Starting crates (again)

[HUMMAN]

How do you standardise the crate start, give every civ it's best crate start so Germay 200 wood, or make every civ have their worst crate start?

You make crate start for the maps, not civs! Important thing is to know in competitive setting what you will face.

[Kaiserklein]

1) Yep. With food crates for everybody the game would be balanced. Food start has always been the reference, coin start fucks the game because it slows down some civs by a fair margin, and wood start allows age 1 TP which is a huge issue.

Whatever lol. It would buff civs like dutch, russia, aztecs, sioux, iro and so on, and nerf for example brits fr ger etc. But since you're so much smarter than everyone you already know it would result in a more balanced game. Not worth discussing with you here.

2) Because they have bad macro? But that's regardless of the crate start. Some guys just fuck their macro, that's it, crate wouldn't change that.

I've literally casted lordraphael failing his macro vs erik as ger in age 1. But yeah he has bad macro you're right. And that's just one example.
Obviously doing always the same start over and over again doesn't take less skill than adapting to the crates start! Good argument.

3) The difference is that you can easily fix crates, while there's no good way to fix treasures (and in general, they are less game breaking). Also the difference is that treasures are "random", the expectation is zero, you can have more treasures, less treasures or the same treasures, so in the end it's fair.

This is so wrong. I'd rather have 300f 100w + a 50w treasure in base than 200f 200w + a 30f treasure in base as germany. That's one example of treasures being more impactful than starting crates already... And btw, at least when it's 200f 200w, opponent also gets the extra 100w, while when you get 50w in base it's just purely unfair. And i'm not even talking about stuff like a free monkey in your base or 130f, or getting an xp treasure before shipping your 3v lol.
Treasures would be rather fair if the reward/risk ratio would be roughly equal for all treasures. That means the time, hp and crackshot you invest into a treasure pay off with an appropriate amount of resources. Go spawn wadmalaw, you'll see that treasures are quite balanced in that regard... That proves there's a good way to fix treasures lol. It's not like playing on Baja, finding 10g 20g, a tamed wolf 2 sheep and 30% hp on your explo, while opponent finds 120xp 60w 60f or something... Why do I even need to explain that?? It's so obvious.

With crates it is different when you play vs France/Germany. If you get coin or food start, the MU is even, if you get wood start you're fucked. The frustration comes from the fact that random crate advantages France and Germany. If you think that crate start is ugly, then we could nerf France and Germany so that they're slightly worse on food/coin start, and better on wood start, but it's not going to happen.
In many MUs against Germany, it's 50/50 on food/coin start and 40/60 on wood start, how is that acceptable? Before the game starts, you're basically praying not to get a wood start.

Yes so we're back to what I was saying..? Instead of being lazy and fixing crates, we could try to make sure the extra wood crate is also useful for the opponent... And nerf the age 1 TP. I'm not sure what's hard to understand. It's not black or white, there are solutions in between, we don't have to remove an entire game feature and make the patch even more different from RE.
Btw you overestimate the impact of early TP. Sure it's very good, but you're acting like it doesn't have any drawbacks. While you in fact auto lose the age 1 (opponent can literally come to snare your explo while you build the tp... Or just pick up a big treasure meanwhile), get weaker first batches (cause you don't have market ups in), delay your age up on most maps, and opponent also still gets the extra 100w.

4) Yea, 3SW/700c ff on TP start but that's totally broken, and it shouldn't be a thing because it's op. Brit has TP with 3v/VC but it's also op (almost Germany level).
Nobody goes India gfa, and it's almost the same as standard build. Dutch market is also just the same build order as Dutch without market...

So you decided these builds are broken and shouldn't exist, ok... Either way, that just shows I'm right and we see diverse builds on various crates starts. And no GFA india is really not the same as standard india lol, wtf.
What about iro fast aging? Or getting a farm? What about otto going silk road after 3v with a mosque? Or building a dock in age 1 and training 7 fishing boats or w/e it was? You're right, removing the wood start would not kill some builds at all! Great idea!

5) So what's your solution to fix wood start laming? You're saying that fixed crate is a bad change, but you don't suggest solutions.

Well for one thing I'd nerf TPs a bit. I think it's obvious TPs are too strong overall in current meta, and not only in age 1. That would be a big change, but it has to be done imo.
Then we could maybe let russia overqueue to 11/10 in age 1 somehow, like china does. That buff could have probably replaced the rusket discount, if we applied it to ruskets and strelets as well. That would probably let russia get a market on wood or coin starts.
You can find other similar buffs for other civs. For example give warrior priests a multiplier vs treasure guardians, so that on wood start aztecs can go for a TP without a firepit, and use the wp to take treasures more easily. That's just an example, I didn't think through all the buffs we could apply because I know it's not gonna happen anyway.

[Goodspeed]

Nerfing TPs is going backwards. I think balancing the civs around TPs instead of nerfing them was the best decision we made with EP. It allowed the meta to move forward instead of going back to where we were in 2010.
RE's 200w TPs was such a great change. I admire the person who thought of it. Impressive foresight.

[[Armag] diarouga]

1) So it would nerf the op civs, good news.

2) When you've played 20k games, it means 5k on each start. I guess it's enough to macro each start properly lol. Some top players also fail basic stuffs like treasure micro, herding, miss a batch, overgather one resource etc, and they would still fail with only one crate start.

3) I wouldn't mind Wadmalaw treasures but that's not the topic. The issue is that the civs are balanced around "normal" crate starts, and some (like Germany or France) become op on wood start.
If you nerf the age 1 TP to make sure these civs aren't op on wood start then it's fine. GS didn't want to do that though.

4) Most of these builds are the same as the standard builds except they're stronger. India gfa for example is the standard 600w/300e build with an extra shipment (gfa). In the end it's not really going to change your build order that much. Also India can go age 1 TP regardless of the start so if you really want to go for the gfa build you can.

5) Yes, that's the issue, these changes are not going to happen. I doubt TP will ever get nerfed to be honest (imo they should cost 250w).

[[Armag] diarouga]

Nerfing TPs is going backwards. I think balancing the civs around TPs instead of nerfing them was the best decision we made with EP. It allowed the meta to move forward instead of going back to where we were in 2010.
RE's 200w TPs was such a great change. I admire the person who thought of it. Impressive foresight.

People would still go for 250w TPs every game.

[Kaiserklein]

Nerfing TPs is going backwards. I think balancing the civs around TPs instead of nerfing them was the best decision we made with EP. It allowed the meta to move forward instead of going back to where we were in 2010.
RE's 200w TPs was such a great change. I admire the person who thought of it. Impressive foresight.

200w TPs is really nice because it fits well into builds. But you can't argue TPs aren't too strong overall, I mean, nowadays people take TPs with almost any civ lol. I think the xp income could be nerfed.

[Goodspeed]

A TP is an economic investment available to every civ. People also make vills and markets with every civ. Are they OP?
Would you nerf vills or the market if it benefits one civ more than others, and that civ turns out to be OP? No, you'd nerf the civ.

[Garja]

There is an underlying problem tho with TPs as the shipment flow makes for a bit noobproof meta.

[Kaiserklein]

1) So it would nerf the op civs, good news.

Yeah, and buff dutch sioux and iro, because these civs are so weak... Such bad faith lol.

2) When you've played 20k games, it means 5k on each start. I guess it's enough to macro each start properly lol. Some top players also fail basic stuffs like treasure micro, herding, miss a batch, overgather one resource etc, and they would still fail with only one crate start.

Nice examples, are you saying herding or microing treasures takes no skill? Should we just remove these mechanics then? You're proving yourself wrong with these examples. People precisely fail this stuff because it takes skill. And removing a skill, even if it's a small skill, just sucks. Keep in mind there's 13 civs with 5 possible crates start, you don't play 5k games with each rofl.
I'd love to see you macro your age 1 as germany haha. I'm sure I'd consistently age earlier than you with the same start just because I main ger.

3) I wouldn't mind Wadmalaw treasures but that's not the topic. The issue is that the civs are balanced around "normal" crate starts, and some (like Germany or France) become op on wood start.
If you nerf the age 1 TP to make sure these civs aren't op on wood start then it's fine. GS didn't want to do that though.

It is the topic. Wadmalaw treasures show that you can balance unfair stuff smartly, instead of just removing everything altogether because you're lazy.
You're saying the civs are balanced around "normal" crates start. And you're wrong. The civs are NOT balanced at all on RE lol, regardless of crates start. The balance we have now is the one EP made, and no one said they decided to balance all the civs around the food start... You're pulling that out of nowhere.
Yep, nerfing the age 1 TP is a much better solution (or part of the solution) than removing the wood start. You KNOW wood starts brings a lot of builds, some of which I listed in my previous post. Wood start is literally the most interesting start in the game for like 3/4 of the civs lol. Removing it is just harmful.

4) Most of these builds are the same as the standard builds except they're stronger. India gfa for example is the standard 600w/300e build with an extra shipment (gfa). In the end it's not really going to change your build order that much. Also India can go age 1 TP regardless of the start so if you really want to go for the gfa build you can.

You can't go TP as india on 300w without cutting, like, an entire vil lol. And delaying your age up even more. No one does that.
GFA means you go on french consulate which isn't really standard. I know you like to do it anyway, but most people don't. I think seeing early TP into GFA for french crates is refreshing, it's surely a different build than standard india.
The other builds aren't the same. 3v VC means you commit to booming more than standard brits, it can be punished by early pressure, and it slows down your build if you don't make lots of manors. 3sw/4cdb 700g ff is more aggressive than other ff/semi ff builds and plays out differently. Iro fast age is totally different from slow age, and the farm means you have fat livestock at like 8 min which changes the way you play the civ. Jap on 300w is literally a different civ, port consulate and kami old school stuff is actually viable. Etc.

5) Yes, that's the issue, these changes are not going to happen. I doubt TP will ever get nerfed to be honest (imo they should cost 250w).[/quote]
Well these changes are still more likely to happen than fixed crates lol. Cause that's 0% chance. And if they do happen, they'd be smarter than removing the most interesting crates start in the game.

[Kaiserklein]

A TP is an economic investment available to every civ. People also make vills and markets with every civ. Are they OP?
Would you nerf vills or the market if it benefits one civ more than others, and that civ turns out to be OP? No, you'd nerf the civ.

Except TPs are causing balance issues while markets and vils aren't. I don't see why we'd try to nerf all TP civs instead of nerfing TPs lol. It's just more complicated.
And anyway the whole discussion is about the age 1 TP, how do you fix that issue if you don't nerf TPs? Even with fixed crates you'd still be able to go early TP with a small wood treasure as ger or fr, and it would be as OP as it is now. And would be even more game breaking because opponent doesn't get 100w.

I remember robo or zak saying while casting that it's nice in aoe3 that you don't HAVE to go water, unlike in aoe2. Ideally an eco investment should be a risk, not something you HAVE to do in order to stay in the game. It's exactly the same for TPs. If you always go TP no matter what it removes some decisions.

[HUMMAN]

Why are you against TP's? If you are gonna nerf TP's just make maps with unsafe TP's. I think contesting TP's is a great design.

[Kaiserklein]

"against TPs"? Who said that? I like TP play, and as you probably know I mostly play TP civs lol. It doesn't mean I can't realize TPs are too good, especially the age 1 one. Even if we nerf a bit the xp income, don't worry people will still fight for TPs lol. Also most maps don't have safe TPs already, and we're not gonna remove some maps just because they have safe TPs lol...
We could even make it so that stagecoach keeps the current amount of xp or res per pass. All we have to nerf is the xp income of TPs before stagecoach.

[Imperial Noob]

We could even make it so that stagecoach keeps the current amount of xp or res per pass. All we have to nerf is the xp income of TPs before stagecoach.

And then Iron Horse could be buffed to contest water ecos...

[Goodspeed]

A TP is an economic investment available to every civ. People also make vills and markets with every civ. Are they OP?
Would you nerf vills or the market if it benefits one civ more than others, and that civ turns out to be OP? No, you'd nerf the civ.

Except TPs are causing balance issues while markets and vils aren't. I don't see why we'd try to nerf all TP civs instead of nerfing TPs lol. It's just more complicated.

No, it isn't. Currently, civs are already balanced around TPs. Nerfing them would require a lot of tweaks to current TP civs. It is, essentially, changing your mind on a past EP policy which is the basis of many decisions made along the way.

You say TPs are causing balance issues, I only see an issue in China match ups and that's because they don't get the same crate start as other civs. And the only reason vills or the market aren't causing balance issues is because the civs are balanced around them. For example, vills don't help Japan as much but Japan has compensation. And if Japan is weak, you would never consider nerfing vills to buff them. The same could be, and is, true for TPs right now.

TPs make this game great. They emphasize the shipment mechanic which increases strategic depth, and they encourage interaction between players in an RTS that is otherwise not very interactive.

[Dsy]

Before the TP meta there was only musk-huss mass. I dont think anyone would want to go back there.
This whole discussion is about civs shouldnt get free tp, free market or nothing based on pure luck.

[[Armag] diarouga]

A TP is an economic investment available to every civ. People also make vills and markets with every civ. Are they OP?
Would you nerf vills or the market if it benefits one civ more than others, and that civ turns out to be OP? No, you'd nerf the civ.

Except TPs are causing balance issues while markets and vils aren't. I don't see why we'd try to nerf all TP civs instead of nerfing TPs lol. It's just more complicated.

No, it isn't. Currently, civs are already balanced around TPs. Nerfing them would require a lot of tweaks to current TP civs. It is, essentially, changing your mind on a past EP policy which is the basis of many decisions made along the way.

You say TPs are causing balance issues, I only see an issue in China match ups and that's because they don't get the same crate start as other civs. And the only reason vills or the market aren't causing balance issues is because the civs are balanced around them. For example, vills don't help Japan as much but Japan has compensation. And if Japan is weak, you would never consider nerfing vills to buff them. The same could be, and is, true for TPs right now.

TPs make this game great. They emphasize the shipment mechanic which increases strategic depth, and they encourage interaction between players in an RTS that is otherwise not very interactive.

250w TPs wouldn't change the balance and you know that.

[Garja]

250w would change balance and meta. We don't do that because we want early TPs and the consequent meta.

Before the TP meta there was only musk-huss mass. I dont think anyone would want to go back there.
This whole discussion is about civs shouldnt get free tp, free market or nothing based on pure luck.

Partly true and partly not, there is nothing wrong in having long colonial battles. In a sense they are much better than going fortress and having half your army coming from shipments.

[Dsy]

Why do you want increase its cost anyway?
I mean sure its strong for its cost (best cost effectivity option), but every civ can build it.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

A TP is an economic investment available to every civ. People also make vills and markets with every civ. Are they OP?
Would you nerf vills or the market if it benefits one civ more than others, and that civ turns out to be OP? No, you'd nerf the civ.

Except TPs are causing balance issues while markets and vils aren't. I don't see why we'd try to nerf all TP civs instead of nerfing TPs lol. It's just more complicated.

No, it isn't. Currently, civs are already balanced around TPs. Nerfing them would require a lot of tweaks to current TP civs. It is, essentially, changing your mind on a past EP policy which is the basis of many decisions made along the way.

You say TPs are causing balance issues, I only see an issue in China match ups and that's because they don't get the same crate start as other civs. And the only reason vills or the market aren't causing balance issues is because the civs are balanced around them. For example, vills don't help Japan as much but Japan has compensation. And if Japan is weak, you would never consider nerfing vills to buff them. The same could be, and is, true for TPs right now.

TPs make this game great. They emphasize the shipment mechanic which increases strategic depth, and they encourage interaction between players in an RTS that is otherwise not very interactive.

250w TPs wouldn't change the balance and you know that.

Increasing cost by 50 would directly impact some civs' ability to build it early, so it's hard to believe it wouldn't impact balance.
A much more sensible change would be reduce XP income as kaiser suggested. But nerfing TPs in any way is a bad change imo.

[Kaiserklein]

No, it isn't. Currently, civs are already balanced around TPs. Nerfing them would require a lot of tweaks to current TP civs. It is, essentially, changing your mind on a past EP policy which is the basis of many decisions made along the way.

Yes it's true it would take some work because civs are (somewhat) balanced around current TPs. But if we don't do that effort, we'll never have a really good balance. Also having such strong TPs means that on no TP maps, or even on some maps like Malaysia where you sometimes can't grab a TP, civs aren't balanced. It also means that if you lose your explorer in age 1 and can't go TP you're fucked. It's not really healthy.

You say TPs are causing balance issues, I only see an issue in China match ups and that's because they don't get the same crate start as other civs. And the only reason vills or the market aren't causing balance issues is because the civs are balanced around them. For example, vills don't help Japan as much but Japan has compensation. And if Japan is weak, you would never consider nerfing vills to buff them. The same could be, and is, true for TPs right now.

Sure, go play as russia vs ger on 200w start, then come back and tell me the issue is only with china...
You CAN'T have a fair age 1 on 200w start without nerfing TPs. It's that simple. Unless you really make sure every single civ that can't take an age 1 TP has a big compensation somehow.

TPs make this game great. They emphasize the shipment mechanic which increases strategic depth, and they encourage interaction between players in an RTS that is otherwise not very interactive.

I just want a small nerf, it doesn't mean people aren't gonna fight for TPs anymore lol. Like I said we can even keep stagecoach unchanged, cause let's face it, people fight for the TP line mostly because of stagecoach, not for the xp.


And yeah, let's not have 250w TPs please. It just ruins the builds.

[fightinfrenchman]

Nobody should start with any crates at all. Earn your resources by gathering them instead of expecting handouts

[Goodspeed]

Yes it's true it would take some work because civs are (somewhat) balanced around current TPs. But if we don't do that effort, we'll never have a really good balance.

That claim is based on what, exactly? Balance has been steadily improving and we haven't touched TPs. If there is a civ balance issue that would potentially be fixed by nerfing TPs, it can always also be fixed by changing the civ(s) involved.

Also having such strong TPs means that on no TP maps, or even on some maps like Malaysia where you sometimes can't grab a TP, civs aren't balanced. It also means that if you lose your explorer in age 1 and can't go TP you're fucked. It's not really healthy.

No amount of changes to the TP is going to fix balance on non-TP maps. You simply can't have balance on both TP and non-TP maps and that's fine. It's not a problem if a certain map type favors certain civs. It's the same in AoE2, and to a lesser extent in SC2.
This is why the map should always be known before you pick your civ, which is the case in tournaments.

Sure, go play as russia vs ger on 200w start, then come back and tell me the issue is only with china...

Is that MU winnable either way? I do see your point about Russia which pays for the early TP more dearly than other civs. But if this match up is currently an issue, a small reduction in TP XP income won't change it. Rather you should look into changing Russia so that they can afford the early TP more easily. Perhaps a small buff in vill train time with some compensation elsewhere, opening up the 17 vill age up as a possibility. I've always felt like Russia should have that option. They used to, and that's when I found them fun to play still, but people figured out the 17v age up was too slow in the current (TP) meta. Now they feel one-dimensional.

You CAN'T have a fair age 1 on 200w start without nerfing TPs. It's that simple. Unless you really make sure every single civ that can't take an age 1 TP has a big compensation somehow.

Which we have done, or that was the plan at least. Russia might still need something I guess.

I just want a small nerf

Why? To nerf Germans? Why not just nerf Germans?

[Dsy]

I had idea that all churches could generate xp then notp maps could have weaker tp if they want to invest. It would open the gate to be more effectve as tp civ on notp maps. Opening the gate for age3 plays there.

[Hazza54321]

Nerfing tps makes the most sense, its stupid this game is balanced around tp maps but its too lateto balance with tps as an addition rather than mandatory

[Dsy]

I understand why people say balancing aound tp is not good.
I think Gs wants to keep age3 plays, not only see usual age 2.
More eisier solution could be increase base gathering xp for all civs, so its more worht to go age3, nerfing tps.
Thiss way we can keep more exciting gameplay (not only mmusk/huss) plus remove this notp-tp civ requirement on certain maps.