Fixed crates?

Yes
66
58%
No
48
42%
 
Total votes: 114

User avatar
United States of America gustavusadolphus
Lancer
Posts: 500

02 Dec 2016, 03:33

Darwin_ wrote:
gustavusadolphus wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Why not consider you just lost fair and square and maybe you were out played?

That is definitely the case in some games, but I have played afternoons of EP unrated doing the same matchups again and again: India vs. China, Jap vs. French, India vs. Russia. India and Japs are two of my main civs on TAD, both EP and RE (I mostly play EP). Truthfully, I really only started to notice how much my crates were affecting how much I won when I spent like 5 hours one afternoon playing as India vs. China. I think we played 10 games in total, and I lost 3 or 4 of them. All of those games I started with a coin crate and/or 300w, meaning I couldnt 10/10 or fast 14 vill agra, which seemed to be the deciding factor in this player and civ matchup for whatever reason. On the other hand, China always gets the same crates, meaning that he could learn from one game from the next and evolve his strategy based on the same starting factors. I, on the other hand, could not learn and evolve in the same way. If I thought of a better way I could do my build, I couldnt always do it the next game because I would get different crates. Me winning or loosing that specific matchup should not hinge on luck, thats just ridiculous. I see what you are saying about how we should learn to adapt and such, and you are right in your thinking, but there are builds/strategies in RTS games that are just objectively better than others. And when luck determines what options each player has, and the options are not of equal strength for both civs, that is just an imbalance, plain and simple.


I just think have all options almost all the time turns only the best build orders into consideration for use resulting in repetitive play. Closing off some options sometimes will force a different style fo play and sometimes a different outcome in the end often one you were not expecting. Honestly the unexpected is what I love in games and many aspects of life. to bring another game into play the Total War series of games ahs the option to auto-resolve battles instead of playing them out. Now this feature is nice when dealing with a mundane attack on a small scale but when the odds are close on either side you play the battle out. Often times the odds can be heavily stacked against you and you still can eek out a victory either due to luck or just pulling off an unexpected tactic. The game would not be very fun if battles were all based of a build order with the same reuslts each time.
10000 gallon fiberglass, FNS plus DE filter 48 square foot, ray pack Mini Max 512 BTU gas heater, one Sip n Oodle, NO ZEOSAND
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1623
ESO: Forgrin

02 Dec 2016, 03:37

gustavusadolphus wrote:
Darwin_ wrote:
Show hidden quotes

That is definitely the case in some games, but I have played afternoons of EP unrated doing the same matchups again and again: India vs. China, Jap vs. French, India vs. Russia. India and Japs are two of my main civs on TAD, both EP and RE (I mostly play EP). Truthfully, I really only started to notice how much my crates were affecting how much I won when I spent like 5 hours one afternoon playing as India vs. China. I think we played 10 games in total, and I lost 3 or 4 of them. All of those games I started with a coin crate and/or 300w, meaning I couldnt 10/10 or fast 14 vill agra, which seemed to be the deciding factor in this player and civ matchup for whatever reason. On the other hand, China always gets the same crates, meaning that he could learn from one game from the next and evolve his strategy based on the same starting factors. I, on the other hand, could not learn and evolve in the same way. If I thought of a better way I could do my build, I couldnt always do it the next game because I would get different crates. Me winning or loosing that specific matchup should not hinge on luck, thats just ridiculous. I see what you are saying about how we should learn to adapt and such, and you are right in your thinking, but there are builds/strategies in RTS games that are just objectively better than others. And when luck determines what options each player has, and the options are not of equal strength for both civs, that is just an imbalance, plain and simple.


I just think have all options almost all the time turns only the best build orders into consideration for use resulting in repetitive play. Closing off some options sometimes will force a different style fo play and sometimes a different outcome in the end often one you were not expecting. Honestly the unexpected is what I love in games and many aspects of life. to bring another game into play the Total War series of games ahs the option to auto-resolve battles instead of playing them out. Now this feature is nice when dealing with a mundane attack on a small scale but when the odds are close on either side you play the battle out. Often times the odds can be heavily stacked against you and you still can eek out a victory either due to luck or just pulling off an unexpected tactic. The game would not be very fun if battles were all based of a build order with the same reuslts each time.


By that logic we should have just never made a patch and continued to let Iro do unbeatable rushes and let Otto jan-abus or FF you to death for free. Sometimes eliminating OP options is better and allows more cool options to come forth.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
United States of America gustavusadolphus
Lancer
Posts: 500

02 Dec 2016, 03:42

forgrin wrote:
gustavusadolphus wrote:
Show hidden quotes


I just think have all options almost all the time turns only the best build orders into consideration for use resulting in repetitive play. Closing off some options sometimes will force a different style fo play and sometimes a different outcome in the end often one you were not expecting. Honestly the unexpected is what I love in games and many aspects of life. to bring another game into play the Total War series of games ahs the option to auto-resolve battles instead of playing them out. Now this feature is nice when dealing with a mundane attack on a small scale but when the odds are close on either side you play the battle out. Often times the odds can be heavily stacked against you and you still can eek out a victory either due to luck or just pulling off an unexpected tactic. The game would not be very fun if battles were all based of a build order with the same reuslts each time.


By that logic we should have just never made a patch and continued to let Iro do unbeatable rushes and let Otto jan-abus or FF you to death for free. Sometimes eliminating OP options is better and allows more cool options to come forth.


There is always going to be an "op" and I think that is all that needs to be said.
10000 gallon fiberglass, FNS plus DE filter 48 square foot, ray pack Mini Max 512 BTU gas heater, one Sip n Oodle, NO ZEOSAND
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Gendarme
Donator 04
Posts: 9669

02 Dec 2016, 03:46

forgrin wrote:
gustavusadolphus wrote:
Show hidden quotes


I just think have all options almost all the time turns only the best build orders into consideration for use resulting in repetitive play. Closing off some options sometimes will force a different style fo play and sometimes a different outcome in the end often one you were not expecting. Honestly the unexpected is what I love in games and many aspects of life. to bring another game into play the Total War series of games ahs the option to auto-resolve battles instead of playing them out. Now this feature is nice when dealing with a mundane attack on a small scale but when the odds are close on either side you play the battle out. Often times the odds can be heavily stacked against you and you still can eek out a victory either due to luck or just pulling off an unexpected tactic. The game would not be very fun if battles were all based of a build order with the same reuslts each time.


By that logic we should have just never made a patch and continued to let Iro do unbeatable rushes and let Otto jan-abus or FF you to death for free. Sometimes eliminating OP options is better and allows more cool options to come forth.


I am all in favor of balancing the game with a patch but adding fixed crates only caters to a few high level players who dislike adapting to different situations and just want to do the same strats over and over.
The doctor says it makes me stronger than your average Joe
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4311
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

02 Dec 2016, 03:51

My post didn't generate the discussion I hoped it would :hmm:
User avatar
United States of America gustavusadolphus
Lancer
Posts: 500

02 Dec 2016, 03:53

Mitoe wrote:My post didn't generate the discussion I hoped it would :hmm:


You made several great points but the core issue here is someone is always going to have an excuse why something was not "fair".
10000 gallon fiberglass, FNS plus DE filter 48 square foot, ray pack Mini Max 512 BTU gas heater, one Sip n Oodle, NO ZEOSAND
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1623
ESO: Forgrin

02 Dec 2016, 03:56

@fightinfrenchman I don't think you understand the fixed crate idea and haven't thought it through. People (including me) have said exactly why fixed crates actually improve civ's options, not reduce them. If you don't want to spend the effort to read then that's not really my problem.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Gendarme
Donator 04
Posts: 9669

02 Dec 2016, 03:58

forgrin wrote:@fightinfrenchman I don't think you understand the fixed crate idea and haven't thought it through. People (including me) have said exactly why fixed crates actually improve civ's options, not reduce them. If you don't want to spend the effort to read then that's not really my problem.


I did read them I just disagree that fixed crates will create more options. I am allowed to disagree.
The doctor says it makes me stronger than your average Joe
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1623
ESO: Forgrin

02 Dec 2016, 03:58

Mitoe wrote:My post didn't generate the discussion I hoped it would :hmm:

I replied in the other thread!
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1623
ESO: Forgrin

02 Dec 2016, 04:01

fightinfrenchman wrote:
forgrin wrote:@fightinfrenchman I don't think you understand the fixed crate idea and haven't thought it through. People (including me) have said exactly why fixed crates actually improve civ's options, not reduce them. If you don't want to spend the effort to read then that's not really my problem.


I did read them I just disagree that fixed crates will create more options. I am allowed to disagree.


Well... Do you have any thoughts or specific ideas on which options they allow that fixed doesn't (or doesn't provide a near equivalent)? You can disagree if you have a reason to do so.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Gendarme
Donator 04
Posts: 9669

02 Dec 2016, 05:04

forgrin wrote:
fightinfrenchman wrote:
Show hidden quotes


I did read them I just disagree that fixed crates will create more options. I am allowed to disagree.


Well... Do you have any thoughts or specific ideas on which options they allow that fixed doesn't (or doesn't provide a near equivalent)? You can disagree if you have a reason to do so.


They force players to be prepared for whatever they are given and not have one or two specific strats ready. It means matchups will be far less similar each time (as I already stated).
The doctor says it makes me stronger than your average Joe
User avatar
France Diarouga
Lancer
Donator 01
Posts: 506
ESO: diarouga

02 Dec 2016, 05:29

Mitoe wrote:This is kind of random and a bit off topic, but for the record I think a wood start for Aztec is just as strong for Aztec as it is for Germany, if not stronger. TP + Firepit in age 1 is insanely good. Somehow I doubt you were doing that with Aztec though :P

Check my game vs H2O if I did that :P
And I of course tried that in practice game, it's just much much better for ger.

Also you are all dodging the Iro topic, this change for Germany would only make the game a bit more balanced, for Iro it would totally balance the civ, which is something the EP team couldn't do in the previous versions of the patch, they should just go for this solution honeslty.
User avatar
India drsingh
Skirmisher
Posts: 179
ESO: drsingh

02 Dec 2016, 06:36

I posted in another thread. And then saw this one. I feel it would be better to post here. Many points might have been discussed, there has been so many posts about this during my sleep, I can't keep track. :p

Wall of text
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1623
ESO: Forgrin

02 Dec 2016, 07:26

fightinfrenchman wrote:
forgrin wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Well... Do you have any thoughts or specific ideas on which options they allow that fixed doesn't (or doesn't provide a near equivalent)? You can disagree if you have a reason to do so.


They force players to be prepared for whatever they are given and not have one or two specific strats ready. It means matchups will be far less similar each time (as I already stated).

Ok you say it leads to more variation, but in practice all it means even for the civs that can best utilise it (euro civs that can go early market) it just changes which is first, market or TP/extra manor etc. Matchups already pretty much play out the same way regardless of crate start, and that little difference in there (see what Diarouga said about azzy vs german) isn't a healthy variation, it's entirely luck based. In the worst situations, like say Dutch vs India on a coin start, it's a straight up gift of 100 res to one player for free for the first 4ish mins at least. Can you see why this might be an issue? This isn't about "adapting," it's just one player being set at a disadvantage. You can't "adapt" to make better use of the coin if going early market delays your ageup by 30 seconds and doesn't pay off.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4311
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

02 Dec 2016, 07:47

Civs that can use all 3 crate starts reasonably:
British
Dutch
France
German
Iroquois
Ottoman (they age too quickly for it to matter, that coin becomes relevant quickly enough)

Civs that suffer or benefit too greatly depending on the crate start (?) Indicates uncertainty:
India (suffer coin)
China (suffer on wood & food starts; benefit on coin)
Portuguese(?) (suffer coin)
Japan (suffer coin)
Sioux (suffer coin)
Spain(?) (suffer coin)
Aztec(?) (suffer coin)
Russia (suffer coin)


...You know we could consider just removing coin starts from the game, instead of actually hard fixing crates.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7911
ESO: Garja

02 Dec 2016, 07:55

Spain, Aztecs, Ports can all buy coin for market start easily.

It is funny anyway. Civs already start with fixed crates. Then there is a random crate on top of that and another random food crate.
So really those extra crates are no different than a general element like a map. Remember that the same random crate is given to both civs.
By the fixed crate reasoning we should just remove the extra random ones and leave civs with the base ones that belong to them. I fail ti see how thatnis any better for balance and fun.
We could perhaps try setting the extra food crate laeays to be enabled, virtually adding 100f to all civs base crates.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 916

02 Dec 2016, 08:26

There are 3 option: 1, 100w + f = fast age up
2, 200w + f = tp start
3, 100w + 100c = market start

Its variety, but its determined what you do with random creates every times. And in power rate: 2>1>3.
Just think about it. You need rush its really matter if you start with more food, or you need build market and age up 30 sec later. I remember Umeu said in spain rec even 20sec is metter a lot.
Dont need even mention the tp or market question.

Where is the variety. Wath else can i do with those creates? Rng determines what i do.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7911
ESO: Garja

02 Dec 2016, 08:38

You can't even say B > A > C honestly. Like ok, TP is the best option but then 100g and 100f are very close. For Aztecs 100g means you have much easier time completing the first batch of puma. Also 100g = market which is often more valuable than 100f. Then there is the combination with treasures, etc.
It is just more complex than how you think it is.

And btw, yes rng kinda determines what you will do, but that's good. Being forced to go for a market instead of TP produces different games which is the whole point of introducing random elements.
Germany lordraphael
Jaeger
EWTNWC LAN SilverDonator 01
Posts: 2369

02 Dec 2016, 10:04

i see your point mitoe and its by far The Best point in favour of rdm crate starts.
I agree rdm crates wont make The Game completly balanced especially a civ like japan would benefit alot if it received a wood start while civs that naturally perform good vs jp were penalized by a non wood start.( For The reccord i dont eben think japan is weak theyre pretty strong imo ). However with fixed crates we would habe a common ground to balance The Game. If it turns out that jp is to strong we can finally touch their insane scaling for example but at leat we will have a common ground for balance
breeze wrote:they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
User avatar
France iNcog
Gendarme
Posts: 9241
ESO: status = SAVED!!1²
Location: LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION

02 Dec 2016, 10:14

By the way, the poll seems quite split which is a good time to talk about one inherent issue present with the patch.

People who don't get "their way" or the change they supported are automatically going to be unhappy with the patch. The thing with patching the game ourselves and trying to be open with the community about is that whatever you change, some people are going to like the change and other people won't.

I would like to please, please ask that if you don't see the change you supported implemented, that you not whine about it too hard. Any change implemented in the patch is the result of a ton of compromise from many different views, we can't say "well this is shit, uninstalling" because the change we disliked (for very valid reasons btw) was implemented, or vice-versa.

Please, please appreciate that the ESOC patch team is attempting to be very open and transparent about changes, as well as trying to cater towards what people want. That's a great thing, but the flip-side of the coin is that not everyone can have what they want.

All the more important to say this as the crate change seems quite controversial. So whatever happens, ~50% of people aren't going to be happy. I ask the unhappy 50% to please not get too worked up! ^^ plz let's be friends
Fear is freedom! Subjugation is liberation! Contradiction is truth!
User avatar
India drsingh
Skirmisher
Posts: 179
ESO: drsingh

02 Dec 2016, 10:25

Garja wrote:You can't even say B > A > C honestly. Like ok, TP is the better option but then 100g and 100f are very close. For Aztecs 100g means you have much easier time completing the first batch of puma. Also 100g = market which is often more valuable than 100f. Then there is the combination with treasures, etc.
It is just more complex than how you think it is.

And btw, yes rng kinda determines what you will do, but that's good. Being forced to go for a market instead of TP produces different games which is the whole point of introducing random elements.


If randomness resulting in different games is good. Then why were esoc maps created. Randomly getting 3rd hunt or not resulting in different games with adaptability. Losing one game, winning other.
I know the scale of effect here is different, but the sentiment behind the patch was balanced and fair games, to promote competitive play.

Having variation in games is also essential. For fun and for longevity of game. But random crates is a very poor way to achieve that.
Having balance of options (strategies/builds) within a civ, so that no one way of playing is so op for that civ that it will always be used. After this you get variation and unexpected games, more fun.. And maybe you go on to play 80k more games ;).
Having versatile civs will mean no need of standard maps. More variety possible. More tournament modes (special rules) possible occasionally allowing all civ to be viable in them.

Game meta has already drifted a lot from re. So right now question is not of big change or minimal change. But to make the games in ep feel more fair and fun than re.
And the civ won't be standardised by this. They can't be unless you give same unit, cards and eco mechanics to all civ. So all civ will still be unique in their own sense even if they can do all possible strategies and have affinity for one of them.

I went a little off-topic.
@Mitoe
Removing only coin start would be worse of both worlds.
Considering 100w start. All civ don't benefit from that random crate in same magnitude. That is the reason all the civ have different fixed starting crates.

To understand you can exaggerate and consider if they were all random crates and no fixed crates. How imbalanced that would be. Now one random crate is same but in lesser scale.
Great Britain Hazza54321
Gendarme
Donator 01
Posts: 6425
ESO: PrinceofBabu

02 Dec 2016, 10:31

lordraphael wrote:i see your point mitoe and its by far The Best point in favour of rdm crate starts.
I agree rdm crates wont make The Game completly balanced especially a civ like japan would benefit alot if it received a wood start while civs that naturally perform good vs jp were penalized by a non wood start.( For The reccord i dont eben think japan is weak theyre pretty strong imo ). However with fixed crates we would habe a common ground to balance The Game. If it turns out that jp is to strong we can finally touch their insane scaling for example but at leat we will have a common ground for balance

theyre decent, but they have so many countercivs so they arent seen in a tournament setting.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7911
ESO: Garja

02 Dec 2016, 10:50

drsingh wrote:If randomness resulting in different games is good. Then why were esoc maps created. Randomly getting 3rd hunt or not resulting in different games with adaptability. Losing one game, winning other.
I know the scale of effect here is different, but the sentiment behind the patch was balanced and fair games, to promote competitive play.

Having variation in games is also essential. For fun and for longevity of game. But random crates is a very poor way to achieve that.
Having balance of options (strategies/builds) within a civ, so that no one way of playing is so op for that civ that it will always be used. After this you get variation and unexpected games, more fun.. And maybe you go on to play 80k more games ;).
Having versatile civs will mean no need of standard maps. More variety possible. More tournament modes (special rules) possible occasionally allowing all civ to be viable in them.

Game meta has already drifted a lot from re. So right now question is not of big change or minimal change. But to make the games in ep feel more fair and fun than re.
And the civ won't be standardised by this. They can't be unless you give same unit, cards and eco mechanics to all civ. So all civ will still be unique in their own sense even if they can do all possible strategies and have affinity for one of them.


There is a big misconception about maps too. They were not supposed to be symmetrical, let's be clear about that. They gradually got more symmetrical just because map makers have been more accomodating to some users requests. Or because, for example, at start you use a safer approach (see Kamchatka which was my first map) due to less knowledge of map making.
The reason why EP maps exist in the first place is simply because fixing the official maps is less valuable than creating new ones from scratch.
They do have their own standards but not necessarily being symmetrical.

Randomly getting 3rd hunt or not resulting in different games with adaptability. Losing one game, winning other.

Ye pretty much that, honestly. Except it is yet to prove that there is direct causality between getting a 3rd hunt and winning a game. So it is more about being slightly favored or not. Same logic applies to all RNG factors. In the long run those factors compensate each other and create a Normal distribution. In the short term they create dynamic imbalances which are good for the game.

The meta is different from RE, yes, but the actual game is very similar still and should remain that way. Fixed crates is a major difference. It's like playing two different games.
User avatar
Great Britain britishmusketeer
Howdah
Posts: 1845

02 Dec 2016, 11:14

Mitoe wrote:But now you have new problems: you gave Japan that wood crate, but you left Germany with a coin crate.

I think you wouldn't give any civs extra wood crates (except technically iro although they had two taken away) and balance from there.
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1353
ESO: Anonymous_01
Location: United States

02 Dec 2016, 11:51

I really dont think that fixed crates would actually be the huge of a change. Yes, if french and german got wood+coin starts they would almost always go market. However, if brits got a 300w start, they still have three good options: market, 2 house, house+tp. Same goes for India, Jap and Spain. Yes you could fix crates for spain to always allow them to go market or smth, but that doesnt mean that they always would, same if you gave sioux 100w. I think that Mitoe is very correct in saying that most of the crate imbalances are caused by coin crate starts. If there were some way to remove the possibility of starting with a coin crate from the civs which it hurts, but still allow for some civs to get it, that might also be a good step towards balance. Or, what if two different crate options were coded? It would also be cool if you could code one of the options to appear more than the other; say you gave Germany the option of 300f 100w 100c with 3:4 odds and 200f 200w with 1:4 odds. Of course, those numbers could probably be different for balance or whatever, but I think you get my point.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests