Starting crates (again)

[[Armag] diarouga]

You literally told me you would cheat, and then the poll jumped from 55-45 to 60-40. And that's after I said I would only even consider the change if at least 60% was for.
Let's just say I thought it was quite a coincidence.

I told you that I believed that some guys were cheating, voting multiple time for "no", and I said that I could do the same. In the end I didn't, but you didn't believe me.

[deleted_user]

Ethos

[Goodspeed]

[Mr_Bramboy]

Fix the crates. Better balancing, better EP. The only reason the patch doesn't have fixed crates already is because there were two very vocal internal team members who opposed the change. Now is the time to implement this change and leave behind this useless discussion once and for all.

[Dsy]

Starting crates would reduce the variety of strategies we see, since crates force different variations in play to account for the different start.

Seeing the same build every time is boring for viewers, and for me playing, less interesting to just robot the same build order every time.

For me being lucky or unlucky decide how will i perform in a game much more frustrating.
More variety should be achieved without RNG.

[edeholland]

All poll votes were issued from different IP addresses.

[Sargsyan]

I think its a good idea for the sake of competitive play

[Garja]

Are you still discussing this? Get over it ffs. Fixed crates is a no solution for a no issue.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Are you still discussing this? Get over it ffs. Fixed crates is a no solution for a no issue.

You're like the only one to believe that it is a no issue.

[HUMMAN]

It's still possible to make game more diverse and competitive with crate, it's so simple cant understand why anyone can be against it. Make crate spawns fixed according to map with same principle, thus while playing ESOC maps you can get any start as always; however in tourneys you would prepeare for a particular crate spawn for the special map. Thus with wood start ensured in a X map, you wont gamble or frustrated with civ selection. Hell, its even possible to abuse community rules to restart map(like not selecting deck, and resigning accusing mines etc.).
Also even if it doesnt matter for some percentage of players, still does not explain why you are against it.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It's still possible to make game more diverse and competitive with crate, it's so simple cant understand why anyone can be against it. Make crate spawns fixed according to map with same principle, thus while playing ESOC maps you can get any start as always; however in tourneys you would prepeare for a particular crate spawn for the special map. Thus with wood start ensured in a X map, you wont gamble or frustrated with civ selection. Hell, its even possible to abuse community rules to restart map(like not selecting deck, and resigning accusing mines etc.).
Also even if it doesnt matter for some percentage of players, still does not explain why you are against it.

Yes, that would be a solution.
You should know what the crate start is before the game starts so that you can adapt, like don't pick India or Japan on coin start. With that system, Germany would also get the nerf it deserves.

[fightinfrenchman]

No this would be boring and reduces variety

[deleted_user]

It's still possible to make game more diverse and competitive with crate, it's so simple cant understand why anyone can be against it. Make crate spawns fixed according to map with same principle, thus while playing ESOC maps you can get any start as always; however in tourneys you would prepeare for a particular crate spawn for the special map. Thus with wood start ensured in a X map, you wont gamble or frustrated with civ selection. Hell, its even possible to abuse community rules to restart map(like not selecting deck, and resigning accusing mines etc.).
Also even if it doesnt matter for some percentage of players, still does not explain why you are against it.

Yes, that would be a solution.
You should know what the crate start is before the game starts so that you can adapt, like don't pick India or Japan on coin start. With that system, Germany would also get the nerf it deserves.

I agree that fixed crates are required for competitive play, but what about diversity and fun? For instance treasures are also random, they also give a huge buff early game but it's quite fun to discover for treasures, I'm sure when you try to make everything that simple, game will just become boring at one point. If your all thoughts were applied, the game would just become boring and people would eventually stop playing.
Same for old fanpatch, I heard from those who played on the old FP, they stopped playing it because games were just boring and it turned out to age2 wars.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It's still possible to make game more diverse and competitive with crate, it's so simple cant understand why anyone can be against it. Make crate spawns fixed according to map with same principle, thus while playing ESOC maps you can get any start as always; however in tourneys you would prepeare for a particular crate spawn for the special map. Thus with wood start ensured in a X map, you wont gamble or frustrated with civ selection. Hell, its even possible to abuse community rules to restart map(like not selecting deck, and resigning accusing mines etc.).
Also even if it doesnt matter for some percentage of players, still does not explain why you are against it.

Yes, that would be a solution.
You should know what the crate start is before the game starts so that you can adapt, like don't pick India or Japan on coin start. With that system, Germany would also get the nerf it deserves.

I agree that fixed crates are required for competitive play, but what about diversity and fun? For instance treasures are also random, they also give a huge buff early game but it's quite fun to discover for treasures, I'm sure when you try to make everything that simple, game will just become boring at one point. If your all thoughts were applied, the game would just become boring and people eventually would stop playing. Same for old fanpatch, I heard from people who stopped playing it because games were just boring and it turned out to age2 wars.

Why would it?
It doesn't change really change the build orders (except for the op ones like Germany 3SW/700c or brit 3v/VC which both shouldn't be a thing), it just makes some stronger and weaker.
How does this make the game boring? Same strats, but more balance.

[deleted_user]

Show hidden quotes

It's still possible to make game more diverse and competitive with crate, it's so simple cant understand why anyone can be against it. Make crate spawns fixed according to map with same principle, thus while playing ESOC maps you can get any start as always; however in tourneys you would prepeare for a particular crate spawn for the special map. Thus with wood start ensured in a X map, you wont gamble or frustrated with civ selection. Hell, its even possible to abuse community rules to restart map(like not selecting deck, and resigning accusing mines etc.).
Also even if it doesnt matter for some percentage of players, still does not explain why you are against it.

Yes, that would be a solution.
You should know what the crate start is before the game starts so that you can adapt, like don't pick India or Japan on coin start. With that system, Germany would also get the nerf it deserves.

I agree that fixed crates are required for competitive play, but what about diversity and fun? For instance treasures are also random, they also give a huge buff early game but it's quite fun to discover for treasures, I'm sure when you try to make everything that simple, game will just become boring at one point. If your all thoughts were applied, the game would just become boring and people eventually would stop playing. Same for old fanpatch, I heard from people who stopped playing it because games were just boring and it turned out to age2 wars.

Why would it?
It doesn't change really change the build orders (except for the op ones like Germany 3SW/700c or brit 3v/VC which both shouldn't be a thing), it just makes some stronger and weaker.
How does this make the game boring? Same strats, but more balance.

I think you still didnt get my point, you get bored when you do the same thing all the time, with different crate starts, you pay attention to your age1 macro because it is defenitely changing lol. For example when you have coin start, you make market to trade to or you just go for building tp when you have 200 start, with 100 start you just try to age up fast. Anyway I think it's not necessarily needed to be changed.

[Garja]

Are you still discussing this? Get over it ffs. Fixed crates is a no solution for a no issue.

You're like the only one to believe that it is a no issue.

I am the only sane of mind then.

[iCourt]

Smurfs should be allowed to vote but each one only counts as 3/5 of a vote

*Chuckle*



I've tested fixed crates a bunch. It has some pros and cons as with anything.

For China, Dutch, Iroquois, Japan, and to a lesser extent British, fixed crates help significantly in their best builds. For balance reasons this probably would help fix a lot more things than realized. And it's a very easy thing to patch into the game, and easily patched back to random crates if people don't like it.

However for say France, I feel it takes away from their early market builds. Adapting to the random crate makes for a more dynamic and interesting Discovery Age. While I feel to an extent some civs should have fixed crates, taking away from an already uneventful Discovery Age would make the game less interesting.

[iCourt]

I agree that fixed crates are required for competitive play, but what about diversity and fun? For instance treasures are also random, they also give a huge buff early game but it's quite fun to discover for treasures, I'm sure when you try to make everything that simple, game will just become boring at one point. If your all thoughts were applied, the game would just become boring and people would eventually stop playing.
Same for old fanpatch, I heard from those who played on the old FP, they stopped playing it because games were just boring and it turned out to age2 wars.

Comparing apples to oranges. Treasures are another discussion completely. The reason they need a different discussion and can't be compared is because treasures are earned through game play while crates are completely random.

They can impact balance for sure but they don't just don't have any relevance to starting crates.

[Garja]

This whole discussion is so fuckin pointless. "Fixed crates" . It's already 80% fixed crates you dumbasses! Every civ has it's own personalized set of fixed crates according to its needs. This is why Japan has a shit ton of food crates for example.

The extra random crate which is literally just one (other one is food for every civ) barely makes a difference. Once again starting TPs are seen as a huge difference when in fact that's a huge exagerration. For most MUs the random crate has similar effect. 100g is bad for every civ except Dutch. Jap and India are exception but they have way to play around that, which is the important thing.

If you want all 14 civs to compete against each other you just have to accept the difference in civ design. The random crate is nothing compared to all the other stuff TAD civs have and which differ from the rest. Japan can do no cons strats and age at 4.35. Honestly standard builds without Port cons are even better in a lot of euro MUs. India doesn't really care of which crate. Not more than Ger-Fre not having the starting TP. China should have a random crate like other civs.

[Goodspeed]

It's still possible to make game more diverse and competitive with crate, it's so simple cant understand why anyone can be against it. Make crate spawns fixed according to map with same principle, thus while playing ESOC maps you can get any start as always; however in tourneys you would prepeare for a particular crate spawn for the special map. Thus with wood start ensured in a X map, you wont gamble or frustrated with civ selection. Hell, its even possible to abuse community rules to restart map(like not selecting deck, and resigning accusing mines etc.).
Also even if it doesnt matter for some percentage of players, still does not explain why you are against it.

Yes, that would be a solution.
You should know what the crate start is before the game starts so that you can adapt, like don't pick India or Japan on coin start. With that system, Germany would also get the nerf it deserves.

I agree that fixed crates are required for competitive play, but what about diversity and fun? For instance treasures are also random, they also give a huge buff early game but it's quite fun to discover for treasures, I'm sure when you try to make everything that simple, game will just become boring at one point. If your all thoughts were applied, the game would just become boring and people would eventually stop playing.
Same for old fanpatch, I heard from those who played on the old FP, they stopped playing it because games were just boring and it turned out to age2 wars.

That's inaccurate. ASFP had its problems but it died because SC2 came out, not due to a stale meta.

[Dolan]

Let's just say that civs are like individuals with different illnesses. And each of them needs its own medicine (starting crates).

Because each civ has its own ailment that needs its own combination of pills.

[iCourt]

China should have a random crate like other civs.

I would agree. It's a design choice I never understood. Why penalize China starting crates count? It's not like Huawei even existed then.

I like the random crate starts as it changes Discovery Age dynamics, even if it makes balancing slightly more difficult. Discovery Age should be dynamic. Making crates fixed takes this aspect away and makes the game less interesting.

[[Armag] diarouga]

This whole discussion is so fuckin pointless. "Fixed crates" . It's already 80% fixed crates you dumbasses! Every civ has it's own personalized set of fixed crates according to its needs. This is why Japan has a shit ton of food crates for example.

The extra random crate which is literally just one (other one is food for every civ) barely makes a difference. Once again starting TPs are seen as a huge difference when in fact that's a huge exagerration. For most MUs the random crate has similar effect. 100g is bad for every civ except Dutch. Jap and India are exception but they have way to play around that, which is the important thing.

If you want all 14 civs to compete against each other you just have to accept the difference in civ design. The random crate is nothing compared to all the other stuff TAD civs have and which differ from the rest. Japan can do no cons strats and age at 4.35. Honestly standard builds without Port cons are even better in a lot of euro MUs. India doesn't really care of which crate. Not more than Ger-Fre not having the starting TP. China should have a random crate like other civs.

There's a big difference between most civs even with the "best" crate.
For example, wood start is op for Germany, for obvious reasons, while Spain, Port, Aztec and actually a lot of civs have to delay their age up by one vill (25sec) to get an age 1 TP.
So in the end, wood start is good for all these civs, but it doesn't slow Germany while it slows the above civs by 25sec, which is a huge deal.

It would be interested to check Germany's win rate with and without wood start, I'm quite sure there would be at least a 20-25% difference in the winrate.

[tabben]

India doesn't really care of which crate. Not more than Ger-Fre not having the starting TP.

@deleted_user2

[bwinner]

As for previous topics, I still think it would be much better to balance the crates than to fix them : you can give different start but make them equally good for every civ. Not having always the same start is a part of the game now and I would be sad if it disapeared.