ESOCommunity

What about nerfing TP's in order to nerf semi-ff? like giving -30/-40% xp but going to 100% when upgrading stagecoach?

Mitoe wrote:

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.

To be honest I do think fortress age doesn't need changes!! I think most people are probably more upset about that ultra defensive play, specially when there is water involved!! I am only a 1st liut though, so I don't know half about the game as most ppl on this community but I think that giving more options to contest water may help!!

Imo first thing to do is to just have less hunts on some maps. I'd like to have slightly more consistent spawns on EP (at least for tourneys) but less food in base. This would automatically buff aggressive play, and prevent people from camping in base until min 12

If only consistent spawns were a thing...

This is a very difficult thing because for some civs like French, ger, and British, to beat civs like Russia and India, you NEED to get age 3 fairly quickly to win. And making those rushes better seems like a bad thing

lemmings121 wrote:if we want a more aggressive patch, lets just fire goodspeed and hire sumppu and look tom in his place.

Jokes aside, firing goodspeed would be a serious first step. Given that he is basically the entire patch team right now and consciously or subconsciously slightly favors defensive play imo.

wait goodspeed is the only member of the balance team? why even call it balance team lul

ChewSick wrote:What about nerfing TP's in order to nerf semi-ff? like giving -30/-40% xp but going to 100% when upgrading stagecoach?

TPs should probably be nerfed yeah, and I think reducing the xp income is the way to go, but even 30% nerf is way too big. I'd say around 10%.
Stagecoach could get that 10% nerf as well imo.

ChewSick wrote:wait goodspeed is the only member of the balance team? why even call it balance team lul

It was more of a team once. Things didn't work out, largely due to the members and inactivity. Also for PR purposes, I suppose.

Goodspeed recently asked me to take on a more deciding role. It is my firm opinion that Goodspeed has done a satisfactory job in achieving the ambitions of the patch, as they were defined by certain individuals. Now that it's finally possible, I intend to expand on those ambitions, to better realize the game's potential and variety. Buffs to unviable units will be attempted.

momuuu wrote:

lemmings121 wrote:if we want a more aggressive patch, lets just fire goodspeed and hire sumppu and look tom in his place.

Jokes aside, firing goodspeed would be a serious first step. Given that he is basically the entire patch team right now and consciously or subconsciously slightly favors defensive play imo.

You really know how to word yourself.

Gendarme wrote:If only consistent spawns were a thing...

Play Colorado or Kamchatka. Literally the exact same 100% of the time.




I don't know how I feel about a TP nerf. Who does it really hurt?

Heavily Affected (TPs are required to succeed with these civs):
French, German, Spanish, Iroquois, Ottomans, Sioux

Mildly Affected (TPs are desired but not required):
India, China, Portugal? (Ports might be more heavily affected)

Virtually Unaffected (TPs are either a hindrance or not required to succeed with these civs):
British, Dutch, Russia, Aztec, Japan

It seems to me that most of the heavily affected civs--with the exception of Sioux--aren't even considered to be that good right now by most players, and I think most would agree that Sioux's issue has nothing to do with trading posts.

Plus, IMO the game was a lot less fun back when no one ever constructed TPs.


Edit: meh, maybe I'm wrong? Looking at it most of the unaffected civs are civs that prefer to play Colonial. Is the problem that these civs have to follow up the other civs to Fortress if they want to compete with those civs (and they still do fine doing this?)? Idk, I can't be bothered to think about this any deeper at this exact second.

If TPs need a nerf it is not on their effect. Such nerf would just make the building itself weaker overall, when in fact its xp/res boost is nothing special in mid game and it becomes a totally neglectable building. If anything it should be the cost because 200w does feel cheap in a vast majority of cases. Civs like Aztecs, Brits, India were never played with TPs, now they are. Fre, Ger, etc. now always stagecoach if possible.
Then again I'm not positive at all that TPs need any kind of nerf.
If you want to push for less semi FF play just nerf the fast age up and then also adjust resources. For the record it's not just hunts. Mines are often more impactful on the meta. 2 mines in base it's just ez FF.

Hazza54321 wrote:i think the problem is the patch team seems to think every civ needs to have an eco option which shouldnt be the case

Isn't that the reason why everybody says games such as SC2 and AOE2 are so balanced, because every civ has eco options?

It's very annoying how many good, popular changes float around for months/years (like modify age-up times/politicians) but never get implemented. Can we figure out who is responsible for making changes and ask their opinion on why they apparently don't agree with these changes?

Instead of nerfing fast age, why not try and buff some of the slow age up politicans to make it more appealing?

10 skirms instead of 6?
1000 wood?
TC wagon + 4 settlers?

Warno wrote:Instead of nerfing fast age, why not try and buff some of the slow age up politicans to make it more appealing?

10 skirms instead of 6?
1000 wood?
TC wagon + 4 settlers?

Yeah something like that, can be experimented. The bonuses you say are kind of insane, but I think they may be good; it's a great risk after all to age slow.

nerf some players, up anothers..

buff jan sepoy, and we have a nice balance

ovi12 wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:i think the problem is the patch team seems to think every civ needs to have an eco option which shouldnt be the case

Isn't that the reason why everybody says games such as SC2 and AOE2 are so balanced, because every civ has eco options?

Starcraft (II) is incomparable. It is a far better game fundamentally and its mechanics can't be copy-pasted easily to AoE3.

Warno wrote:1000 wood?
TC wagon + 4 settlers?

you're kidding

What if the maps had more and better designed tier 3 treasures. This is almost a wasted part of the game design right now on EP maps. The treasure design should reward making age 2 units and encourage fighting over them. Might need to change or add guardians that have more HP but less attack so that you can’t just run in with an army and snag it, you have to commit some time to it.

ChewSick wrote:

Warno wrote:1000 wood?
TC wagon + 4 settlers?

you're kidding

Was just throwing things out there for the sake of discussion, those are obviously a little OP.

Just want to see where people's tolerances are for aging fast or slow.

This game is dead af. Can't find games anymore. Instead its everybody discussing such useless shit here. Just play the game. Age up politicans are good and make sense.

Another potential option is improving the gather rates from natural coin / food above that of farms / plantations.

There comes a moment in mid/late Fortress where map control becomes a bit meaningless as players switch to farms / plantations / rice paddies and can out-eco an opponent using natural resources.

tabben wrote:This game is dead af. Can't find games anymore. Instead its everybody discussing such useless shit here. Just play the game. Age up politicans are good and make sense.

i'd play you if you let me win