The official fixed crate topic

[Goodspeed]

This argument about affecting match ups is strange to me, as we face the same issue now and I don't see how fixed crates would make any difference in that regard. Match ups will always favour a certain civ, we can't change that no matter what. What fixed crates would help us do is make sure civs don't become bad or good based on their crate start, not in a specific match up but in general. Examples Diarouga gave earlier ITT illustrate this.

[macacoalbino]

And you overestimate them. There are definitely a couple of problem civs, India with coin start does kind of suck, China is a problem because their crates are fixed while others are not, but honestly for the rest of the civs it's not much of an issue.

How about france and germany with/without early tps? It's a big difference in the power level of a civ, having an extra card available in age 2 or not.

[macacoalbino]

This argument about affecting match ups is strange to me, as we face the same issue now and I don't see how fixed crates make any difference in that regard. Match ups will always favour a certain civ, we can't change that no matter what. What fixed crates would help us do is make sure civs don't become bad or good based on their crate start, not in a specific match up but in general. Examples Diarouga gave earlier ITT illustrate this.

Yes, that's exactly what i wanted to say, but didnt find the words for it. thank you

[Diarouga]

I don't understand how you can possibly argue that 75% of the community agrees with you when the poll is 44% opposed to the idea.

You didn't get it.
I said that 75% of the community (if not more), agrees that the game would be more balanced with fixed crates.
You're the only one who claims that it wouldn't improve the balance, just see, breeze, Garja etc claim that it is boring but that it would improve the overall balance (Breeze for example thinks that it should be added for tourneys but still voted no because he doesn't want to play with random crates in team games).

[Goodspeed]

And you overestimate them. There are definitely a couple of problem civs, India with coin start does kind of suck, China is a problem because their crates are fixed while others are not, but honestly for the rest of the civs it's not much of an issue.

There is also another aspect of it. Its time it takes ep team to balance the game. At this rate, it goes slow, maybe its better to go for straightforward solutions than take long way around.

Au contraire, fixing crates means going over 13 civs, figuring out the right crates and re-adjusting all balance to be in accordance with new crate fixes. It's actually extra hassle because it's starting things over. Not to mention game balance is already quite good as of right now.

It actually would make our jobs a lot easier, maybe not in the very short term but we would need far fewer iterations to balance the game I'm sure.

[iNcog]

Yeah I meant short-term. It's basically a balance reset and then it's easier to balance from there. But do you really want to reset balance, especially considering the nice state balance is at right now? I don't think I personally would

[Mitoe]

That's a fair argument, GS.

But since Diarouga is also arguing that certain matchups are unwinnable because of crate starts I find it hard to believe that I'll be winning my games with my new coin start as Ger or Fre against any civ that has its ideal start, as that would currently be a pretty big resource swing in one direction.

I guess my point is less that fixed crates wouldn't help in a general sense but more so that it's very unlikely that crates actually affect the outcome of the game to the degree that everyone here seems to think they do. It definitely frustrates me to know end for Diarouga to claim he actually lost that Aztec vs Ger game in tournament simply because of a crate start when you can very clearly see in the replay that his units walked straight through Germany's army without attacking XD but nah, definitely crates' fault, that one.

[Diarouga]

Yeah I meant short-term. It's basically a balance reset and then it's easier to balance from there. But do you really want to reset balance, especially considering the nice state balance is at right now? I don't think I personally would

It's not a balance reset lol, it's just fixing some civs.

[Atomiswave]

I don't understand how you can possibly argue that 75% of the community agrees with you when the poll is 44% opposed to the idea.

You didn't get it.
I said that 75% of the community (if not more), agrees that the game would be more balanced with fixed crates.
You're the only one who claims that it wouldn't improve the balance, just see, breeze, Garja etc claim that it is boring but that it would improve the overall balance (Breeze for example thinks that it should be added for tourneys but still voted no because he doesn't want to play with random crates in team games).

While we are at this, I am interested to know what was the answer from the best players(like H20, Lordrapahel, Wicked Cossack, Aziamk, Mongo, Irish etc). I mean, their opinion should be valued the most right, because they have deepest understanding of the game. Currently you are the strongest advocate for this change from best players pool.

[Diarouga]

That's a fair argument, GS.

But since Diarouga is also arguing that certain matchups are unwinnable because of crate starts I find it hard to believe that I'll be winning my games with my new coin start as Ger or Fre against any civ that has its ideal start, as that would currently be a pretty big resource swing in one direction.

Only underpowered civs would (Iro tier civs) would have their ideal start.
Average civs would have a normal start, and op civs (unnerfed Ger) would have a gold start, so it's not an issue.

I guess my point is less that fixed crates wouldn't help in a general sense but more so that it's very unlikely that crates actually affect the outcome of the game to the degree that everyone here seems to think they do. It definitely frustrates me to know end for Diarouga to claim he actually lost that Aztec vs Ger game in tournament simply because of a crate start when you can very clearly see in the red that his units walked straight through Germany's army without attacking XD but nah, definitely crates' fault, that one.
It was already over, and as I said, then how does it come I win almost every games with no wood start vs Ger? My units walk straigh though Ger's army without attacking every time I get a wood start but not when I get a food or gold start, that's very unlikely.

[Diarouga]

I don't understand how you can possibly argue that 75% of the community agrees with you when the poll is 44% opposed to the idea.

You didn't get it.
I said that 75% of the community (if not more), agrees that the game would be more balanced with fixed crates.
You're the only one who claims that it wouldn't improve the balance, just see, breeze, Garja etc claim that it is boring but that it would improve the overall balance (Breeze for example thinks that it should be added for tourneys but still voted no because he doesn't want to play with random crates in team games).

While we are at this, I am interested to know what was the answer from the best players(like H20, Lordrapahel, Wicked Cossack, Aziamk, Mongo, Irish etc). I mean, their opinion should be valued the most right, because they have deepest understanding of the game. Currently you are the strongest advocate for this change from best players pool.

_H2O is against for Mitoe's reasons probably and Raphael likes it

[Mitoe]

Whatever, I'm not going to argue about it anymore. I made my points and if people choose to agree or disagree with me they can.

So since these types of threads seem to be trending lately does this mean I can finally make my "official" thread about removing Otto from the game? :O

[Atomiswave]

Whatever, I'm not going to argue about it anymore. I made my points and if people choose to agree or disagree with me they can.

So since these types of threads seem to be trending lately does this mean I can finally make my "official" thread about removing Otto from the game? :O

Otto? You mean Sioux?

[Mitoe]

Nah. Otto is definitely less of a civ than Sioux is. Sioux has real potential to be a legit civ, but playing Otto is basically like letting a bot play for you.

[Goodspeed]

That's a fair argument, GS.

But since Diarouga is also arguing that certain matchups are unwinnable because of crate starts I find it hard to believe that I'll be winning my games with my new coin start as Ger or Fre against any civ that has its ideal start, as that would currently be a pretty big resource swing in one direction.

I guess my point is less that fixed crates wouldn't help in a general sense but more so that it's very unlikely that crates actually affect the outcome of the game to the degree that everyone here seems to think they do. It definitely frustrates me to know end for Diarouga to claim he actually lost that Aztec vs Ger game in tournament simply because of a crate start when you can very clearly see in the replay that his units walked straight through Germany's army without attacking XD but nah, definitely crates' fault, that one.

Ah that game, yeah I remember that fight lol

Unwinnable is certainly a strong word, and in most match ups there is no problem at all but there are these niche situations where I would argue that the crate start absolutely affects which side is favoured. A couple of examples come to mind:
- Dutch with a coin start
- China against a wood start (or even worse, against a wood + food start)
- Otto without a wood start
- Apparently aztec with a wood start (other civ gets TP, they don't). I'm not sure I agree with this one because I think Azzy should also get the TP

And then there are the less obvious ones where a wood start benefits the civ which benefits most from the early TP. Eg India and Germans benefit more from the early TP than other civs.
Btw if we do go for fixed crates I really don't see Germans not getting the wood. You seem to be assuming they wouldn't.

[Garja]

There isn't such thing as obvious "ideal" start or "underpowered" civs. Using fixed crate to balance the current power ranking of civs is just dumb.
And it adds over the fun argument and the extra hassle to decide which crates to give to each civ.
Anyway I agree with Mitoe. The discussion has become stagnating and if anything that's a sign of how the topic is controversial.

Unwinnable is certainly a strong word, and in most match ups there is no problem at all but there are these niche situations where I would argue that the crate start absolutely affects which side is favoured. A couple of examples come to mind:
- Dutch with a coin start
- China against a wood start (or even worse, against a wood + food start)
- Otto without a wood start
- Apparently aztec with a wood start (other civ gets TP, they don't). I'm not sure I agree with this one because I think Azzy should also get the TP

And then there are the less obvious ones where a wood start benefits the civ which benefits most from the early TP. Eg India and Germans benefit more from the early TP than other civs.
Btw if we do go for fixed crates I really don't see Germans not getting the wood. You seem to be assuming they wouldn't.

I would argue against those cases too, actually.
- Dutch with coin start has a very marginal advantage on the average civ that saves the crate or uses it for hunting dogs.
- China starts with the best crate configuration (except +100f I guess) everytime so it is hardly any unfair when the other civ also gets the best start. If anything is unfair it is the exact opposite.
- Otto always get 300w? They are just like any other civ. With 100g they use it for first batch of units, no big deal.
- Aztecs just get more crates in general because they have one of the shittiest early game efficiency (shit politician, need tons of houses, 5 starting vills, etc.) and they rely on the firepit. TP+firepit doesn't even come without drawbacks.

And then I'd argue against India early TP which simply doesn't work (too late age up) and that the only civs which can benefit from TP without real drawbacks are Iro, Otto, French and Germans. And that's legit in my book. All other civs (e.g Brits or Dutch) can build a TP but with opportunity costs, which make it only occasionally better than the alternatives.

[Dsy]

Do you mean you always want germans start with 200w? Kaiser will change his mind being against fixing crates i guess...

[Mitoe]

It was just an example GS of me playing a civ with a non ideal crate start vs a civ with an ideal crate start. I could've chosen any 2 civs for the same of example.

For the record a coin start very rarely helps Dutch. It may SOMETIMES allow them to age with 14v, but to be honest sometimes aging with 14v does more harm than good for Dutch because the bank comes later unless you had a great treasure run, which could potentially mean you also don't get your first colonial shipment on time. Most of the time I think Dutch still wants to age on 15v, in which case the crate start has literally no affect on them.

Agree with you about Aztec, GS.

Otto's not a civ so I don't care.

China should honestly receive at least the food crate with random crates, not sure why they decided they shouldn't.

[macacoalbino]

Using fixed crate to balance the current power ranking of civs is just dumb.

I think right now, with random crates, the power level of each civ is a range that is impossible to predict of influence: goes from the worst start up to the best start. For some of them, the power level range is too wide. The objective of the change is to remove this variance and have reliable knowledge of how the civ will perform in a certain MU

[Diarouga]

About aztec taking a TP it means you have to train 1 more vill, so you suffer from it, while France and Ger just don't. On top of that you need more time to get your convert ability back so it's not as good at all.

Anyway, the only two aztec players (Caria and me) don't go TP+firepit in age 1, so if I agree with Garja it means that it's true lol.

[Garja]

Using fixed crate to balance the current power ranking of civs is just dumb.

I think right now, with random crates, the power level of each civ is a range that is impossible to predict of influence: goes from the worst start up to the best start. For some of them, the power level range is too wide. The objective of the change is to remove this variance and have reliable knowledge of how the civ will perform in a certain MU

The range is predictable if you have played the game long enough and you're open minded.

[Kaiserklein]

Its totally different. Treasures arent crates. You need micro next to the macro to get them. You need fight with other explorer for them.
And plus im sure the newer esoc maps are kinda simmetrice for treasures already.

Its a completely different thing. Dont compare to other. Thats just offtopic.

No it's not different, crates starts require some skill, for example you need to know how to go TP or market properly to age up as fast as possible. Even some colonels do it wrong, so don't say "it's easy anyway".
So now you're probs going to say "yeah but having a coin crate as india (or w/e) has nothing to do with skill, it's just pure bad luck", yeah just like if you got a villager treasure or sth like this spawning next to your base it's just pure good luck ? And yeah india gets fucked by the coin crate start, but we could say it's part of the civ, just like sioux being so OP at treasuring (or otto being so bad) is part of the civ ?
So if you want to fix the crates, then fix everything, and you don't play aoe but chess. 100% fair but not the same game.

[Mitoe]

If you switch to fertility dance after you get your card you actually get 2 more vills in age 1 and only age 20-30 seconds later than normal. It honestly is just better, at least if you're going for age 2 play. You have a better Eco and more shipments and you aren't even slower except for maybe your first batch of units, but you age before every other civ anyway so it's not a big deal.

[Diarouga]

If you switch to fertility dance after you get your card you actually get 2 more vills in age 1 and only age 20-30 seconds later than normal.

I expected you to say that, but then you switched to fertility dance for more about 2mins, which means you lost around 250exp (3 TP pass), while civs like Ger would age in time without missing 3 TP pass, so not. Nice try though.

It honestly is just better, at least if you're going for age 2 play. You have a better Eco and more shipments

Do you even have more shipments?
and you aren't even slower

Well, if you age 30sec later, you will be slower xD.

except for maybe your first batch of units, but you age before every other civ anyway so it's not a big deal.
That means that you can't exploit this advantage. If you want to kill his TP with pikes, you won't be able to if you age at 4min.

[macacoalbino]

The range is predictable if you have played the game long enough and you're open minded.

Yeah the range is predictable, but think about a scenario where I know that in 40% of the cases I'm fucked and 60% I'm convinced that its fair. I agree with that MU. I click in and get the worst start. That's it, 1st game in a BO3 gone. You don't get the chance to see all the different starts and how the MU plays in each case.
I know it's not always that way ( in which you just lose/win because of a crate start), but with some civs we can all agree it happens. Why not eliminate this variance so that I know from the start which MU to click in?