Fixing Starting Crates

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea, wood start lets you go for the 3SW/700c ff xD. That's a reason to remove it.

[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.

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

It's not boring to play no because you're doing different things, even with my lack of skill in aoe2 (i'm like 1770 elo on HD) things like boar luring is enjoyable, however i just don't think it's particularly interesting for a viewer because the bo is always going to be the same unless the map in it's self is different, E.g a water map, however this seems to be somewhat of a problem in aoe2 seeing as Arabia is heavily played in showmatches. In aoe3 i admit that you have the treasures to mix up age 1 but i still think that the changes in bo make the game more interesting to watch and removing this variation is firstly a cop-out instead of balancing the game in a different way as well as having the aforementioned variance in age 1 play.

[[Armag] diarouga]

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.

It's not boring to play no because you're doing different things, even with my lack of skill in aoe2 (i'm like 1770 elo on HD) things like boar luring is enjoyable, however i just don't think it's particularly interesting for a viewer because the bo is always going to be the same unless the map in it's self is different, E.g a water map, however this seems to be somewhat of a problem in aoe2 seeing as Arabia is heavily played in showmatches. In aoe3 i admit that you have the treasures to mix up age 1 but i still think that the changes in bo make the game more interesting to watch and removing this variation is firstly a cop-out instead of balancing the game in a different way as well as having the aforementioned variance in age 1 play.

Does it really make a difference if someone gets a food start and goes market or if someone gets a gold start and goes for the market?
Or if you're playing France/Germany and you make TP in age 1 and then market in transition vs market age 1 and TP in transition? It's just the same honestly. It might be slightly different for the players but for the viewers there's no difference.

[Riotcoke]

@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.

Basically every civ benefits from a wood start(apart from dutch), some obviously more than others, i feel like it's not the random crates which is the balance issue but what civs are able to do with the 200w. It's about tweaking the power of that wood start compared to fixing the starts. I also don't think removing certain crates as bad, look at Iro compared to RE it's pretty night and day after removing 200w.

[deleted_user0]

Just fix crates already so we can finally play some ggs

[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.

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

It's not boring to play no because you're doing different things, even with my lack of skill in aoe2 (i'm like 1770 elo on HD) things like boar luring is enjoyable, however i just don't think it's particularly interesting for a viewer because the bo is always going to be the same unless the map in it's self is different, E.g a water map, however this seems to be somewhat of a problem in aoe2 seeing as Arabia is heavily played in showmatches. In aoe3 i admit that you have the treasures to mix up age 1 but i still think that the changes in bo make the game more interesting to watch and removing this variation is firstly a cop-out instead of balancing the game in a different way as well as having the aforementioned variance in age 1 play.

Does it really make a difference if someone gets a food start and goes market or if someone gets a gold start and goes for the market?
Or if you're playing France/Germany and you make TP in age 1 and then market in transition vs market age 1 and TP in transition? It's just the same honestly. It might be slightly different for the players but for the viewers there's no difference.

It gives variance and options, why is that a bad thing? Again it's simply that you need to balance what makes the start too powerful, not to balance the crates themselves.

[deleted_user0]

it doesn't really give variance, it's not really like the options are equally good. tp before market is just vastly superior in most if not all cases. especially on high xp yield maps where you can get the pass on the tp early (for example baja mid map tp = shipment at 1 minute instead of 1:45-2:00).

[Garja]

@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.

The problem is here. Even just swapping market and TP changes the nature of a game because the different efficiency of a build and thus slightly different timings. Also different initial macro is required and occasionally gold+treasures means you can market and get something else out of it.
And let's be clear once for all, there is no such thing as huge deficit due to RNG when it comes to extra crates. Aside from stuff like Dutch vs Jap/India the extra crate doesn't really change any MU. 100w is just as good for Brits as it is for Germans. And 100g is just as bad for both civs. The 100f crate sometimes make a little difference as for example 200w 100f is a starting TP for Spain and Germans while 200w is only for Germans. But that's still totally ok. Spain can age one vill less in that case or can chose to use the extra 100w for a starting market. And here you also see the difference in build orders.

[[Armag] diarouga]

@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.

Basically every civ benefits from a wood start(apart from dutch), some obviously more than others, i feel like it's not the random crates which is the balance issue but what civs are able to do with the 200w. It's about tweaking the power of that wood start compared to fixing the starts. I also don't think removing certain crates as bad, look at Iro compared to RE it's pretty night and day after removing 200w.

Iro on a wood start with treasures really feels like RE Iro sometimes, that's why I'd remove that wood crate.

Broken tier :

Germany

Civs that benefit a lot from the wood start :

India
Japan
France
Iro
Brit

Civs that benefit a bit from a wood start :

Sioux
Aztec
Otto
Spain in eco MUs
Port on no ATP/water maps

Civs that don't benefit at all from a wood start :

China
Russia
Spain in defensive MUs
Dutch
Port on ATP/water maps

Conclusion : Depending on the map/MU, 5 civs won't use their starting wood before the transition, while 6 civs will be 10 to 30 sec faster thanks to the wood start, it's a big deal.

[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.

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.

If you never start with a TP you have less possible builds, and I don't see how that means my argument makes no sense?

[[Armag] diarouga]

@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.

The problem is here. Even just swapping market and TP changes the nature of a game because the different efficiency of a build and thus slightly different timings. Also different initial macro is required and occasionally gold+treasures means you can market and get something else out of it.
And let's be clear once for all, there is no such thing as huge deficit due to RNG when it comes to extra crates. Aside from stuff like Dutch vs Jap/India the extra crate doesn't really change any MU. 100w is just as good for Brits as it is for Germans. And 100g is just as bad for both civs. The 100f crate sometimes make a little difference as for example 200w 100f is a starting TP for Spain and Germans while 200w is only for Germans. But that's still totally ok. Spain can age one vill less in that case or can chose to use the extra 100w for a starting market. And here you also see the difference in build orders.

I'd say that in about 1/3 of the MUs, crate start can make a difference between losing or winning a game at the same level.
Your example of Spain vs Germany actually shows why this is unbalanced. If Spain wants to go for a TP, he'll have to age later (and sometimes you can't even do that so you have to go TP which is way worse), while Germany will age at the same time.

[Garja]

@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.

Basically every civ benefits from a wood start(apart from dutch), some obviously more than others, i feel like it's not the random crates which is the balance issue but what civs are able to do with the 200w. It's about tweaking the power of that wood start compared to fixing the starts. I also don't think removing certain crates as bad, look at Iro compared to RE it's pretty night and day after removing 200w.

Iro on a wood start with treasures really feels like RE Iro sometimes, that's why I'd remove that wood crate.

Broken tier :

Germany

Civs that benefit a lot from the wood start :

India
Japan
France
Iro
Brit

Civs that benefit a bit from a wood start :

Sioux
Aztec
Otto
Spain in eco MUs
Port on no ATP/water maps

Civs that don't benefit at all from a wood start :

China
Russia
Spain in defensive MUs
Dutch
Port on ATP/water maps

Conclusion : Depending on the map/MU, 5 civs won't use their starting wood before the transition, while 6 civs will be 10 to 30 sec faster thanks to the wood start, it's a big deal.

This is just your personal opinion.
Spain, Sioux and Port all can TP in age1 if it is 100w+100f. And even without 100f it's either a market start or 2 teepees or simply having 100w extra for an ATP strategy.
100w is also great for Dutch because it's the max amount of VS saved when dropping the 1st bank.
There is so much to disagree in your post.

[Sargsyan]

fixed crates will add more variety actually. it will make certain strategies such as semi ff or ff less of no brainer as it is now on a 200w start, opening more space for other options

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

@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.

Basically every civ benefits from a wood start(apart from dutch), some obviously more than others, i feel like it's not the random crates which is the balance issue but what civs are able to do with the 200w. It's about tweaking the power of that wood start compared to fixing the starts. I also don't think removing certain crates as bad, look at Iro compared to RE it's pretty night and day after removing 200w.

Iro on a wood start with treasures really feels like RE Iro sometimes, that's why I'd remove that wood crate.

Broken tier :

Germany

Civs that benefit a lot from the wood start :

India
Japan
France
Iro
Brit

Civs that benefit a bit from a wood start :

Sioux
Aztec
Otto
Spain in eco MUs
Port on no ATP/water maps

Civs that don't benefit at all from a wood start :

China
Russia
Spain in defensive MUs
Dutch
Port on ATP/water maps

Conclusion : Depending on the map/MU, 5 civs won't use their starting wood before the transition, while 6 civs will be 10 to 30 sec faster thanks to the wood start, it's a big deal.

This is just your personal opinion.
Spain, Sioux and Port all can TP in age1 if it is 100w+100f. And even without 100f it's either a market start or 2 teepees or simply having 100w extra for an ATP strategy.
100w is also great for Dutch because it's the max amount of VS saved when dropping the 1st bank.
There is so much to disagree in your post.

This is not personal opinion lol.

1) Spain can't TP if it is only 100w (and no food), and you'll have to age with 16vills instead of 15 (so you get a TP at the cost of a later age up). In defensive match-ups (such as Otto/Russia/Aztec), you can't afford to age with 16 vills so you just have to leave your crate on the floor.

2) Port can get a TP too, but then you age with 14vills instead of 13 vills (again, you're getting a TP at the cost of a later age up). Furthermore, your extra shipment has to be eco theory, which is a bad shipment of course.
Another big issue is if you pick Port and rely on getting ATP in a tourney. If it's a wood start, your opponent will steal a TP for free, and you'll have to leave that crate on the floor because you want to age with 13vills.

3) If you go for a TP as Sioux, it will slow your age up most likely and your TP will be delayed because you only have 100w. I'm not sure about Sioux though because 2 teepees sounds nice.

4) The sooner you invest your resources, the better it is. As Dutch this 100w crate won't help you before like 4:00 while it will benefit your opponent.

You don't seem to understand that some civs (France, Germany or Japan/India) get an advantage with no disadvantage (TP and same age up time or faster age up), while some others get a TP at the cost of a slower age up, which is of course worse.
Thus, on wood start with some civs, you have to age 25 sec slower to get the same advantage as your opponent, ie you're 25 sec slower because of random crates.

This might be the reason why you don't understand the balance issue. I hope you understand it better now.

[[Armag] diarouga]

fixed crates will add more variety actually. it will make certain strategies such as semi ff or ff less of a no brainer as it is now on a 200w start, opening more space for other options

Yea, that's also a fair point. When you get a TP start you usually have to semi ff while age 2 play is more viable without TP start.

[Amsel_]

I voted no. Random starting crates might make some match-ups unfair from the get-go; however, they create variety in the early game. If asked to choose between skill and options or simplicity, I choose skill and options. On the other hand, the main issue seems to be not starting crates, but wood starting crates. If starting crates are a big issue at the higher levels, it would make sense to make an inquiry into changing wood starting crates before implementing fixed starting crates.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I voted no. Random starting crates might make some match-ups unfair from the get-go; however, they create variety in the early game. If asked to choose between skill and options or simplicity, I choose skill and options. On the other hand, the main issue seems to be not starting crates, but wood starting crates. If starting crates are a big issue at the higher levels, it would make sense to make an inquiry into changing wood starting crates before implementing fixed starting crates.

We discussed wood a lot because it is the biggest issue right now but gold is also a big issue for some civs.
It's not skill and options vs simplicity it's "skill and options" (although I'd questions that) vs balance.

[SoldieR]

So talking about leaving crates on the floor being a waste, if ger is fixed at 100w, gold would be left on the floor. If they get an extra food crate, they will still go for tp. So then you're gonna fix them at 200f 100w? That's pretty crap.

Also, fixed crates helps balance, ya, but then this is just a robot bo game where you dont think the first 7 min of the game.

[[Armag] diarouga]

You go market with a coin start lol.
Also please stop pretending that you have to think about your BO because of random crates lol.

[Garja]

1) standard age up for Spain is 16. Period. Of course 15v is good and suggested vs civs like otto but it's not by any mean mandatory. 100w is still extremely good for Spain.
2) port with 100w 100f still ages with 13v. Eco theory is the best shipment in most MUs.
3) again not with 100f 100w and in Sioux case it's probably worth to age with some idle time if it means a TP in age1.
4) ofc, but still it is good for Dutch and not a balance problem. Germans-Dutch doesnt change really with 200w in the sense that it remains Ger favoured. The problem if anything, and it's exclusive to Dutch, is that gold crate swings things quite a lot for Dutch MUs. But again in this specific MU food crate is neutral, wood crate is better for Germans and gold crate is better for Dutch so in the end it's just fine.

You don't seem to understand that this game is not meant to be 100% exactly equal in every single aspect. Fre and Germans simpy have a better age1 and that carries over with w/e starting crate, especially with the wood one. The implications of that are secondary once you understand that this is how the design of the civ is.

Also please stop pretending that you have to think about your BO because of random crates lol

You know, people can be creative sometimes. Not everyone is a bot like you.

[Sargsyan]

fixed crates is good Garja, of course we are going to need to tweak some things after it but in the end its gonna be one of the best balance changes in the game

[[Armag] diarouga]

1) standard age up for Spain is 16. Period. Of course 15v is good and suggested vs civs like otto but it's not by any mean mandatory. 100w is still extremely good for Spain.
2) port with 100w 100f still ages with 13v. Eco theory is the best shipment in most MUs.
3) again not with 100f 100w and in Sioux case it's probably worth to age with some idle time if it means a TP in age1.
4) ofc, but still it is good for Dutch and not a balance problem. Germans-Dutch doesnt change really with 200w in the sense that it remains Ger favoured. The problem if anything, and it's exclusive to Dutch, is that gold crate swings things quite a lot for Dutch MUs. But again in this specific MU food crate is neutral, wood crate is better for Germans and gold crate is better for Dutch so in the end it's just fine.

You don't seem to understand that this game is not meant to be 100% exactly equal in every single aspect. Fre and Germans simpy have a better age1 and that carries over with w/e starting crate, especially with the wood one. The implications of that are secondary once you understand that this is how the design of the civ is.

1) That's just not true. You can age with 15vills 75% of the time, so it's the standard, sorry.
2) No, just no. Without treasures you have to go 14 and you get iddled on top of that most of the time. Eco theory is worse than a 2 vills shipment eventhough it's stronger in the long run, so I'm not sure how you can be happy when you delay your age up and send a 1.5v shipment while some civs get a free 4cdb or 3sw+2uhlans shipment.
Also you totally ignored the ATP/water part.
3) As I said, I'm not sure about Sioux. Still, your TP is worse because you have to chop 100w before you can build it (so you get less exp from it). You get some iddle time on top of that while some civs don't, so it's definitely worse.
4) It's not really good for Dutch. In fact, coin start is probably better as it allows you to age with 14villagers and it is a balance problem. Dutch vs Germany is also a totally different MU with or without 200w, although it's still ger favoured on 100w start.
Honestly, I don't understand why you can claim that you lose games because of 50coin treasures or small lag while claiming that crate start doesn't affect the balance lol.

You know, people can be creative sometimes. Not everyone is a bot like you.

I wouldn't say that I'm objectively creative but I'm still one of the most creative players because 80% of the players are bot. Also not sure how being forced to take a TP on 200w start makes you a creative player.

[Riotcoke]

Another problem with this is that you give civs that are weak now their good start and civs like france or germany their bad start the tables are just going to turn because civs are relatively balanced.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Another problem with this is that you give civs that are weak now their good start and civs like france or germany their bad start the tables are just going to turn because civs are relatively balanced.

I would just give them a fixed food start, it's average for every civ.

[n0el]

Another problem with this is that you give civs that are weak now their good start and civs like france or germany their bad start the tables are just going to turn because civs are relatively balanced.

That assumes that there's no changes to balance around this, which is a bad assumption.