Fixing Starting Crates

[[Armag] diarouga]

China with random crate instead of the wood crate would be unplayable on food and coin start (in 2016-2017, before people started to take a TP, it was considered as one of the worst civs, and here it would be 2016 China with -1v basically).

[gamevideo113]

This is what i think could be a good compromise between complete randomness and fixed crates. You simply pair the strongest (balanced) start for one civ with the strongest start for the other civ, and if one start is too weak/strong (even compared to the specific start other civs are getting in the same chance #) then it's easy to change it/remove it, while the randomness in crate starts is intact at least to an extent, so players still need to adapt a bit depending on the start.

Please do not focus on the specific numbers because i have surely made mistakes in reporting/evaluating them, they are obviously up for debate. This table is just a fac-simile with the purpose of illustrating a modus operandi.

[[Armag] diarouga]

This is what i think could be a good compromise between complete randomness and fixed crates. You simply pair the strongest (balanced) start for one civ with the strongest start for the other civ, and if one start is too weak/strong (even compared to the specific start other civs are getting in the same chance #) then it's easy to change it/remove it, while the randomness in crate starts is intact at least to an extent, so players still need to adapt a bit depending on the start.

Please do not focus on the specific numbers because i have surely made mistakes in reporting/evaluating them, they are obviously up for debate. This table is just a fac-simile with the purpose of illustrating a modus operandi.

That's interesting.
I'd also remove the Iro wood start and it sounds balanced (India would deserve a bigger nerf though).

[gamevideo113]

This is what i think could be a good compromise between complete randomness and fixed crates. You simply pair the strongest (balanced) start for one civ with the strongest start for the other civ, and if one start is too weak/strong (even compared to the specific start other civs are getting in the same chance #) then it's easy to change it/remove it, while the randomness in crate starts is intact at least to an extent, so players still need to adapt a bit depending on the start.

Please do not focus on the specific numbers because i have surely made mistakes in reporting/evaluating them, they are obviously up for debate. This table is just a fac-simile with the purpose of illustrating a modus operandi.

That's interesting.
I'd also remove the Iro wood start and it sounds balanced (India would deserve a bigger nerf though).

Yes TAD civs would be definitely getting the most out of this change, so further tweaking might be necessary but i think this could be a solid base for improving the balance.

[zoom]

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

That's not how it works. It's a food crate, you'd only get when every other civ already does.

[zoom]

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.

Right, and fixing all civilizations' crates is equally for fairness, only with a lot of benefits, on top.

[zoom]

This is what i think could be a good compromise between complete randomness and fixed crates. You simply pair the strongest (balanced) start for one civ with the strongest start for the other civ, and if one start is too weak/strong (even compared to the specific start other civs are getting in the same chance #) then it's easy to change it/remove it, while the randomness in crate starts is intact at least to an extent, so players still need to adapt a bit depending on the start.

Please do not focus on the specific numbers because i have surely made mistakes in reporting/evaluating them, they are obviously up for debate. This table is just a fac-simile with the purpose of illustrating a modus operandi.

That's interesting.
I'd also remove the Iro wood start and it sounds balanced (India would deserve a bigger nerf though).

Yes TAD civs would be definitely getting the most out of this change, so further tweaking might be necessary but i think this could be a solid base for improving the balance.

That depends entirely on what crate you give them.

[zoom]

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.

This is the only logical drawback I've thought of, but I really do not think it's a significant enough difference, especially given the benefits. Definitely, it's noticeable, but it's not that intrusive. I think it's something you'd get used to, quickly.

[Kaiserklein]

im bored of these german op threads surely theres been enough

Nah there's never enough of these for somppu and diarouga. They spend their time complaining about germany on twitch chats and esoc, they won't ever get bored.

[Garja]

Show hidden quotes

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.

Right, and fixing all civilizations' crates is equally for fairness, only with a lot of benefits, on top.

No.
First of all it's not equal because you're going to arbitrarily give each civ a different extra crate (clearly causing potential inequalities).
Second, it has more drawbacks and not benefits.

[zoom]

Show hidden quotes

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.

Right, and fixing all civilizations' crates is equally for fairness, only with a lot of benefits, on top.

No.
First of all it's not equal because you're going to arbitrarily give each civ a different extra crate (clearly causing potential inequalities).
Second, it has more drawbacks and not benefits.

It definitely will decrease inequality; it will just decrease symmetry. Equal equates to balanced or fair – not identical.

It would be helpful of you to please explain which the drawbacks are.

[Kaiserklein]

Just gonna quote some stuff I posted in this thread because I cba to write it all again. I'm not claiming I have the perfect solutions to balance the crates start though, but it's a start.

[spoiler=Why we shouldn't fix crates]

Just boring if crates are fixed. The exact same thing applies to treasures. Removing random crates is just like having only maps with cascade/klondike kind of treasures. Yes it makes the game a bit more competitive because there's less randomness, but

1) it breaks the current balance. Huge change, we have to rebalance ep around it.

2) removes an age 1 skill, macroing depending on the crates/treasures you get. Believe it or not but even some top players still mismacro on some crates starts with some civs.

3) it's just not the spirit of aoe3. There's lots of random stuff and starting crates are just one of them. For example some maps are frozen, which changes the way water plays out. Some tp lines can spawn in different ways. The resources aren't fixed either, meaning that it's never totally fair. It's just how the game works, it's roughly balanced and then you have to adapt. If you fix crates you might as well fix hunts, treasures, maps spawns etc. Or move to sc2.

4) it's obviously boring and leads to less diverse builds. Depending on crates start you can see iro getting a farm, a tp, or nothing. You can see slow or fast age. You can see japan going for consulate or not. And so on.

5) it's a lazy and ugly solution. Removing a core feature of this game, instead of trying to balance in another way. For example nerfing tps a bit, and giving alternatives to some civs on wood starts (like we did with otto or sioux), is one way to make sure random crates aren't too imba. Much more elegant. In the same way, having cascade/klondike treasures is a lazy fix, while having wadmalaw treasures (no useless or op treasures, and with balanced risk/reward ratios) is an elegant fix.

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?

[/spoiler][spoiler=How to balance crates starts instead]

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.

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.

[/spoiler]

[Garja]

It definitely will decrease inequality; it will just decrease symmetry. Equal equates to balanced or fair – not identical.

It would be helpful of you to please explain which the drawbacks are.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that arbitrarily assigning different crates will be more equal than the current situation with base crate + the extra random crates. Symmetry is a guarantee for equality in this case.
I think I mentioned the drawbacks 100 times already. Less variety, different design from the original game, also the cost of adapting to a new scenario that is not even remotely needed for balance.
In general it is simply a huge change with little to no benefits for balance. In fact the drawbacks are very likely superior to the benefits.

[n0el]

It definitely will decrease inequality; it will just decrease symmetry. Equal equates to balanced or fair – not identical.

It would be helpful of you to please explain which the drawbacks are.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that arbitrarily assigning different crates will be more equal than the current situation with base crate + the extra random crates. Symmetry is a guarantee for equality in this case.
Explained drawback 100 times already. Less variety, different design from the original game, also the cost of adapting to a new scenario that is not even remotely needed for balance.

That’s just wrong. Symmetry does not guarantee equality. This has been explained so many times. Variety in age 1 starts doesn’t equate to build variation. It in fact limits build variation in cases where the start isn’t ideal. These are the real, lazy arguments from people who are too stubborn to admit that random crates are bad.

[zoom]

What about fixing crates of civilizations to wood (except for Dutch which would get coin) – which would always allow the option for a tp start – then nerfing Discovery TP deliveries, only, by 20% or 25%, and balancing civilizations accordingly? It would increase the viability of options, to a TP start, without removing any, and allow balance on 0tp maps to become less of an outlier.

I don't think TPs are an issue beyond Discovery Age, regardless, because they reward both investment and map control.

[Hazza54321]

That would be boring

[Riotcoke]

In regard to the change in skill, it seems a lot like aoe2 in that regard. In Age of Kings, the nilla of aoe2, reseeding farms was seen as a skill due to the apm required and no auto-seed farm queue. When Age of Conquerors came out mills had a Seeding queue meaning that you could reduce the apm required, this created quite a large amount of uproar with the competitive scene due to the loss of a key skill in the game. Fixed crates also seems to be the same sort of thing as this, it removes a skill in regards to early macro, which may i add compared to other RTS games aoe3's macro is relatively slow skilled. Do we want to remove another part of the macro and skill in the game just for what is effectively a cop-out to fixing things properly?

[Riotcoke]

Also if early tps are that much of a problem just make them give 1/2 xp or something in age 1 and make them auto upgrade to the current xp when you get to age 2.

[Garja]

It definitely will decrease inequality; it will just decrease symmetry. Equal equates to balanced or fair – not identical.

It would be helpful of you to please explain which the drawbacks are.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that arbitrarily assigning different crates will be more equal than the current situation with base crate + the extra random crates. Symmetry is a guarantee for equality in this case.
Explained drawback 100 times already. Less variety, different design from the original game, also the cost of adapting to a new scenario that is not even remotely needed for balance.

That’s just wrong. Symmetry does not guarantee equality. This has been explained so many times. Variety in age 1 starts doesn’t equate to build variation. It in fact limits build variation in cases where the start isn’t ideal. These are the real, lazy arguments from people who are too stubborn to admit that random crates are bad.

Who explained what? Base crates (enough for 2v, enough for a house) + random crates is the best guarantee of equality because in 99% of cases the same extra crates benefit civs in the same way. 100w is better for every civ, doesn't matter if Germans make a TP with it and India only uses it for a smoother start.
Variety in age1 implies many things that I'm too lazy to enlist. Simply put it just increases exponentially the number of possible scenarios. Build variety is indeed conditioned to some extent by the extra crate, but that's exactly how it is supposed to be. In most cases tho, the extra crate merely affects the efficiency of a build (e.g gold crate will be market->TP while wood crate is TP-> market).
I'm genuinely convinced I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong. Your pov is the same ignorant, meta-based pov that Diarouga has. "Starting TP is OP so random crates are a problem." Bullshit, learn to play around it. If really really necessary there are 3 billions other changes to balance the issue of starting TPs.

[Riotcoke]

Show hidden quotes

It definitely will decrease inequality; it will just decrease symmetry. Equal equates to balanced or fair – not identical.

It would be helpful of you to please explain which the drawbacks are.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that arbitrarily assigning different crates will be more equal than the current situation with base crate + the extra random crates. Symmetry is a guarantee for equality in this case.
Explained drawback 100 times already. Less variety, different design from the original game, also the cost of adapting to a new scenario that is not even remotely needed for balance.

That’s just wrong. Symmetry does not guarantee equality. This has been explained so many times. Variety in age 1 starts doesn’t equate to build variation. It in fact limits build variation in cases where the start isn’t ideal. These are the real, lazy arguments from people who are too stubborn to admit that random crates are bad.

Who explained what? Base crates (enough for 2v, enough for a house) + random crates is the best guarantee of equality because in 99% of cases the same extra crates benefit civs in the same way. 100w is better for every civ, doesn't matter if Germans make a TP with it and India only uses it for a smoother start.
Variety in age1 implies many things that I'm too lazy to enlist. Simply put it just increases exponentially the number of possible scenarios. Build variety is indeed conditioned to some extent by the extra crate, but that's exactly how it is supposed to be. In most cases tho, the extra crate merely affects the efficiency of a build (e.g gold crate will be market->TP while wood crate is TP-> market).
I'm genuinely convinced I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong. Your pov is the same ignorant, meta-based pov that Diarouga has. "Starting TP is OP so random crates are a problem." Bullshit, learn to play around it. If really really necessary there are 3 billions other changes to balance the issue of starting TPs.

The variety also makes Age1 more interesting, watch games of age of empires 1 or 2 and you'll realise how boring it can be when it's so standardised.

[Kaiserklein]

That’s just wrong. Symmetry does not guarantee equality. This has been explained so many times. Variety in age 1 starts doesn’t equate to build variation. It in fact limits build variation in cases where the start isn’t ideal. These are the real, lazy arguments from people who are too stubborn to admit that random crates are bad.

No. Random crates allow you to go for different kinds of builds. Fixed crates don't. So it does give variety, it's as simple as that.
"Lazy" is what you call people who want to remove an core feature of the game instead of finding a constructive way to balance it. Just like having only cascade range kind of treasures would be a lazy way to fix imbalances, instead of actually rebalancing treasures.

What about fixing crates of civilizations to wood (except for Dutch which would get coin) – which would always allow the option for a tp start – then nerfing Discovery TP deliveries, only, by 20% or 25%, and balancing civilizations accordingly? It would increase the viability of options, to a TP start, without removing any, and allow balance on 0tp maps to become less of an outlier.

I don't think TPs are an issue beyond Discovery Age, regardless, because they reward both investment and map control.

This. I don't want a fixed wood start as it would be boring, but nerfing the age 1 TP would be a strong solution.

[BrookG]

Would a 225w TP make a change? Or increase the xp needed for each following shipment?

[n0el]

@Riotcoke I personally don't find any difference in terms of interest is seeing market in age 1 - TP in transition vs TP in age 1, market in transition. I do find a ton of difference in interest level when one civ is immediately at a huge deficit because the RNG didn't go in their favor, or that the are pigeon-holed into one build order box because they couldn't start with a TP or consulate, etc...The difference in age1-> progression between aoe2 and aoe3 is huge. Being able to get a TP or not, in aoe3, for some civs, drastically changes the options available. That isn't true in aoe2, because the game design is fundamentally different.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

It definitely will decrease inequality; it will just decrease symmetry. Equal equates to balanced or fair – not identical.

It would be helpful of you to please explain which the drawbacks are.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that arbitrarily assigning different crates will be more equal than the current situation with base crate + the extra random crates. Symmetry is a guarantee for equality in this case.
Explained drawback 100 times already. Less variety, different design from the original game, also the cost of adapting to a new scenario that is not even remotely needed for balance.

That’s just wrong. Symmetry does not guarantee equality. This has been explained so many times. Variety in age 1 starts doesn’t equate to build variation. It in fact limits build variation in cases where the start isn’t ideal. These are the real, lazy arguments from people who are too stubborn to admit that random crates are bad.

Who explained what? Base crates (enough for 2v, enough for a house) + random crates is the best guarantee of equality because in 99% of cases the same extra crates benefit civs in the same way. 100w is better for every civ, doesn't matter if Germans make a TP with it and India only uses it for a smoother start.
Variety in age1 implies many things that I'm too lazy to enlist. Simply put it just increases exponentially the number of possible scenarios. Build variety is indeed conditioned to some extent by the extra crate, but that's exactly how it is supposed to be. In most cases tho, the extra crate merely affects the efficiency of a build (e.g gold crate will be market->TP while wood crate is TP-> market).
I'm genuinely convinced I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong. Your pov is the same ignorant, meta-based pov that Diarouga has. "Starting TP is OP so random crates are a problem." Bullshit, learn to play around it. If really really necessary there are 3 billions other changes to balance the issue of starting TPs.

The variety also makes Age1 more interesting, watch games of age of empires 1 or 2 and you'll realise how boring it can be when it's so standardised.

Better yet, actually play AoE2 and realize age1 is far from boring. RNG is not a requirement for excitement.

[n0el]

That’s just wrong. Symmetry does not guarantee equality. This has been explained so many times. Variety in age 1 starts doesn’t equate to build variation. It in fact limits build variation in cases where the start isn’t ideal. These are the real, lazy arguments from people who are too stubborn to admit that random crates are bad.

No. Random crates allow you to go for different kinds of builds. Fixed crates don't. So it does give variety, it's as simple as that.
"Lazy" is what you call people who want to remove an core feature of the game instead of finding a constructive way to balance it. Just like having only cascade range kind of treasures would be a lazy way to fix imbalances, instead of actually rebalancing treasures.

Can you go for as many builds if you can't start with a TP? If the answer is no, then your argument makes no sense.