings121

05 Nov 2018, 17:11

Idk, supose you go agressive vs some semiff play and you burn 5 houses. Currently thats 200exp for you, would changing it to 300exp really make it more viable? I feel like the exp buff would only matter in some very specific cases like hunting jap shrines. (or could just make aztecs op (3x buffed exp!)..

Hp nerf seems more interesting, just need to be really tested to find the right numbers, since it could just make full jani/sepoy the new standard play.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4091
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

05 Nov 2018, 17:19

lemmings121 wrote:Idk, supose you go agressive vs some semiff play and you burn 5 houses. Currently thats 200exp for you, would changing it to 300exp really make it more viable? I feel like the exp buff would only matter in some very specific cases like hunting jap shrines. (or could just make aztecs op (3x buffed exp!)..

Hp nerf seems more interesting, just need to be really tested to find the right numbers, since it could just make full jani/sepoy the new standard play.

It's not huge, for sure, but it does add up with other changes. For example, changing it to 4x or 5x xp bounty might be a bit insane; lowering house hp by 400-500 might also be a bit too much. But if you lower hp by 100-200 and build bounty to 3x, it could be just enough.

Plus, getting a crate or unit shipment a few seconds faster from having an additional 20-60+ xp can still be pretty big sometimes.

Interjection wrote:In a similar vein then, perhaps kill xp bounties could be reduced a little (20% - 30%). This would make defending less valuable which might make colonial play / aggro stronger. (I'm not personally a huge fan of nerfing something like this though as it would slow the flow of the game but it is interesting)

This one would be a lot more challenging to balance as it would be relevant at all stages of the game instead of specific situations like when you're in your opponents base (or vise versa).

It did occur to me though that this is not necessarily a bad change: if you reduce the snowball effect on winning a fight then you could potentially see a lot more comebacks, and things like raids become a more important way of getting an advantage than just winning fights / trades with units all the time.
User avatar
Brazil Luciofrancosi
Musketeer
Posts: 65
ESO: luciofrancosi
Location: UK

05 Nov 2018, 17:21

I don't know about this. Civs like India or russia are way too strong in colonial and most civs rely on having to age up to fortress to have a winning chance against them!!
"Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"

Sun Tzu - The art of war
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4091
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

05 Nov 2018, 17:25

Luciofrancosi wrote:I don't know about this. Civs like India or russia are way too strong in colonial and most civs rely on having to age up to fortress to have a winning chance against them!!

Then do you feel as though the Fortress Age doesn't need any changes? Because that's the sentiment I'm hearing from most people, and other changes would arguably have the same/similar effect regarding civs like India/Russia.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 8849
Location: USA

05 Nov 2018, 17:26

I'd rather just add more maps with less res in base and more res towards the middle, although what will inevitably end up happening is that people will play the same greedy semi ff playstyle, blame the map, and just never play on that map again
Great Britain Hazza54321
Gendarme
Donator 01
Posts: 5992

05 Nov 2018, 17:27

i think the problem is the patch team seems to think every civ needs to have an eco option which shouldnt be the case
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 738
ESO: HUMMAN

05 Nov 2018, 17:29

Cool ideas, but should be tested. Personally i support more agressive play but semi ff is interesting too, i find all in agression one dimensional rather like containing and timings. Also increasing agressive games is not a problem, and there are maps like that less hunts means more agression. But people just dont like them.
Because in low hunt maps few civs are avaible, we see same map control civs(russia india etc.). So cool thing about your idea is in high hunt maps both agrression and booming can be viable. Imo thats interesting design wise.
Image
User avatar
France kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1923
ESO: kami_ryu & incognoto
Location: Denver, CO, USA, Earth, Milky Way, Virgo Supercluster

05 Nov 2018, 17:30

For me it seems like most people nowadays want to shake up the game. Goodspeed wants crazy maps, interjection wants livestock and better politicians, Mitoe is now piping up to make aggressive play more viable.

I vote for all the above. I agree with the sentiment that the game needs to be freshened up beyond just pure balance. The meta needs a good quake.
Hold me close when it's over
Life goes slow loving sober
Great Britain Hazza54321
Gendarme
Donator 01
Posts: 5992

05 Nov 2018, 17:30

to add to my point, aggressive civs eco option is damaging ur opponent to have a competitive eco, also otto for example on re has a very cost effective army but 15 vills all game relying on good trades and abus jan micro age 2 at least, age 3 is abit different but still is all in, ep otto is getting mosque ups with a not so cost effective army resulting in more passive gameplay, similarly siouxs main unit was nerfed (rightfully so but the buffs to compensate were just wrong), sioux arent supposed to be a greedy campy civ, theyre supposed to have low eco insane military and not many buildings to kill but fairly exposed vills(which should be the case with such a mobile army).
Iro similarly you see nothing but semi ffs anymore really, their age 2 doesnt seem to work unless someone is caught off guard or if its a map like cascade.
Russia is a decent and fun civ on RE with good water and good map control, both of which are partly irrelevant (water needs more res in 1v1 on certain maps e.g. jebul musa, manchuria, compensate for a dock nerf).
Azzy are still good, harder to damage but still fairly fast with a decent follow up.
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 738
ESO: HUMMAN

05 Nov 2018, 17:45

kami_ryu wrote:For me it seems like most people nowadays want to shake up the game. Goodspeed wants crazy maps, interjection wants livestock and better politicians, Mitoe is now piping up to make aggressive play more viable.

I vote for all the above. I agree with the sentiment that the game needs to be freshened up beyond just pure balance. The meta needs a good quake.

Yeah, Ep policy is to not to change game but it looks like it did not work, in terms of popularity. Pros play patch anyway, you put money in it! And some people like me just want excitement.(vane patch!) I seriously want you to reconsider this policy, esoc. Discuss with pro players and make ur own patch changing game balance in a rational manner. Make it open beta and after you are cool with feedbacks release. I think many people like to think about new strategies and playstlyes(@momuuu) afterall this is a strategy game.
Image
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4091
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

05 Nov 2018, 17:47

Hazza54321 wrote:to add to my point, aggressive civs eco option is damaging ur opponent to have a competitive eco, also otto for example on re has a very cost effective army but 15 vills all game relying on good trades and abus jan micro age 2 at least, age 3 is abit different but still is all in, ep otto is getting mosque ups with a not so cost effective army resulting in more passive gameplay, similarly siouxs main unit was nerfed (rightfully so but the buffs to compensate were just wrong), sioux arent supposed to be a greedy campy civ, theyre supposed to have low eco insane military and not many buildings to kill but fairly exposed vills(which should be the case with such a mobile army).
Iro similarly you see nothing but semi ffs anymore really, their age 2 doesnt seem to work unless someone is caught off guard or if its a map like cascade.
Russia is a decent and fun civ on RE with good water and good map control, both of which are partly irrelevant (water needs more res in 1v1 on certain maps e.g. jebul musa, manchuria, compensate for a dock nerf).
Azzy are still good, harder to damage but still fairly fast with a decent follow up.

I agree to some extent. I personally do think that most civs should have an eco option as well, simply so that they're not 100% forced into the exact same build order every single game. It should not necessarily be on the same level as other civs, however. I actually like Sioux's change, for example, but it doesn't really function as it was originally intended right now. I think it would function just fine if the aura capped at 2-3 TPs (so, 8% - 12% eco and 20% - 30% hp; maybe the cap could be increased with cards?). This way you don't see 6+ teepees in base giving them a strong economy but also being impossible to push into, instead you'd have teepees still in base for eco, but also available for combat. This gives them a more dynamic playstyle I think.

Back on topic, it seems like my suggested change would still be good for the types of civs you refer to, though? It would make it easier for them to accomplish this.


@HUMMAN I don't think larger/more impactful will really affect popularity. There will always be opposition to certain changes.
User avatar
Somalia somppukunkku
Jaeger
Donator 02
Posts: 2530

05 Nov 2018, 17:48

I'd really prefer +10 seconds to fast age. It would make match ups like fre and dutch mirror more interesting. Also, it's kinda boring when there is only one viable option to age 3. Same time we could maybe revert india 80w house as it's kinda buff to them.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
When I win, it's with homo, illegal and wrong strats.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4091
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

05 Nov 2018, 17:51

somppukunkku wrote:I'd really prefer +10 seconds to fast age. It would make match ups like fre and dutch mirror more interesting. Also, it's kinda boring when there is only one viable option to age 3. Same time we could maybe revert india 80w house as it's kinda buff to them.

How does it make those matchups more interesting? I guess I'm just wondering what you want that change to do that this change (or some other alternative) wouldn't. Nothing against the change (it's also good, IMO), but it seems like both changes are intended to do the same thing.

There are other alternatives as well, such as increasing musketeer/archaic units siege stats.
User avatar
Somalia somppukunkku
Jaeger
Donator 02
Posts: 2530

05 Nov 2018, 17:55

It's more like slower fast age gives for example in those match ups 10 seconds more time to do colonial damage/idle opponent. And when colonial damage is more significant it also drives the other player committing age 2 defence.

I can't see how xp-bounty buff would for example change dutch mirror where you can't basically siege any banks in age 2. It's more like a buff to civs that would play the match up colonial anyway.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
When I win, it's with homo, illegal and wrong strats.
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 738
ESO: HUMMAN

05 Nov 2018, 17:57

@Mitoe for sure, but since only certain people play the patch, i feel like we all would like to try new bo's and strats. Looking into past, 500w Tc fish change players try to adapt, for sure not everyone likes it (i personally did not like boat change)but people discuss it which indicates showing interest. It doesnt have to be very big changes reduce cost of all natives by %10 see what will happen, they may still suck but people will give it a try and try to discover new bo's, which is exciting imo.
Image
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2174
ESO: lemmings121

05 Nov 2018, 17:59

if we want a more aggressive patch, lets just fire goodspeed and hire sumppu and look tom in his place.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4091
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

05 Nov 2018, 18:00

somppukunkku wrote:It's more like slower fast age gives for example in those match ups 10 seconds more time to do colonial damage/idle opponent. And when colonial damage is more significant it also drives the other player committing age 2 defence.

I can't see how xp-bounty buff would for example change dutch mirror where you can't basically siege any banks in age 2. It's more like a buff to civs that would play the match up colonial anyway.

When it takes less time to do that damage it arguably does the same thing, IMO. It really sounds to me like it accomplishes the same thing. If your buildings are easier to kill, and give more bounties to your opponent, there's going to be more incentive to defend them.

Dutch would not be as affected by these changes, you're right, but Dutch may need other changes anyway.
User avatar
Somalia somppukunkku
Jaeger
Donator 02
Posts: 2530

05 Nov 2018, 18:04

But sieging is not the priority number one when you do a timed push (or rush). It's more killing the remaining units of opponents army, forcing all the villagers inside and preventing him to spawn more units before the first fortress shipment. Personally, I think the change would not be as significant to meta as 10 seconds slower age up even though the goal of the change is same.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
When I win, it's with homo, illegal and wrong strats.
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2174
ESO: lemmings121

05 Nov 2018, 18:05

somppukunkku wrote:But sieging is not the priority number one when you do a timed push (or rush). It's more killing the remaining units of opponents army, forcing all the villagers inside and preventing him to spawn more units before the first fortress shipment. Personally, I think the change would not be as significant to meta as 10 seconds slower age up even though the goal of the change is same.


Maybe just reducing tc fire dmg could achieve the desired effect without messing up with xp/hp of stuff.
User avatar
Somalia somppukunkku
Jaeger
Donator 02
Posts: 2530

05 Nov 2018, 18:07

lemmings121 wrote:
somppukunkku wrote:But sieging is not the priority number one when you do a timed push (or rush). It's more killing the remaining units of opponents army, forcing all the villagers inside and preventing him to spawn more units before the first fortress shipment. Personally, I think the change would not be as significant to meta as 10 seconds slower age up even though the goal of the change is same.


Maybe just reducing tc fire dmg could achieve the desired effect without messing up with xp/hp of stuff.

Then defending azz/otto/ruski rush b cuka blyat could become too hard.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
When I win, it's with homo, illegal and wrong strats.
User avatar
Switzerland ChewSick
Skirmisher
Posts: 159
ESO: chusik
Location: Switzerland

05 Nov 2018, 18:14

somppukunkku wrote:Maybe just reducing tc fire dmg could achieve the desired effect without messing up with xp/hp of stuff.
Then defending azz/otto/ruski rush b cuka blyat could become too hard.


maybe a mixture of both, max. dmg is still 90 but needs more settlers (15?)
Image
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4091
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

05 Nov 2018, 18:15

@somppukunkku Okay, that's a fair argument. It is possible that your attention would still not be focused so much on the buildings as it is on the units/villagers, and adjusting the age up time may be more impactful as a result. I think it would depend upon what type of aggressive strategy you go for, mainly.

Adjust an age up time would make timings more effective, while adjusting building hp/bounties may make rushes more effective. Is that fair to say?


@lemmings121 changing TC fire would change quite a lot about base defense, and I think it would be pretty challenging to balance. It's not a bad suggestion, though, just difficult to see how impactful it would be when you have to think about how many different units would take 1 more hit to kill, or be unaffected. Depending on how much you change it it could potentially completely change the way you have to play, or hardly change it at all aside from a couple of matchups.
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2174
ESO: lemmings121

05 Nov 2018, 18:19

somppukunkku wrote:
lemmings121 wrote:
somppukunkku wrote:But sieging is not the priority number one when you do a timed push (or rush). It's more killing the remaining units of opponents army, forcing all the villagers inside and preventing him to spawn more units before the first fortress shipment. Personally, I think the change would not be as significant to meta as 10 seconds slower age up even though the goal of the change is same.


Maybe just reducing tc fire dmg could achieve the desired effect without messing up with xp/hp of stuff.

Then defending azz/otto/ruski rush b cuka blyat could become too hard.


yeah but.. thats the point. We need a more defined goal here.

What do we want? to make german and spain colonial rushes viable? all rushes stronger? or we just want people to make 2 batches of units in theirs semi ff builds instead of one batch?
what do we do with china? just force them to use old han vs colonial civs? we cant just change hp of buildings or tc tire or ageup time without messing up a a hundred Mus.

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests