User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7551
ESO: Garja

09 Nov 2018, 21:47

Goodspeed wrote:The meta does naturally evolve into longer and longer games, and that would be fine (it has been for AoE2) if this game was anywhere close to balanced in late game. Thing is there are such massive differences in scaling between the civs that it takes a large skill gap to overcome these. I don't think we have any hope of fixing this because of some design choices that were made in AoE3, so our best bet is indeed to make sure games are decided early on.

The way to do this, however, is imo not by making changes to the civs. Differences in scaling will always be there and we need to accept them. The way to deal with it is maps.

The problem is not balance, it is that this game is fuckin dull most of times in late game. Reasons are: 1) infinite resources and 2) one big fight in midgame deciding the direction of the game.
The only point in this game where you can have repeated interaction in form of multiple battles is in colonial. In fortress 50% of your army comes from shipments which can't be sent again.

Also for the record, "the meta evolves into longer (as more eco oriented) games" is kinda bs. What about proxing every game now in sc2?
Also in aoe3 the meta would be aggressive play if the patch was RE. So ye Jerom is right, the meta evolves into w/e is better. Ideally, a good game respects the counter strategy cycle (rush > boom > turtle > rush). So if meta becomes too greedy someone comes up with a very all in strat and reminds everyone that you can't be as greedy.
On EP there is simply a bias for passive play, due to some rushes being nerfed and due to super safe resources. The fact that you can use mm vs anything now (even as anticav) is just telling that there something wrong.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9576
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

10 Nov 2018, 07:33

Garja wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:The meta does naturally evolve into longer and longer games, and that would be fine (it has been for AoE2) if this game was anywhere close to balanced in late game. Thing is there are such massive differences in scaling between the civs that it takes a large skill gap to overcome these. I don't think we have any hope of fixing this because of some design choices that were made in AoE3, so our best bet is indeed to make sure games are decided early on.

The way to do this, however, is imo not by making changes to the civs. Differences in scaling will always be there and we need to accept them. The way to deal with it is maps.

The problem is not balance, it is that this game is fuckin dull most of times in late game. Reasons are: 1) infinite resources and 2) one big fight in midgame deciding the direction of the game.
The only point in this game where you can have repeated interaction in form of multiple battles is in colonial. In fortress 50% of your army comes from shipments which can't be sent again.

Also for the record, "the meta evolves into longer (as more eco oriented) games" is kinda bs. What about proxing every game now in sc2?
Also in aoe3 the meta would be aggressive play if the patch was RE. So ye Jerom is right, the meta evolves into w/e is better. Ideally, a good game respects the counter strategy cycle (rush > boom > turtle > rush). So if meta becomes too greedy someone comes up with a very all in strat and reminds everyone that you can't be as greedy.
On EP there is simply a bias for passive play, due to some rushes being nerfed and due to super safe resources. The fact that you can use mm vs anything now (even as anticav) is just telling that there something wrong.

Sc2 is different because
1) You can't really scout, while on aoe3 it will always be easy to figure out what your opponent is doing and counter it (if you scout a proxy you have a huge advantage).
2) The defender advantage is very small, you have no TC fire, no minutemen, no shipments.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7494

10 Nov 2018, 09:17

momuuu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:The meta does naturally evolve into longer and longer games, and that would be fine (it has been for AoE2) if this game was anywhere close to balanced in late game. Thing is there are such massive differences in scaling between the civs that it takes a large skill gap to overcome these. I don't think we have any hope of fixing this because of some design choices that were made in AoE3, so our best bet is indeed to make sure games are decided early on.

The way to do this, however, is imo not by making changes to the civs. Differences in scaling will always be there and we need to accept them. The way to deal with it is maps.

The meta evolves into whatever works best. This 'the meta naturally evolves into longer and longer games' is a terrible statement to try to justify extremely passive play. You don't even provide any reasoning for this statement and never have.
"A terrible statement" Sigh. Anyway yes, I have, but I'll explain again.

Note the difference between a full scale timing attack and early harassment. After all, harassment is not meant to end the game and therefore does not make the game shorter than it otherwise would've been. So a 5 huss semi-FF, for example, is not an aggressive build.

Timing attacks meant to end the game are still common, but to my point they tend to be a little later in the game than they used to be. This is the result of 2 things: A more mature meta, and balance changes.

These balance changes were necessary to help the meta evolve past certain aggressive builds that were too strong. Throughout AoE3's history, there have almost always been aggressive build orders that were too strong, and extremely prevalent in the meta. It's true that the meta evolves towards whatever is best, but an important part of my argument is that whenever an early all in build order is best, that means there is a balance problem. And this has been true every time in history. Some memorable examples are the Spain FF, Otto FF, Iro rush/FF.

If a timing attack wins games despite people having scouted it (and scouting things is a rather trivial matter in this game) and having had enough time to develop counters to it, that means it's too strong. So, in a balanced game, early timing attacks will slowly fade out of the meta as people find counters to them. If it is not possible to find counters to them, then it's not a balanced game.

I think for AoE3 to be balanced it needs to be designed in a way where the fight for map control decides games, and then by tweaking the maps you can move that fight earlier or later into the game and thus give all civs a chance. In other words, more focus on contains than all in timings.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

10 Nov 2018, 10:38

[Armag] diarouga wrote:
Garja wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:The meta does naturally evolve into longer and longer games, and that would be fine (it has been for AoE2) if this game was anywhere close to balanced in late game. Thing is there are such massive differences in scaling between the civs that it takes a large skill gap to overcome these. I don't think we have any hope of fixing this because of some design choices that were made in AoE3, so our best bet is indeed to make sure games are decided early on.

The way to do this, however, is imo not by making changes to the civs. Differences in scaling will always be there and we need to accept them. The way to deal with it is maps.

The problem is not balance, it is that this game is fuckin dull most of times in late game. Reasons are: 1) infinite resources and 2) one big fight in midgame deciding the direction of the game.
The only point in this game where you can have repeated interaction in form of multiple battles is in colonial. In fortress 50% of your army comes from shipments which can't be sent again.

Also for the record, "the meta evolves into longer (as more eco oriented) games" is kinda bs. What about proxing every game now in sc2?
Also in aoe3 the meta would be aggressive play if the patch was RE. So ye Jerom is right, the meta evolves into w/e is better. Ideally, a good game respects the counter strategy cycle (rush > boom > turtle > rush). So if meta becomes too greedy someone comes up with a very all in strat and reminds everyone that you can't be as greedy.
On EP there is simply a bias for passive play, due to some rushes being nerfed and due to super safe resources. The fact that you can use mm vs anything now (even as anticav) is just telling that there something wrong.

Sc2 is different because
1) You can't really scout, while on aoe3 it will always be easy to figure out what your opponent is doing and counter it (if you scout a proxy you have a huge advantage).
2) The defender advantage is very small, you have no TC fire, no minutemen, no shipments.

That doesnt matter. You're agreeing that it is not inherent to RTS games that the game becomes more passive. You're actually stating that aoe3 has become more passive because of how it is designed and not becsuse of the nature of RTS games. Which, funnily enough, was my point exactly.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

10 Nov 2018, 11:52

Goodspeed wrote:
momuuu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:The meta does naturally evolve into longer and longer games, and that would be fine (it has been for AoE2) if this game was anywhere close to balanced in late game. Thing is there are such massive differences in scaling between the civs that it takes a large skill gap to overcome these. I don't think we have any hope of fixing this because of some design choices that were made in AoE3, so our best bet is indeed to make sure games are decided early on.

The way to do this, however, is imo not by making changes to the civs. Differences in scaling will always be there and we need to accept them. The way to deal with it is maps.

The meta evolves into whatever works best. This 'the meta naturally evolves into longer and longer games' is a terrible statement to try to justify extremely passive play. You don't even provide any reasoning for this statement and never have.
"A terrible statement" Sigh. Anyway yes, I have, but I'll explain again.

Note the difference between a full scale timing attack and early harassment. After all, harassment is not meant to end the game and therefore does not make the game shorter than it otherwise would've been. So a 5 huss semi-FF, for example, is not an aggressive build.

Yet the usage of 5 huss is still relatively aggressive compared to not making them. Actually in fact the 5 hussars should be used very aggressively against the even more greedy naked FF; In my experience of testing it has turned out that if you just idle their villagers with the hussars under the TC you will come out very far ahead versus the naked FF. It's almost as if you're rushing with 5 hussars. Anyhow, this easily proves that the meta doesn't get more defensive necessarily - as much as people might figure out how to defend things, it turns out that you can't get more greedy than semi FF. Similairly, in a difference game it might turn out you can't get more greedy than some aggressive BO.

Timing attacks meant to end the game are still common, but to my point they tend to be a little later in the game than they used to be. This is the result of 2 things: A more mature meta, and balance changes.

And why is this? Because EP maps have seventeen hunts and EP has nerfed Sepoy, Jans, Iro and has refused to buff russia. This is not a 'mature meta' but a direct consequence of changes made to the game. I don't see how anything provided in this statement points towards this being the result of 'a more mature meta'. If you make a statement, you should provide proof!

These balance changes were necessary to help the meta evolve past certain aggressive builds that were too strong. Throughout AoE3's history, there have almost always been aggressive build orders that were too strong, and extremely prevalent in the meta. It's true that the meta evolves towards whatever is best, but an important part of my argument is that whenever an early all in build order is best, that means there is a balance problem. And this has been true every time in history. Some memorable examples are the Spain FF, Otto FF, Iro rush/FF.

It's bullshit that there is a balance problem with an early rush build order is best. If the opposing defensive civ has about a 50% chance to hold of the rush build order, then there is no balance problem. Similairly, if all other options are inferior to the early rush build order (something that is definitely possible), then that rush build order is the best thing to do. Thus, two lines of logic conclude that it is possible for a rush build order to be the best thing to do without being overpowered. Funnily enough in the majority of Spain match ups the Spain FF is the best thing to do (something you label as an early all in build order yourself), yet it doesn't represent a balance problem as spain generally has about a 50% winrate.

If a timing attack wins games despite people having scouted it (and scouting things is a rather trivial matter in this game) and having had enough time to develop counters to it, that means it's too strong. So, in a balanced game, early timing attacks will slowly fade out of the meta as people find counters to them. If it is not possible to find counters to them, then it's not a balanced game.

This is not true. It can be that if both players micro equally a timing attack actually has a 50% chance to win. It's never as black and white as always wins or never wins, it's in reality always a chance that a timing push ends the game and that chance can theoretically be 50%. In that case, there is no balance problem, and in this balanced game timing attacks will still be part of the meta. Even if it isn't possible to find a counter to a timing push.

One could even reverse engineer your logic to make clear how incorrect it is:
If a civ is able to freely boom despite it being scouted (and scouting things is a rather trivial matter in this game), and there's no timing attack that can beat that boom even after having had enough time to develop counters to it, that means it's too strong. So in a balanced game, economic strategies will slowly fade out of the meta as people find counters to them. If it is not possible to find counters to them, then it's not a balanced game.

I think for AoE3 to be balanced it needs to be designed in a way where the fight for map control decides games, and then by tweaking the maps you can move that fight earlier or later into the game and thus give all civs a chance. In other words, more focus on contains than all in timings.

And here's the actual truth. It's your own design opinion that has made EP push the game into the more passive territories, not the 'natural way for the meta to develop' and also not because its the only way to have a balanced game.
User avatar
Kiribati SirCallen
Gendarme
Posts: 7911
ESO: KTRAlN
Location: Midwest best west

10 Nov 2018, 16:43

Wait, why wouldn't you nerf Iro, jans, and sepoys? Lol
and the giving famishes the craving
sweet thames, run softly, til I end my song

The shepherd's staff's tantalus around my neck

let the water
touch the tongue
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 740
ESO: HUMMAN

10 Nov 2018, 17:12

There is a misunderstanding, goodspeed's main argument is right, any balanced strategy game in high level should be able to last long, think chess as an example. However you can still maintain balance by maintaining more damage to your openents eco, or limiting its eco. People think agression is only jan/sepoy rush. It's basically investing in more map control and army, doesnt have to be rush. Indeed since this is a more reactive playstyle it is better in gameplay. For example brit vs. russia, attacking/defending and trying to break contain. It is more focused on armies, yet eco is still important and age3 is not uncommon in this MU. It is another question whatever all MU's should be like that. I think current game meta is ok. And agression is relative, for example with respect to kynesie turtle fi's ff timings are agressive.
Image
User avatar
Canada dansil92
Lancer
Posts: 551
ESO: dansil92

10 Nov 2018, 19:00

My two cents on the subject are that perhaps passive play needs to be more challenging, rather than buffing aggression- For example does anyone find it really unbalanced that asian civs can make "plantations" for 400 wood, and don't need to be in fortress to do so? I would suggest making all gathering type eco buildings cost 600 wood- mills, rice patties, farms, plantations, etc.- and buffing the "Advanced Mill" "Advanced Plantation" "Advanced Rice Paddy" and "Land Grab" cards (to their normal costs when the cards are used) so that in order to play super defensively you will either have to spend a lot of wood, or use up shipments to make it affordable. Possibly upping the price of a dock wouldn't hurt either?
Image
:hehe: :hehe: :hehe:
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7494

11 Nov 2018, 09:11

momuuu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
Show hidden quotes
"A terrible statement" Sigh. Anyway yes, I have, but I'll explain again.

Note the difference between a full scale timing attack and early harassment. After all, harassment is not meant to end the game and therefore does not make the game shorter than it otherwise would've been. So a 5 huss semi-FF, for example, is not an aggressive build.
Yet the usage of 5 huss is still relatively aggressive compared to not making them. Actually in fact the 5 hussars should be used very aggressively against the even more greedy naked FF; In my experience of testing it has turned out that if you just idle their villagers with the hussars under the TC you will come out very far ahead versus the naked FF. It's almost as if you're rushing with 5 hussars. Anyhow, this easily proves that the meta doesn't get more defensive necessarily - as much as people might figure out how to defend things, it turns out that you can't get more greedy than semi FF. Similairly, in a difference game it might turn out you can't get more greedy than some aggressive BO.
But you understand the difference between a full scale timing attack and harassment? A cav semi-FF is not a timing attack that's meant to end the game, so it does nothing to shorten it. Games get longer and longer because there are less all in timing attacks, and more harassment-based builds like a cav semi-FF.

These balance changes were necessary to help the meta evolve past certain aggressive builds that were too strong. Throughout AoE3's history, there have almost always been aggressive build orders that were too strong, and extremely prevalent in the meta. It's true that the meta evolves towards whatever is best, but an important part of my argument is that whenever an early all in build order is best, that means there is a balance problem. And this has been true every time in history. Some memorable examples are the Spain FF, Otto FF, Iro rush/FF.
It's bullshit that there is a balance problem with an early rush build order is best. If the opposing defensive civ has about a 50% chance to hold of the rush build order, then there is no balance problem.
If you scout an early all in timing and your chances of holding it are still only 50% I would argue there is indeed a balance problem. Consider if that would be acceptable in Starcraft for example. Short games where both players are forced into a very specific build order leave little room to outplay. It's detrimental to the skill cap and to variety. Another issue here is that, if it has an average win rate of 50%, there will be many match ups where it's much greater than 50%.

Funnily enough in the majority of Spain match ups the Spain FF is the best thing to do (something you label as an early all in build order yourself), yet it doesn't represent a balance problem as spain generally has about a 50% winrate.
I was talking about history; Spain FF was the best build for most of the vanilla days. Currently the all in Spain FF has a <50% win rate.

One could even reverse engineer your logic to make clear how incorrect it is:
If a civ is able to freely boom despite it being scouted (and scouting things is a rather trivial matter in this game), and there's no timing attack that can beat that boom even after having had enough time to develop counters to it, that means it's too strong. So in a balanced game, economic strategies will slowly fade out of the meta as people find counters to them. If it is not possible to find counters to them, then it's not a balanced game.
I agree but I don't think we have run into builds like that yet. Reminds me of the "Great house" days on TWC. It's an Iro card and it used to be much stronger. Iro players would FF and build TCs, then sit back and boom. It was pretty OP and ended up getting nerfed. Fun while it lasted though, if you were an Iro player.
So I don't know how you showed my "logic" to be incorrect here. If anything you showed that it has multiple applications.
User avatar
United States of America IAmSoldieR
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1749
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

12 Nov 2018, 18:25

Great House is why I didn't attend wcg 2008 nationals :mad:
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7551
ESO: Garja

12 Nov 2018, 18:43

2007?
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 3232
ESO: n0eL

13 Nov 2018, 14:36

2007
United States of America frostibite
Musketeer
Posts: 69

13 Nov 2018, 22:19

your mom rewards aggressive play

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests