ESOCommunity

Garja wrote:5 -> 4 mams: besides being just a fair nerf it barely matters on EP. Port don't rely nearly as much on them on EP.
Genitours nerf: again fair nerf and you shouldn't go full goons anyway.
Overall Ports just play better than in RE, both in 1v1 and team. And in fact the win rate is just higher.

You still don't get it. You are talking too much confident as someone who isn't a porto player. You claim that EP porto is better right? So as porto players we are just demanding RE ports instead of EP ports, that shouldn't be an issue for you since RE porto is much worse.

It's an issue because jenitours and 5 mams are lame. You die before that usually and when you don't then yes they're too strong.
Anyway feel free to test that.

Garja wrote:It's an issue because jenitours and 5 mams are lame. You die before that usually and when you don't then yes they're too strong.

So, RE porto is better then, glad we finally agreed

HUMMAN wrote:5 mams was not OP for port, it was a trump card like boyars. Sad it's nerfed cause of Otto.

It was a good card for sure, probably lame for otto but it was a must for ports

deleted_user wrote:

Garja wrote:It's an issue because jenitours and 5 mams are lame. You die before that usually and when you don't then yes they're too strong.

So, RE porto is better then, glad we finally agreed

There is a difference between being a strong civ and being a one trick pony. It doesn't matter how hard you win when you succed with the FI if you lose the other 9 times.

Garja wrote:

deleted_user wrote:

Garja wrote:It's an issue because jenitours and 5 mams are lame. You die before that usually and when you don't then yes they're too strong.

So, RE porto is better then, glad we finally agreed

There is a difference between being a strong civ and being a one trick pony. It doesn't matter how hard you win when you succed with the FI if you lose the other 9 times.

I'm not even talking about FI lol, Just bring all RE status back and there wouldn't be any issue

RE ports had some proper broken shit (30rr goons, plus skirms on horse in age 4 and 5 mams) however it was getting to that point thats the problem, still dont get why people calculate the vill discount by sheer maths so one dimensional. Its so many little things that add up e.g. easier to get bigger batches of huss early, queing vills faster to snowball res and depleting res slower which most of you dont seem to understand

Hazza54321 wrote:Its so many little things that add up e.g. easier to get bigger batches of huss early, queing vills faster to snowball res and depleting res slower which most of you dont seem to understand

im fine with saying that u've an easier time with queing vills and massing units early. However, assuming that cheaper vills result in an eco advantage by not skipping vills here and there, it should be clear that your res will not actually deplete slower.

Sheer math is 15% cheaper eco (since ports get every single vill from TC expcet starting ones). The problem is people can't appreciate it and instead say it's only "XXXf"

I'm not even talking about FI lol, Just bring all RE status back and there wouldn't be any issue

What are you talking about then?
3k hp walls? Not gonna happen.
30% rr goons? Not gonna happen.
5 mams? Not gonna happen.
Only Port specific thing is genitours which is still pretty strong but not nonsense level.

Garja wrote:Sheer math is 15% cheaper eco (since ports get every single vill from TC expcet starting ones). The problem is people can't appreciate it and instead say it's only "XXXf"

I'm not even talking about FI lol, Just bring all RE status back and there wouldn't be any issue

What are you talking about then?
3k hp walls? Not gonna happen.
30% rr goons? Not gonna happen.
5 mams? Not gonna happen.
Only Port specific thing is genitours which is still pretty strong but not nonsense level.

Garja you are so weird. You admit it yourself that RE ports are better than EP ports. I would have zero hope if you were the only one who is involved with balance, because you don't consider the thoughts and justifications of others.

Garja wrote:Sheer math is 15% cheaper eco (since ports get every single vill from TC expcet starting ones). The problem is people can't appreciate it and instead say it's only "XXXf"

I'm not even talking about FI lol, Just bring all RE status back and there wouldn't be any issue

What are you talking about then?
3k hp walls? Not gonna happen.
30% rr goons? Not gonna happen.
5 mams? Not gonna happen.
Only Port specific thing is genitours which is still pretty strong but not nonsense level.

Also please don't change the subject I'm not even talking about walls. Just few posts before you claimed these changes are not big. If these were not big changes, why do you refuse reverting them?

Hazza54321 wrote:RE ports had some proper broken shit (30rr goons, plus skirms on horse in age 4 and 5 mams) however it was getting to that point thats the problem, still dont get why people calculate the vill discount by sheer maths so one dimensional. Its so many little things that add up e.g. easier to get bigger batches of huss early, queing vills faster to snowball res and depleting res slower which most of you dont seem to understand

You are thinking so one dimensional, just checked your and some other players's tournament history from NWC, ports are almost never picked on land maps it's a civ where people pick it on water maps or just for mirrors it explains fair enough I guess, Also you never played ports lol, if you really believe they are good, why you never picked them?

deleted_user wrote:

Garja wrote:Sheer math is 15% cheaper eco (since ports get every single vill from TC expcet starting ones). The problem is people can't appreciate it and instead say it's only "XXXf"

I'm not even talking about FI lol, Just bring all RE status back and there wouldn't be any issue

What are you talking about then?
3k hp walls? Not gonna happen.
30% rr goons? Not gonna happen.
5 mams? Not gonna happen.
Only Port specific thing is genitours which is still pretty strong but not nonsense level.

Also please don't change the subject I'm not even talking about walls. Just few posts before you claimed these changes are not big. If these were not big changes, why do you refuse reverting them?

I didnt say those changes arent big, I said that overall EP Ports are stronger and in fact win rate is better.
Those changes are just beneficial to overall balance so no reason to revert them.

deleted_user wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:RE ports had some proper broken shit (30rr goons, plus skirms on horse in age 4 and 5 mams) however it was getting to that point thats the problem, still dont get why people calculate the vill discount by sheer maths so one dimensional. Its so many little things that add up e.g. easier to get bigger batches of huss early, queing vills faster to snowball res and depleting res slower which most of you dont seem to understand

You are thinking so one dimensional, just checked your and some other players's tournament history from NWC, ports are almost never picked on land maps it's a civ where people pick it on water maps or just for mirrors it explains fair enough I guess, Also you never played ports lol, if you really believe they are good, why you never picked them?

If you check my EP Port record you will notice it isnt bad.
As for tourney record I just ignore that argument since it is the same for every undersused civ.

Garja wrote:

deleted_user wrote:

Show hidden quotes

Garja wrote:Sheer math is 15% cheaper eco (since ports get every single vill from TC expcet starting ones). The problem is people can't appreciate it and instead say it's only "XXXf"

I'm not even talking about FI lol, Just bring all RE status back and there wouldn't be any issue

What are you talking about then?
3k hp walls? Not gonna happen.
30% rr goons? Not gonna happen.
5 mams? Not gonna happen.
Only Port specific thing is genitours which is still pretty strong but not nonsense level.

Also please don't change the subject I'm not even talking about walls. Just few posts before you claimed these changes are not big. If these were not big changes, why do you refuse reverting them?

I didnt say those changes arent big, I said that overall EP Ports are stronger and in fact win rate is better.
Those changes are just beneficial to overall balance so no reason to revert them.

Those changes are the reason why porto doesn't have unit until age4.
Cassadores dont have upgrade in age3 and they are at low hp thus they die against cav/heavy infrantry easily,
I don't recall watching a good porto age3 play lately where cassador goon is a thing,

Garja wrote:

deleted_user wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:RE ports had some proper broken shit (30rr goons, plus skirms on horse in age 4 and 5 mams) however it was getting to that point thats the problem, still dont get why people calculate the vill discount by sheer maths so one dimensional. Its so many little things that add up e.g. easier to get bigger batches of huss early, queing vills faster to snowball res and depleting res slower which most of you dont seem to understand

You are thinking so one dimensional, just checked your and some other players's tournament history from NWC, ports are almost never picked on land maps it's a civ where people pick it on water maps or just for mirrors it explains fair enough I guess, Also you never played ports lol, if you really believe they are good, why you never picked them?

If you check my EP Port record you will notice it isnt bad.
As for tourney record I just ignore that argument since it is the same for every undersused civ.

They are underused because they are bad that's the fact, Just admit it garja.

They are underused because they are out of fashion at the moment. One random game from a top player would be enough to start the trend again. And it is the same for every civ.

Those changes are the reason why porto doesn't have unit until age4.
Cassadores dont have upgrade in age3 and they are at low hp thus they die against cav/heavy infrantry easily,
I don't recall watching a good porto age3 play lately where cassador goon is a thing,

Ye not lately but there are recs from the past where Port battle with Dutch in skirm-goon-cav war.
Anyway, this is why their units need some buff (even tho giving them stats is controversial, they're not bad).

Garja wrote:They are underused because they are out of fashion at the moment. One random game from a top player would be enough to start the trend again. And it is the same for every civ.

Those changes are the reason why porto doesn't have unit until age4.
Cassadores dont have upgrade in age3 and they are at low hp thus they die against cav/heavy infrantry easily,
I don't recall watching a good porto age3 play lately where cassador goon is a thing,

Ye not lately but there are recs from the past where Port battle with Dutch in skirm-goon-cav war.
Anyway, this is why their units need some buff (even tho giving them stats is controversial, they're not bad).

I'll post my tournament game from 2016 against raphael, I generally go FI when sea booming, that time I just wanted to stay fortress and fight with him, If i went Indrustial that wouldn't even be hard for me.. Anyway you should watch the rec and you will see how hopeless it is to fight in age3 as porto.

there are plenty of recs where Port wins this MU. I personally like this one.

Ports was not even that bad on RE as you guys are making it lol. Port isn't one dimensional your thinking is, think of different strats for every civ and how you can make the most of it rather than just trying to make goon skirm every game. On RE port can do a very fast rush or just turtle with tc + cm among many other things! I am sure @Aizamk would agree

For sure we need @Aizamk's thoughts

princeofcarthage wrote:Ports was not even that bad on RE as you guys are making it lol. Port isn't one dimensional your thinking is, think of different strats for every civ and how you can make the most of it rather than just trying to make goon skirm every game. On RE port can do a very fast rush or just turtle with tc + cm among many other things! I am sure @Aizamk would agree

Totally agree with this, for some maps it was hard to play since hunts were issue but other than that, ports were quite ok civ.

So, let me understand, are you confident that reverting vill cost and starting crate for genitours +2 range would make you win more with Ports?

deleted_user wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:RE ports had some proper broken shit (30rr goons, plus skirms on horse in age 4 and 5 mams) however it was getting to that point thats the problem, still dont get why people calculate the vill discount by sheer maths so one dimensional. Its so many little things that add up e.g. easier to get bigger batches of huss early, queing vills faster to snowball res and depleting res slower which most of you dont seem to understand

You are thinking so one dimensional, just checked your and some other players's tournament history from NWC, ports are almost never picked on land maps it's a civ where people pick it on water maps or just for mirrors it explains fair enough I guess, Also you never played ports lol, if you really believe they are good, why you never picked them?

http://aoe3.jpcommunity.com/rating2/pla ... lent=&ft=1

And where did i say they were good, i just think theyre better on ep but still weak if you cared to read

Just hope to change to the cost of 4 mams card. In RE, a fortress shipment equal to 1000 resource, you pay 1000g for that card, which gives you 5 mams (5*400g=2000g). It is equivalent. However now you lose 400 resource if you send it on ep, so the cost of this card should also be reduced to 800g (or 600g though I believe no one will agree).
Also move the combat card in age 4 to age 3 will be good to boost cassadores.