Fixing Starting Crates

[[Armag] diarouga]

Would it be possible to make random crate spawns mu dependent? I.e have random crates on mus that are relatively unaffected by crate spawns but fixed crates otherwise?

Too complicated xD.

[Riotcoke]

One thing that does shout out to me with fixed crates also is that it's such a massive change that it draws RE further away from EP which makes EP more Elitist which may result in less people trying EP than there currently is.

[[Armag] diarouga]

One thing that does shout out to me with fixed crates also is that it's such a massive change that it draws RE further away from EP which makes EP more Elitist which may result in less people trying EP than there currently is.

Someone coming from the RE wouldn't even notice this change.
After playing 10 games he might notice that the crates are always the same, and will probably like it.

Furthermore you'd be surprised to know how many low level players don't know about random crates. I actually figured out you had a random crate when I reached captain (and I played a lot of games lol).

[princeofcarthage]

If you achieve relative balance on a common ground in case say no tp maps or tp maps either way, random crates wouldn't be an issue rather open up multiple gameplay options

We've discussed that a lot, but a lot of people (me included) believe that reaching a balance between TP and no TP is impossible.
Furthermore, coin start would still be an issue for Japan and India, and you'd still start with +100w against China sometimes.

Read again. I said you achieve relative balance on one thing that is Either Tp map OR Non tp maps, and that is entirely possible.

[Riotcoke]

One thing that does shout out to me with fixed crates also is that it's such a massive change that it draws RE further away from EP which makes EP more Elitist which may result in less people trying EP than there currently is.

Someone coming from the RE wouldn't even notice this change.
After playing 10 games he might notice that the crates are always the same, and will probably like it.

Furthermore you'd be surprised to know how many low level players don't know about random crates. I actually figured out you had a random crate when I reached captain (and I played a lot of games lol).

That seems odd that you didn't realise you had random crate spawns, however I still think it causes a wider gap, which already sort of plagues EP as it is.

[[Armag] diarouga]

If you achieve relative balance on a common ground in case say no tp maps or tp maps either way, random crates wouldn't be an issue rather open up multiple gameplay options

We've discussed that a lot, but a lot of people (me included) believe that reaching a balance between TP and no TP is impossible.
Furthermore, coin start would still be an issue for Japan and India, and you'd still start with +100w against China sometimes.

Read again. I said you achieve relative balance on one thing that is Either Tp map OR Non tp maps, and that is entirely possible.

Sounds like I didn't read well indeed but still I disagree.

Let's assume we achieve relative balance on TP maps (which is possible), then random crates would still be an issue.
Germany would still be much better on wood start, TAD civs bad on coin start, Dutch great on coin start, and China would get -100w sometimes.

[[Armag] diarouga]

One thing that does shout out to me with fixed crates also is that it's such a massive change that it draws RE further away from EP which makes EP more Elitist which may result in less people trying EP than there currently is.

Someone coming from the RE wouldn't even notice this change.
After playing 10 games he might notice that the crates are always the same, and will probably like it.

Furthermore you'd be surprised to know how many low level players don't know about random crates. I actually figured out you had a random crate when I reached captain (and I played a lot of games lol).

That seems odd that you didn't realise you had random crate spawns, however I still think it causes a wider gap, which already sort of plagues EP as it is.

It doesn't change the meta and as I said, RE players would barely notice it during their first games.
You could say the same about ESOC maps honestly. The game feels very different when you have balanced hunts.

[princeofcarthage]

Show hidden quotes

If you achieve relative balance on a common ground in case say no tp maps or tp maps either way, random crates wouldn't be an issue rather open up multiple gameplay options

We've discussed that a lot, but a lot of people (me included) believe that reaching a balance between TP and no TP is impossible.
Furthermore, coin start would still be an issue for Japan and India, and you'd still start with +100w against China sometimes.

Read again. I said you achieve relative balance on one thing that is Either Tp map OR Non tp maps, and that is entirely possible.

Sounds like I didn't read well indeed but still I disagree.

Let's assume we achieve relative balance on TP maps (which is possible), then random crates would still be an issue.
Germany would still be much better on wood start, TAD civs bad on coin start, Dutch great on coin start, and China would get -100w sometimes.

It wouldn't be that big of an issue as you feel it is right now (I disagree with you). Achieving relative balance, one part of it means Tp or no Tp will affect each civilization relatively equal, so Tp will buff germany as much as it would likely is to buff brits (or nerf in other case), yes there will be certain civilizations which are likely to benefit slightly more with certain crates than other or probably not but you would need to test for that.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

If you achieve relative balance on a common ground in case say no tp maps or tp maps either way, random crates wouldn't be an issue rather open up multiple gameplay options

We've discussed that a lot, but a lot of people (me included) believe that reaching a balance between TP and no TP is impossible.
Furthermore, coin start would still be an issue for Japan and India, and you'd still start with +100w against China sometimes.

Read again. I said you achieve relative balance on one thing that is Either Tp map OR Non tp maps, and that is entirely possible.

Sounds like I didn't read well indeed but still I disagree.

Let's assume we achieve relative balance on TP maps (which is possible), then random crates would still be an issue.
Germany would still be much better on wood start, TAD civs bad on coin start, Dutch great on coin start, and China would get -100w sometimes.

It wouldn't be that big of an issue as you feel it is right now (I disagree with you). Achieving relative balance, one part of it means Tp or no Tp will affect each civilization relatively equal, so Tp will buff germany as much as it would likely is to buff brits (or nerf in other case), yes there will be certain civilizations which are likely to benefit slightly more with certain crates than other or probably not but you would need to test for that.

As I said, discussing Germany is tricky because it's experience and it's a weird resource. Still, getting an early TP is good for Germany and France while Russia and Dutch can't use their wood early on, so how would that TP balance change it?

Also what about Japan being 40 sec slower than Dutch on coin start? Or starting with -100w. You wouldn't fix it, and I don't think I need to explain why it's big :)

Anyway, what do you mean by "relative balance on TP maps"? Nerfing TPs? You know it's not going to happen, so the debate is not very relevant honestly.

[Hazza54321]

im bored of these german op threads surely theres been enough

[Garja]

aridaje

[ListlessSalmon]

I think fixed crates would be better game design for sure, and it also doesn't seem too far from RE to annoy me about substantial changes- particularly if lots of other things are going to be wildly redesigned anyway. I get that someone might disagree about difference from RE though as that is very subjective.

For Diarouga's second point, would it be that catastrophic if we were to unfix China's crates to try to remedy the absurdity for varying between say coin and f+w start (for say Japan) against China? If that were possible then we could do that + remove the worst crate spawns balance wise (I have not much idea here but no wood for germany no coin for japan was suggested by Dia) and solve both of his problems without completely killing off random crates. I don't really know how good 3f+3w China would be or how bad 2f+2w+c or 3f+2w China would be though. But I would have guessed 2f+2w+c could do the market start suggested in that other thread as being better than 2 villages economically.

For game design, having everything fixed or everything random (with perhaps some civ-specific limitations for balance) would seem to me to be best.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I think fixed crates would be better game design for sure, and it also doesn't seem too far from RE to annoy me about substantial changes- particularly if lots of other things are going to be wildly redesigned anyway. I get that someone might disagree about difference from RE though as that is very subjective.

For Diarouga's second point, would it be that catastrophic if we were to unfix China's crates to try to remedy the absurdity for varying between say coin and f+w start (for say Japan) against China? If that were possible then we could do that + remove the worst crate spawns balance wise (I have not much idea here but no wood for germany no coin for japan was suggested by Dia) and solve both of his problems without completely killing off random crates. I don't really know how good 3f+3w China would be or how bad 2f+2w+c or 3f+2w China would be though. But I would have guessed 2f+2w+c could do the market start suggested in that other thread as being better than 2 villages economically.

For game design, having everything fixed or everything random (with perhaps some civ-specific limitations for balance) would seem to me to be best.

Removing fixed crates for China would ruin the civ (it just shows how relevant a wood crate is).
Other than that, I'd be more than happy if you remove wood start to Germany, and coin start to TAD civs as I said.
Fixed crates is better, but these 2 changes would fix the biggest issues.

[n0el]

The example argument for why fixed crates make such a huge balance difference without changing the game at all, is China. If you made China’s 3rd wood crate random, they’d become the worst civ immediately. Someone will argue it’s good for variety (which is dumb), but sure, China could market start and still be absolute shit.

PS..more on the “variety” argument. What is more important for variety? Starting TP sometimes and market sometimes? Or more options later in the game. There’s no question with China, for example, that if you couldn’t start TP you couldn’t do some builds. Also, if you couldn’t start with double village, you also couldn’t do some builds. So basically the only option would be hard age 2, or straight FF. Everything else would be no viable most of the time.

[Garja]

China is the perfect example why all civs should have the extra random crate.

[n0el]

You want to give China another crate? They’d be insanely OP on 400w.

[Garja]

Remove 100w. Add same random crates as other civs.

[deleted_user0]

China is the perfect example why all civs should have the extra random crate.

China is the perfect example why all civs should have fixed crates.

Imagine china on 100c start haha, you can just type gg and go afk.

[n0el]

Remove 100w. Add same random crates as other civs.

Did you even read my post?

[deleted_user0]

The example argument for why fixed crates make such a huge balance difference without changing the game at all, is China. If you made China’s 3rd wood crate random, they’d become the worst civ immediately. Someone will argue it’s good for variety (which is dumb), but sure, China could market start and still be absolute shit.

PS..more on the “variety” argument. What is more important for variety? Starting TP sometimes and market sometimes? Or more options later in the game. There’s no question with China, for example, that if you couldn’t start TP you couldn’t do some builds. Also, if you couldn’t start with double village, you also couldn’t do some builds. So basically the only option would be hard age 2, or straight FF. Everything else would be no viable most of the time.

china can market start with 300w too, so it's not actually more variety. It's just random. And with the food or coin crate, china is never going to do anything else than spend the 200w on a village straight away. Going market just slows you down more than it's worth, as you delay village which means you delay goat fattening (which was a dumb nerf anyway). The difference between coin or food just means whether you'll be faster or slower to fortress or colonial. You'd only make a market with a 80+ wood tres in your base, in which case it might actually be better to just go for the old fashioned tp.

ps noel likes nuts.

[n0el]

True.

[Garja]

Remove 100w. Add same random crates as other civs.

Did you even read my post?

Again, remove 100w, add other random crates.

[Garja]

The example argument for why fixed crates make such a huge balance difference without changing the game at all, is China. If you made China’s 3rd wood crate random, they’d become the worst civ immediately. Someone will argue it’s good for variety (which is dumb), but sure, China could market start and still be absolute shit.

PS..more on the “variety” argument. What is more important for variety? Starting TP sometimes and market sometimes? Or more options later in the game. There’s no question with China, for example, that if you couldn’t start TP you couldn’t do some builds. Also, if you couldn’t start with double village, you also couldn’t do some builds. So basically the only option would be hard age 2, or straight FF. Everything else would be no viable most of the time.

china can market start with 300w too, so it's not actually more variety. It's just random. And with the food or coin crate, china is never going to do anything else than spend the 200w on a village straight away. Going market just slows you down more than it's worth, as you delay village which means you delay goat fattening (which was a dumb nerf anyway). The difference between coin or food just means whether you'll be faster or slower to fortress or colonial. You'd only make a market with a 80+ wood tres in your base, in which case it might actually be better to just go for the old fashioned tp.

ps noel likes nuts.

It's not about adding variety to China. It is for fairness with other civs. Random crates means same crate spawn works in the same direction for (almost) all civs.
Besides, 100f 100g surely is better market than 100w alone.

[deleted_user0]

nah its not. the fact you say that just shows you know nothing about china. if you give china random crates, that's fine, but then you need to add another food or wood crate to their base crates. but really it's just whining about nothing.

[UpMySleeves]

I know the RNG is part of this game, and it’s part of what makes it fun but it’s also so frustrating with the treasures, resource spawn and ofc crates. I`m not sure if it would be a good or a bad thing to do but it seems like it might fix some balance issues. Maybe just test if for some time, and change it if it’s ass. As far as people talking about variety, I think there`s plenty random things, like i said above.