EP7 China

[Kaiserklein]

Well, that's why discussing what's more fun is useless, as it's different for everyone. I'm having fun doing all sorts of stuff in age 1 while you don't.
But like I just replied to noel, random crates obviously bring more variety, if not "fun". And fixed crates would obviously bring more balance, once we've figured them out. So it's a tradeoff.

[deleted_user]

It is diverse in a way that is not diverse. The crate start almost always forces your strategy, whereas fixing crates would likely result in the same variety plus some.

That is really not true. With fixed crates you basically wouldn't have any choice in age 1. Think about brits not having a wood start and never being able to go for the TP 3v/VC thing. Same for india with TP into trickle/GFA. India 10/10. Iro early TP into fast age. Ports 10/10 on a food start. 3sw/700g naked ff with a TP. 3v/silk road with the mosque. Otto/iro fishing in age 1 on a wood start.
The list goes on and on but I think you get the point. There's no way fixing crates doesn't limit us strategically. You'd just do x thing and then age up to colonial, almost every game. And it's not only about age 1 obviously, but about the implications on all stages of the game, because of that variety in the age 1.

Again, I'm not even arguing we should stick to random crates here. I've decided not to. I just want people to really understand what it implies.

It's almost as if letting players choose their extra crate allows for every single possibility you just mentioned, while eliminating inter-civ balance issues stemming from identical crate spawns.

[Mitoe]

It is diverse in a way that is not diverse. The crate start almost always forces your strategy, whereas fixing crates would likely result in the same variety plus some.

That is really not true. With fixed crates you wouldn't have any choice in age 1. Think about brits not having a wood start and never being able to go for the TP 3v/VC thing. Same for india with TP into trickle/GFA. India 10/10. Iro early TP into fast age. Ports 10/10 on a food start. 3sw/700g naked ff with a TP. 3v/silk road with the mosque. Otto/iro fishing in age 1 on a wood start.
The list goes on and on but I think you get the point. There's no way fixing crates doesn't limit us strategically. You'd just do x thing and then age up to colonial, almost every game. And it's not only about age 1 obviously, but about the implications on all stages of the game, because of that variety in the age 1.

There's truth on both sides here, but the real difference is this:

With random crates you are forced into doing something after you've already loaded into the map and matchup, but with fixed crates you are more in control from the moment you decide which civ you want to play. Fixed crates aren't giving you less choices than random crates; random crates just make the choices for you.

I want to have that control and that assurance so that when I do want to try something different, I know that will be able to reproduce that build order effectively in the future, instead of praying that I get lucky on the 20-40% chance that I receive the crates that I need for that strategy.

[EAGLEMUT]

So that's mean aoe3DE will be played with esoc patch?

Well, we don't know for sure yet, but if you look at other Age games, they're bringing in community balance patches as well, so it seems pretty likely EP will be taken into account to some extent.

[n0el]

It is diverse in a way that is not diverse. The crate start almost always forces your strategy, whereas fixing crates would likely result in the same variety plus some.

That is really not true. With fixed crates you basically wouldn't have any choice in age 1. Think about brits not having a wood start and never being able to go for the TP 3v/VC thing. Same for india with TP into trickle/GFA. India 10/10. Iro early TP into fast age. Ports 10/10 on a food start. 3sw/700g naked ff with a TP. 3v/silk road with the mosque. Otto/iro fishing in age 1 on a wood start.
The list goes on and on but I think you get the point. There's no way fixing crates doesn't limit us strategically. You'd just do x thing and then age up to colonial, almost every game. And it's not only about age 1 obviously, but about the implications on all stages of the game, because of that variety in the age 1.

Again, I'm not even arguing we should stick to random crates here. I've decided not to. I just want people to really understand what it implies.

Mitoe's post (as usual) sums it up.

[deleted_user]

Well, that's why discussing what's more fun is useless, as it's different for everyone. I'm having fun doing all sorts of stuff in age 1 while you don't.
But like I just replied to noel, random crates obviously bring more variety, if not "fun". And fixed crates would obviously bring more balance, once we've figured them out. So it's a tradeoff.

It's almost like allowing players to choose their extra crate let's both of those things happen.

[deleted_user]

It is diverse in a way that is not diverse. The crate start almost always forces your strategy, whereas fixing crates would likely result in the same variety plus some.

That is really not true. With fixed crates you wouldn't have any choice in age 1. Think about brits not having a wood start and never being able to go for the TP 3v/VC thing. Same for india with TP into trickle/GFA. India 10/10. Iro early TP into fast age. Ports 10/10 on a food start. 3sw/700g naked ff with a TP. 3v/silk road with the mosque. Otto/iro fishing in age 1 on a wood start.
The list goes on and on but I think you get the point. There's no way fixing crates doesn't limit us strategically. You'd just do x thing and then age up to colonial, almost every game. And it's not only about age 1 obviously, but about the implications on all stages of the game, because of that variety in the age 1.

There's truth on both sides here, but the real difference is this:

With random crates you are forced into doing something after you've already loaded into the map and matchup, but with fixed crates you are more in control from the moment you decide which civ you want to play.

I want to have that control and that assurance so that when I do want to try something different, I know that will be able to reproduce that build order effectively in the future, instead of praying that I get lucky on the 20-40% chance that I receive the crates that I need for that strategy.

Imagine being able to practice from a garaunteed crate start, but with the freedom of choosing which crate start it is.

[deleted_user]

I like when players unwittingly confirm the best option.

[bwinner]

Why not balancing the random starts to combine both?
For instance, we could have 5 different seed for each civ (1,2,3,4,5) and the same seed is picked for both. Example with 2 civs: Let's say india and russia.
There is 5 different possibilities:
seed1: Russia gets +200f and india +100f/100w
seed2: Russia gets +100f and india +100w
seed3: Russia gets +100w and india +100f
seed4: Russia gets +100g/100f and india +100g/100w
seed5: Russia gets +100g and india +100g

Then we would need to implement 5 different ordered/balanced choices for each other civ and we have it.
The number of starts I decided to go for here is arbitrary but it's just to show that we could have something balanced and random at the same time.

[bwinner]

So that's mean aoe3DE will be played with esoc patch?

Well, we don't know for sure yet, but if you look at other Age games, they're bringing in community balance patches as well, so it seems pretty likely EP will be taken into account to some extent.

If they didn't contact any of you, it's a bit strange that they would reuse your work (is that even fully allowed for commercial purposes? ), but maybe you've some secret informations about that?

[Kaiserklein]

There's truth on both sides here, but the real difference is this:

With random crates you are forced into doing something after you've already loaded into the map and matchup, but with fixed crates you are more in control from the moment you decide which civ you want to play. Fixed crates aren't giving you less choices than random crates. Random crates just happen to make the choices for you.

I want to have that control and that assurance so that when I do want to try something different, I know that will be able to reproduce that build order effectively in the future, instead of praying that I get lucky on the 20-40% chance that I receive the crates that I need for that strategy.

Well no, you don't HAVE to go for these strats. It's just extra strats random crates allow you to go for. There's very simply no way we'll see as many strats when crates are fixed, even though we see these strats only on specific crate starts.
I do get your point about knowing what build you can go for before loading the game, and obviously I agree. That's not variety though. More about competitiveness I guess.

[Mitoe]

Why not balancing the random starts to combine both?
For instance, we could have 5 different seed for each civ (1,2,3,4,5) and the same seed is picked for both. Example with 2 civs: Let's say india and russia.
There is 5 different possibilities:
seed1: Russia gets +200f and india +100f/100w
seed2: Russia gets +100f and india +100w
seed3: Russia gets +100w and india +100f
seed4: Russia gets +100g/100f and india +100g/100w
seed5: Russia gets +100g and india +100g

Then we would need to implement 5 different ordered/balanced choices for each other civ and we have it.
The number of starts I decided to go for here is arbitrary but it's just to show that we could have something balanced and random at the same time.

As far as I understand it this is not actually possible to code into the game at the moment, although I like the thought process behind the idea.

Couple of issues with it:

- Much harder to know which crates your opponent got and what options that opens up for them. You're not going to go around memorizing which crates every single civ gets on every single seed.
- Random crates are still making choices for you rather than you making choices based off of your crates.

[Kaiserklein]

So that's mean aoe3DE will be played with esoc patch?

Well, we don't know for sure yet, but if you look at other Age games, they're bringing in community balance patches as well, so it seems pretty likely EP will be taken into account to some extent.

If they didn't contact any of you, it's a bit strange that they would reuse your work (is that even fully allowed for commercial purposes? ), but maybe you've some secret informations about that?

Maybe people who know anything aren't allowed to talk about it, like every single time a game is developed, so asking questions would be useless no matter what

[Mitoe]

There's truth on both sides here, but the real difference is this:

With random crates you are forced into doing something after you've already loaded into the map and matchup, but with fixed crates you are more in control from the moment you decide which civ you want to play. Fixed crates aren't giving you less choices than random crates. Random crates just happen to make the choices for you.

I want to have that control and that assurance so that when I do want to try something different, I know that will be able to reproduce that build order effectively in the future, instead of praying that I get lucky on the 20-40% chance that I receive the crates that I need for that strategy.

Well no, you don't HAVE to go for these strats. It's just extra strats random crates allow you to go for. There's very simply no way we'll see as many strats when crates are fixed, even though we see these strats only on specific crate starts.
I do get your point about knowing what build you can go for before loading the game, and obviously I agree. That's not variety though. More about competitiveness I guess.

Well then why would you HAVE to go for TP and VC with Brit if crates are fixed on 300w? Why would you HAVE to go for India 10/10?

You don't HAVE to play by the meta. That's my point, you have more strategic freedom when you know what you're going to receive rather than waiting and hoping you don't get the shitty start.

[deleted_user]

It just keeps sounding better and better...

[Kaiserklein]

I just don't understand. Say india doesn't get wood starts anymore, how are you going to see people going for TP into trickle/GFA OR going 10/10 OR going for the normal age up? Surely you'll just see people go for the normal age up every time?
Sure you get more freedom if you know what you're gonna get. I'm just saying that doesn't mean more variety.

[Mitoe]

IMO ideally we would start with the crates that give each civ the most options and go from there. Any start that forces you to go only go for the age up with no options at all should probably be hard vetoed in favour of other changes.

So if 400w India turned out to be too good for example I'd rather nerf something else than make it boring 300w India. But of course it depends on what that nerf would be and what its own implications for their strategies would be.

[Garja]

All this discussion is useless since you can't assign the crate you wants to a civ.

e.g.

IMO ideally we would start with the crates that give each civ the most options and go from there.

that's both not univocal and not balanced

[Mitoe]

All this discussion is useless since you can't assign the crate you wants to a civ.

Yes you can?

[Garja]

Nope. It's hard to decide which crates gives the most options and it's even harder to make it so it's balanced for every civ in all MUs. At least most balanced than the current system which is relatively balanced because the extra crate is the same for every civ.
If anything remove the extra crate alltogeter, but as you can imagine that defeats the purpose of "giving the most options to the civ".

[Mitoe]

Sorry I thought you meant that you can't code it in.

I don't think it would be as difficult as you make it out to be.

[SoldieR]

See, mitoe already said youd have to rebalance around 400w india. That's the example I'm talking about.

DE3 is coming soon, so EP would either be adapted, hopefully, or possibly irrelevant, as everyone would probably be on DE3.

So there isn't a ton of time to patch EP with fixed crates, balance it, and hope it gets adapted.

[Kaiserklein]

IMO ideally we would start with the crates that give each civ the most options and go from there. Any start that forces you to go only go for the age up with no options at all should probably be hard vetoed in favour of other changes.

So if 400w India turned out to be too good for example I'd rather nerf something else than make it boring 300w India. But of course it depends on what that nerf would be and what its own implications for their strategies would be.

I guess I'd be fine with selecting the start that gives the most options. I mean, it's kinda necessary if we're gonna fix crates and don't want to be bored to death.
The problem is that sometimes there's several crates starts giving several options, and that yeah it would kinda be a nightmare to balance if we fix crates that way

[n0el]

See, mitoe already said youd have to rebalance around 400w india. That's the example I'm talking about.

So if 400w India turned out to be too good for example...

[Mitoe]

Sigh.

If that were the case (which I'm not convinced it really is), then why is it better to have India be OP half the time on random crates?

Fixed crates would improve player's agency as well as make it easier to determine how good or bad a civilization is in the first place, especially if the balance differences between crate starts are really as huge as some of you make them out to be. If you think that fixed crates are really going to create such a massive balance issue (it won't), then I can't possibly see how keeping random crates is any better. You want to flip a coin to see if you have a 45% or 55% chance of winning the game each time?


In any case, as I've already said I'm not really concerned as much with the balance implications as with the gameplay implications. Fixed crates--if done right--leads to better gameplay that random crates.