TC-TP radius rant.

[Riotcoke]

I know this may seem like i'm whining a bit over this, but honestly i don't see why this should be possible. Can we look into reverting it to how it was before as it just seems more balanced.

[Darwin_]

Idk, I feel like if you let your opponent build that TP you should be punished. The change arguably makes nr10 play less viable in some situations.

[Riotcoke]

Idk, I feel like if you can let your opponent build that TP you should be punished. The change arguably makes nr10 play less viable in some situations.

As china on 200w you basically can't stop it, you have 4 vills on the wonder 6 on food when you age so you're slow for the tp in transistion.

[Darwin_]

Idk, I feel like if you can let your opponent build that TP you should be punished. The change arguably makes nr10 play less viable in some situations.

As china on 200w you basically can't stop it, you have 4 vills on the wonder 6 on food when you age so you're slow for the tp in transistion.

But thats like my point. It is a good thing to nerf sitting in your base for 8 minutes to build up a death ball. If one isn't going to try to assert any map control I feel like it's only fair that the opponent can build tps like that.

[Riotcoke]

Idk, I feel like if you can let your opponent build that TP you should be punished. The change arguably makes nr10 play less viable in some situations.

As china on 200w you basically can't stop it, you have 4 vills on the wonder 6 on food when you age so you're slow for the tp in transistion.

But thats like my point. It is a good thing to nerf sitting in your base for 8 minutes to build up a death ball. If one isn't going to try to assert any map control I feel like it's only fair that the opponent can build tps like that.

ATP is free map control though, it's not like spain is pushing out of his base here, 125w investment for a retardedly good payoff.

[Zeke]

Show hidden quotes

Idk, I feel like if you can let your opponent build that TP you should be punished. The change arguably makes nr10 play less viable in some situations.

As china on 200w you basically can't stop it, you have 4 vills on the wonder 6 on food when you age so you're slow for the tp in transistion.

But thats like my point. It is a good thing to nerf sitting in your base for 8 minutes to build up a death ball. If one isn't going to try to assert any map control I feel like it's only fair that the opponent can build tps like that.

ATP is free map control though, it's not like spain is pushing out of his base here, 125w investment for a retardedly good payoff.

It's 120w indeed, I think the better way to nerf ATP (an OP card on some map) is to increase the cost of ATP to maybe 140w, and revert the hp

[Kawapasaka]

Pretty much any FB civ like Iro and Russia can do this as well, not just ATP civs. In fact against FB civs even when they don't steal your TP, they will basically always kill a transition TP long before it pays off. And even if you decide to play age 2 you can't defend your transition TP against a 2+ unit composition, even with a double village start because your rax will be far too late to get a batch out to complement the first unit shipment... because you chopped for a transition TP.
Your options on a 200w start are either:
- Start double village with a unit shipment first in colonial, or single village (+market?) with 700w first. Either way play full colonial until you can secure a TP before aging. You will die to a Spanish or Otto FF doing this. And probably to a lot of other FFs if you can't do meaningful damage in age 2 on top of securing a TP.
- FF without a TP and have zero momentum to punish any stagecoach build. 9 pikes + skirm wonder is integral to punishing fortress FB stagecoach builds, as well as holding age 2 timings, and it's completely impossible here without skipping 700w.
- Force the TP start by chopping for it after your village. Get the worst of both worlds with a shitty 2 vill shipment AND late age time (and miss the first two passes or so). But at least you have a TP that pays off before it gets destroyed and your opponent has to invest some resources into age 2 units if they want to stagecoach.

Anyway the radius change is retarded imo. Some maps aren't stagecoach maps, and that's fine.

Side note: double village and playing age 2 with a coin start really sucks ass unless you're in a rare situation where starting with a steppe+ckn batch works. Sometimes with treasures stacked you can have 200+ unspendable coin for a ridiculously long time. A market start might be better here, but then you have to send 700w first and can't do the classic unit shipment + batch opening.

Side side note: Revert brit cons nerf pls and ty

[Mitoe]

Idk, I feel like if you can let your opponent build that TP you should be punished. The change arguably makes nr10 play less viable in some situations.

As china on 200w you basically can't stop it, you have 4 vills on the wonder 6 on food when you age so you're slow for the tp in transistion.

You should honestly just chop for the TP after your village and just age with 1 less vill to get up on time.

Also the best thing to do here is to ignore that TP, not siege it. Just take a nat TP and age up, then kill it in Fortress.

[Aizamk]

send minutemen card and killi the foolish ATP villis

[Zeke]

I think this idea is intended to punish the turtle build (such as kami + yumi wall on Kamchatka). However, it also nerfs the semi build when ur opponent is able to deny u getting ur safer tp (the one closest to ur base), especially for Spain who can abuse ATP, which is really annoying :(

[Zeke]

Need more pro strat from Aizamk !

[Garja]

WTF werent you exactly the guy who argued for removing TC radius for TPs?

[deleted_user]

It should probably be removed

[vividlyplain]

WTF werent you exactly the guy who argued for removing TC radius for TPs?

yes in fact you're 100% correct ... viewtopic.php?f=158&t=18135#p389243

The tp sockets on great basin are bs, the fact that you can only build two tps on the 4 tp line because two are too close to the enemy tc ruins the map, can this be changed or tp sockets as a whole be placed without the protection of the tc.

see what happens when zoi listens to the community?

[EAGLEMUT]

Lol, this is brilliant.

On a serious note, TC-TP radius removal is a great change. Consider that the other option is having a bugged game where you arbitrarily can take less TPs than opponent because of how a map randomly spawned.

[Mr_Bramboy]

In Riot's defence I believe his point was that it's dumb that you can sometimes take 3 TPs on Great Basin or Hudson's Bay but other times only 2. I don't think Riot advocated for a hostile TP in base with that thread.

I like the change but I can see how it can be frustrating against Rohbrot seeing as he takes 6 TPs every game.

[P i k i l i c]

ATP is free map control though, it's not like spain is pushing out of his base here, 125w investment for a retardedly good payoff.

It's not free, it costs a shipment. Also do what Mitoe suggested

[[Armag] diarouga]

I know this may seem like i'm whining a bit over this, but honestly i don't see why this should be possible. Can we look into reverting it to how it was before as it just seems more balanced.

This change is super random yea.
I warned people about it. Sometimes when the opponent goes ATP, you don't have time to take your TP even if it's part of your build. It's another luck-based shit which depends on treasures, crate start etc.

[EAGLEMUT]

This change is super random yea.
I warned people about it. Sometimes when the opponent goes ATP, you don't have time to take your TP even if it's part of your build. It's another luck-based shit which depends on treasures, crate start etc.

Now you're just calling any change "random". How is the placement restriction not luck-based shit when you can't take a TP based on how the map randomly spawns?

[Kaiserklein]

Being able to build TPs anywhere is kinda alright, but not combined with ATP basically. It makes the card too viable because it means you can steal your opponent's TP, if not steal all the TPs, on a map like adirondacks or kamchatka. It actually becomes arguably stronger than on maps with 4+ TPs, because there at least opponent can usually grab one TP.
When it's regular TPs though, I don't see it being a real issue, except maybe in a few MUs. Like it should just not be possible for your opponent to hold a TP that close to you tc. It might force you to build your own TP elsewhere though, in a very exposed spot, which may be an issue sometimes (e.g for germany).

Again, if TPs were nerfed and games wouldn't revolve so much around them, this change wouldn't be that big of an issue. But as of now, I think it's overall worse than having the radius back.

Lol, this is brilliant.

On a serious note, TC-TP radius removal is a great change. Consider that the other option is having a bugged game where you arbitrarily can take less TPs than opponent because of how a map randomly spawned.

For one thing, the radius change is supposed to be a sort of balance change. Like, it can obviously change some match ups a lot. It shouldn't be something we throw in the patch just like "hey we need to fix a couple maps, let's go for this". That sounds to me like a terrible way to fix bugs.
For another, it's not all black and white. Did we need to completely remove the radius to fix these maps? Maybe just making it a bit smaller would have been enough. Though I'm really not a fan of this tweaking anyway.

[Kaiserklein]

Idk, I feel like if you let your opponent build that TP you should be punished. The change arguably makes nr10 play less viable in some situations.

How exactly do you prevent your opponent from building an ATP there, if you don't have a wood start and build a TP straight away in age 1? I'd like to know.

But thats like my point. It is a good thing to nerf sitting in your base for 8 minutes to build up a death ball. If one isn't going to try to assert any map control I feel like it's only fair that the opponent can build tps like that.

What does this have to do with sitting in your base? I mean we're talking about 4 mins game time here. The guy literally takes your TP, as well as all other TPs, and you cannot prevent it. Then what do you want to do, siege it down? Like you're gonna play colo to take out a 120w building that basically already paid off, while spain FFs and dicks on you in fortress?
Also, how is sitting in base till min 8 unhealthy? I mean that's just a FF time? Everygame has to be colonial or what, I really don't get it

[princeofcarthage]

This change is super random yea.
I warned people about it. Sometimes when the opponent goes ATP, you don't have time to take your TP even if it's part of your build. It's another luck-based shit which depends on treasures, crate start etc.

Now you're just calling any change "random". How is the placement restriction not luck-based shit when you can't take a TP based on how the map randomly spawns?

Map could be configured a bit better/in different way to address the tp spawn.

[howlingwolfpaw]

that is pretty close, and with ATP you now basically have a mini tower right by enemy base.... seems lame

[harcha]

I know this may seem like i'm whining a bit over this, but honestly i don't see why this should be possible.

You just salty cause you lost.

But to be fair on 2/3TP maps with 200w start I would open with 300w.
On a 4+ TP map against ATP civ (if ATP in deck) you could also open with the chinese ATP... maybe... this could be a way to secure 2 TP if you can scout it right and don't get owned by dogs too hard

[aligator92]

Lol, this is brilliant.

On a serious note, TC-TP radius removal is a great change. Consider that the other option is having a bugged game where you arbitrarily can take less TPs than opponent because of how a map randomly spawned.

Is it possible to make the radius just for tps a bit smaller?
This way, we would fix the great basin and hudson issue without giving the opponent the chance to tp in your base and also don't touch the radius for blockhouses/raxes etc.