User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

13 Feb 2018, 20:52

Garja wrote:
zoom wrote:
Show hidden quotes
Why is it, that every time I chat with you, your response implies that you don't actually consider what I'm saying?

Please try being a little constructive and help test instead of just being perpetually negative.

What didnt I explicitly cover with my reply?
Also, how should I be any positive when this is just a waste of time on official release?
Like the game is fuckin dead and you keep trying funky stuff, adding more problems over existing problems you created, instead of just simply fixing what's wrong and making everyone happy
It isn't that you missed anything. It's that you reply disregarding facts put forward. Arguing with you is impossible, because you are completly incapable of seeing any other perspective than your own absolutist one. I never asked or expected you to be positive.

Again, a last attempt to at least communicate a couple of things: It's hard not to disappoint you without removing the gather-rate aura, when that's the only thing you aren't disappointed by. Please keep in mind this is just an iteration we're looking to test.

Edit:

Criticism is fine. In fact, I like it. I think you are overdoing it, though, to the point of disregarding my points, and clinging on to false assumptions – for example, this being a waste of time. This is an early opportunity taken to test a potential solution to a particular issue. If it weren't taken, no other changes would have been made in its place, at this time, regardless. As such, it is the exact opposite of wasting time, so please stop it. It is as disrespectful to us both as it is frustrating to me. Other than that, I certainly appreciate your opinion.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5949
ESO: Garja

13 Feb 2018, 22:51

zoom wrote:It isn't that you missed anything. It's that you reply disregarding facts put forward. Arguing with you is impossible, because you are completly incapable of seeing any other perspective than your own absolutist one. I never asked or expected you to be positive.

Again, a last attempt to at least communicate a couple of things: It's hard not to disappoint you without removing the gather-rate aura, when that's the only thing you aren't disappointed by. Please keep in mind this is just an iteration we're looking to test.

Edit:

Criticism is fine. In fact, I like it. I think you are overdoing it, though, to the point of disregarding my points, and clinging on to false assumptions – for example, this being a waste of time. This is an early opportunity taken to test a potential solution to a particular issue. If it weren't taken, no other changes would have been made in its place, at this time, regardless. As such, it is the exact opposite of wasting time, so please stop it. It is as disrespectful to us both as it is frustrating to me. Other than that, I certainly appreciate your opinion.


It's not like I don't see your perspective, I just consider it wrong. So in that sense I completely agree that it's impossible to argue with me, simply because there is nothing to argue.
You asked me to be construnctive. My contribution to this has been a list of changes that is strictly better in every possible way to any combination you proposed and that involved additional teepee stuff. Not just from a balance pov (not hard task since that's just about tweaking variables) but also from design perspective (because every change I proposed was in line with Sioux design and pre-existing tools).
I do think that not reverting the eco gather thing in a way or another is just wrong so that inevitably disappoints me. I would have been less disappointed, though, if any step back was taken. For example, removing eco boost from default, aggressive policy by default, etc.
Instead, as if the mess wasn't enough, you added more changes than just create further problems. The only thing reverted is the wakina speed, which in this context and without any compensation is another mistake.

What do you want me to test? I can tell you exactly how thing will evolve from here.
Sioux will be basically the same as last iteration, except for 4 tipis instead of 6 and wakina being RE wakinas. Aggressive civs can again rush them with moderate success. Other civs really can't. Their fortress will be significantly weakened to the point of losing to most of civs (certainly Dutch and other good semi civs). There is the possibility of having a broken lategame with 20 tipis to place around farms and plantations (not OP just very unusual good late game for how Sioux one should be).
In all of this, the design of the civ will be significantly different from what it was conceived originally, even though mustang+wakina changes will undirectly push for more cav oriented play.

This change implementation is obvisouly a waste of time. It's another official patch iteration (not a beta one) being unsuccessful with regard to Sioux and by a large margin. I find it hard to estimate if this iteration is better or worse than the previous one for Sioux. And previous one was terrible.
I really don't understand what point of yours I'm disregarding. This is a waste of time because the correct action right now should be to revert everything back to 2 iterations ago and then start again thinking of potential buffs. The teepee campaign was just a fail, I don't understand what are you trying to save from it. The idea behind it has always been questionable and the practical implications created more imbalances than before.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1563

13 Feb 2018, 23:35

Garja wrote:It's not like I don't see your perspective, I just consider it wrong. So in that sense I completely agree that it's impossible to argue with me, simply because there is nothing to argue.

Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator
User avatar
Finland somppukunkku
Howdah
Donator 02
Posts: 1725

13 Feb 2018, 23:46

I agree that arguing with garja sux but he is completely right.

I have asked this thousands of times but I will ask once more because I never get an answer: which high lever players supported this absurd idea of tiipii gather aura. If I don't get an answer I'm going to assume only Goodspeed, who doesn't even play actively and that's a very sad story about balancing this game!

They wanted to make sioux less one dimensional but now its its more one dimensional than it ever has been in RE!
Image
Image
Image
Image
When I win, it's with homo, illegal and wrong strats.
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2019
ESO: lemmings121

14 Feb 2018, 00:10

EAGLEMUT wrote:
lemmings121 wrote:Imo, revert everything back to RE sioux, but keep BR nerf and Cetan buff.

Hold on, that's exactly what EP1 did, and Sioux were considered unplayably terrible with those changes... :hmm:


Maybe people underestimated them? maybe change the numbers a bit more on BR and Cetan to make them viable while not op?

Imo we are getting too far from RE, and that creates a barrier for people coming to the patch.
Removing BS old han or immortal aztec explorer is good, but forcing every civ into boomy-semi ff builds is bad.

bonus
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5949
ESO: Garja

14 Feb 2018, 00:21

Sioux were understimated, that's for sure (been saying that back then too). Still just cetan+BR changes are not enough to make the civ completely balanced.
So, the most reasonable thing to do should have been tweak existing things and test: 4->5 vills, 10%->15% mustangs, 18->20 wakina range, 25%->30% hunt card. 15->18 bisons, etc. Stuff like that.
Then we could have been working on teepees, making them a bit more viable than what they're on RE (e.g. range, cost, HPs, etc.).
User avatar
Serbia Atomiswave
Lancer
Posts: 769

14 Feb 2018, 00:28

lemmings121 wrote:
EAGLEMUT wrote:
lemmings121 wrote:Imo, revert everything back to RE sioux, but keep BR nerf and Cetan buff.

Hold on, that's exactly what EP1 did, and Sioux were considered unplayably terrible with those changes... :hmm:


Maybe people underestimated them? maybe change the numbers a bit more on BR and Cetan to make them viable while not op?

Imo we are getting too far from RE, and that creates a barrier for people coming to the patch.
Removing BS old han or immortal aztec explorer is good, but forcing every civ into boomy-semi ff builds is bad.

bonus


This can't be farther from the truth. If you ask me, Dutch is in a good spot atm. Only thing I would potentially change is 5-4 banks, so they can't be very greed without card investment.

Currently, Brits are strongest civ. With all nerfs/buffs being thrown around for others, remaining unchanged is actually biggest buff they could get. If played right they can win any mu with ease....
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2019
ESO: lemmings121

14 Feb 2018, 10:15

Garja wrote: [...]changes are not enough to make the civ completely balanced.[...]


But in the end thats just an unrecheable dream. we cant make civs completely balanced. No civ will ever have a fair game vs all port on 5 tp maps, brits on heavy water, german/fre with pocket tp, iro with woodstart rushing, russia countaining[...] After 10+ years of patch iterations, its time to realise making civs completely balanced is impossible.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5949
ESO: Garja

14 Feb 2018, 10:48

What I meant is that those changes didn't leave a fully satisfactory balance. I believe that with few extra tweaks Sioux would be in a good spot.
User avatar
Sweden deadrising78
Skirmisher
Posts: 141
ESO: deadrising78

14 Feb 2018, 14:31

Sioux changes are just getting wierd. Imo remove tipi gather aura and keep them as aggresive and defensive buildings. Keep the range boost and that infantry can build them. And increase build limit
User avatar
Switzerland sebnan12
Howdah
Posts: 1360
ESO: Mongobillione
Location: Switzerland

14 Feb 2018, 22:02

wow if thats ur only problem i can give u some of mine bois :D
''its is iamsucksturk'' - Kickass_op
''no you're trash you wouldnt beat me'' - Kaiserklein
"Not my fault everyone is a idiot" - Sir_Musket
"how do you say first lt in serbian" - outta_key_
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Lancer
Posts: 646
ESO: gamevideo113

14 Feb 2018, 23:48

I agree, the simplistic approach here is probably the better approach. At this point teepees have been completely denaturated from RE.
Eat pasta, run fasta :love:
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 13:26

Hazza54321 wrote:what lemmings said but with 5vill
I would make Teepee range 18 and include Mustangs buff, as well, in that event. I don't see Sioux being competitive, otherwise.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 13:43

Garja wrote:
zoom wrote:It isn't that you missed anything. It's that you reply disregarding facts put forward. Arguing with you is impossible, because you are completly incapable of seeing any other perspective than your own absolutist one. I never asked or expected you to be positive.

Again, a last attempt to at least communicate a couple of things: It's hard not to disappoint you without removing the gather-rate aura, when that's the only thing you aren't disappointed by. Please keep in mind this is just an iteration we're looking to test.

Edit:

Criticism is fine. In fact, I like it. I think you are overdoing it, though, to the point of disregarding my points, and clinging on to false assumptions – for example, this being a waste of time. This is an early opportunity taken to test a potential solution to a particular issue. If it weren't taken, no other changes would have been made in its place, at this time, regardless. As such, it is the exact opposite of wasting time, so please stop it. It is as disrespectful to us both as it is frustrating to me. Other than that, I certainly appreciate your opinion.


It's not like I don't see your perspective, I just consider it wrong. So in that sense I completely agree that it's impossible to argue with me, simply because there is nothing to argue.
You asked me to be construnctive. My contribution to this has been a list of changes that is strictly better in every possible way to any combination you proposed and that involved additional teepee stuff. Not just from a balance pov (not hard task since that's just about tweaking variables) but also from design perspective (because every change I proposed was in line with Sioux design and pre-existing tools).
I do think that not reverting the eco gather thing in a way or another is just wrong so that inevitably disappoints me. I would have been less disappointed, though, if any step back was taken. For example, removing eco boost from default, aggressive policy by default, etc.
Instead, as if the mess wasn't enough, you added more changes than just create further problems. The only thing reverted is the wakina speed, which in this context and without any compensation is another mistake.

What do you want me to test? I can tell you exactly how thing will evolve from here.
Sioux will be basically the same as last iteration, except for 4 tipis instead of 6 and wakina being RE wakinas. Aggressive civs can again rush them with moderate success. Other civs really can't. Their fortress will be significantly weakened to the point of losing to most of civs (certainly Dutch and other good semi civs). There is the possibility of having a broken lategame with 20 tipis to place around farms and plantations (not OP just very unusual good late game for how Sioux one should be).
In all of this, the design of the civ will be significantly different from what it was conceived originally, even though mustang+wakina changes will undirectly push for more cav oriented play.

This change implementation is obvisouly a waste of time. It's another official patch iteration (not a beta one) being unsuccessful with regard to Sioux and by a large margin. I find it hard to estimate if this iteration is better or worse than the previous one for Sioux. And previous one was terrible.
I really don't understand what point of yours I'm disregarding. This is a waste of time because the correct action right now should be to revert everything back to 2 iterations ago and then start again thinking of potential buffs. The teepee campaign was just a fail, I don't understand what are you trying to save from it. The idea behind it has always been questionable and the practical implications created more imbalances than before.
I experience your posts as disregarding points presented, pretending that I never made them in the first place. I think you managed to do this yet again, by ignoring what I said about wasting time being nonsense. Please read it one more time. Furthermore, you also keep saying that you can have 20 Teepees for an overpowered late-game. That is simply not true, because of the limit on stacking that these changes enforces. I have told you this at least three times now, so please stop ignoring it, and stop making the same false claim. That makes for both frustration and obstruction. I think you are often constructive, though I don't think you were being so ITT.

I want you to test how these changes impact the strength of the civilization, as well as the usage of teepees, and then decide whether that is positive or negative, instead of making assumptions.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5949
ESO: Garja

15 Feb 2018, 15:44

What point is being presented? That is just an patch iteration made for the only purpose of testing? And then why are you even testing stuff with official iteration, when there is the beta for it? (rethoric, better to explain for you). I consider this a waste of time since changes should be just reverted in this case.
What do you want to test? To me this is negative regardless because those changes aren't what I consider the best solution, by far. Of course between last iteration and this one with 15 distance among teepees, this will be more balanced and hence "more positive". Still these changes raise more problems, etc. so, in the end, I just discard this regardless.
As for testing, just refer to my assumptions, they're accurate. Alternatively, refer to Callen post.

Furthermore, you can also try to read my posts better. I explicitly said 20 teepees won't provide an overporewed late-game but rahter "just very unusual good late game for how Sioux one should be".
For the record this is hard to test, because you need several 25+ min games. That's why assumption based on inference is the best tool. Everything considered, those 20 teepees will grant something like 16-20% boost at most on each farm or plantation. Again, far from OP but still a boost Sioux aren't even supposed to have, in particular through this mechanic.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Lancer
Posts: 646
ESO: gamevideo113

15 Feb 2018, 16:05

The minimum distance between teepees makes it basically impossible to use them as they were meant to be used on RE, not a fan of this change.
Eat pasta, run fasta :love:
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1295
ESO: Anonymous_01
Location: United States

15 Feb 2018, 16:22

Hazza54321 wrote:what lemmings said but with 5vill

And mustangs buff.
Cometk wrote:hi i'm cometk welcome to jackass
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 17:01

somppukunkku wrote:I agree that arguing with garja sux but he is completely right.

I have asked this thousands of times but I will ask once more because I never get an answer: which high lever players supported this absurd idea of tiipii gather aura. If I don't get an answer I'm going to assume only Goodspeed, who doesn't even play actively and that's a very sad story about balancing this game!

They wanted to make sioux less one dimensional but now its its more one dimensional than it ever has been in RE!
He is factually not completely right, but i partially agree with him, as mentioned before.

I can't answer your question because I have absolutely no idea, as I wasn't around at the time of that change.

Please note that these most recent changes are intended to address that issue, and have some patience – at the very least.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 17:02

gamevideo113 wrote:The minimum distance between teepees makes it basically impossible to use them as they were meant to be used on RE, not a fan of this change.
How so? Please elaborate. The way I see it, they will be used the exact same but less stacked.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 17:08

Garja wrote:What point is being presented? That is just an patch iteration made for the only purpose of testing? And then why are you even testing stuff with official iteration, when there is the beta for it? (rethoric, better to explain for you). I consider this a waste of time since changes should be just reverted in this case.
What do you want to test? To me this is negative regardless because those changes aren't what I consider the best solution, by far. Of course between last iteration and this one with 15 distance among teepees, this will be more balanced and hence "more positive". Still these changes raise more problems, etc. so, in the end, I just discard this regardless.
As for testing, just refer to my assumptions, they're accurate. Alternatively, refer to Callen post.

Furthermore, you can also try to read my posts better. I explicitly said 20 teepees won't provide an overporewed late-game but rahter "just very unusual good late game for how Sioux one should be".
For the record this is hard to test, because you need several 25+ min games. That's why assumption based on inference is the best tool. Everything considered, those 20 teepees will grant something like 16-20% boost at most on each farm or plantation. Again, far from OP but still a boost Sioux aren't even supposed to have, in particular through this mechanic.
I've been specifically pointing out what I think you are disregarding in practically every response to you in this thread. I am tired of repeating myself, and I honestly don't have much to add to what I've already said, which I think addresses most of your questions.

My bad, then. I misunderstood you.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 17:14

lemmings121 wrote:
EAGLEMUT wrote:
lemmings121 wrote:Imo, revert everything back to RE sioux, but keep BR nerf and Cetan buff.

Hold on, that's exactly what EP1 did, and Sioux were considered unplayably terrible with those changes... :hmm:


Maybe people underestimated them? maybe change the numbers a bit more on BR and Cetan to make them viable while not op?

Imo we are getting too far from RE, and that creates a barrier for people coming to the patch.
Removing BS old han or immortal aztec explorer is good, but forcing every civ into boomy-semi ff builds is bad.

bonus
Isn't Sioux played in the exact same way on RE as on EP, only with Teepees? I don't think your last point is applicable at all, here.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Lancer
Posts: 646
ESO: gamevideo113

15 Feb 2018, 17:29

zoom wrote:
gamevideo113 wrote:The minimum distance between teepees makes it basically impossible to use them as they were meant to be used on RE, not a fan of this change.
How so? Please elaborate. The way I see it, they will be used the exact same but less stacked.

On RE you can build a lot of teepees close to each other where you are fighting so that you can benefit from a decent amount of them. With the minimum distance between each teepee you will be able to build max 2/3 tepees in proximity of the fight, which makes it less profitable and does not really give any incentive to send cards for them. Now it's harder to secure one specific spot since you can build a limited amount of teepees in said spot, assuming you want to use teepees to their full potential. As Garja says, i think the eco aura for teepees should be granted by a card, so that we don't have to worry about the early overstacking of tepees in the sioux base and there would be no need to add a minimum distance between each tepee.
Eat pasta, run fasta :love:
User avatar
India princeofcarthage
ESOC Media Team
Posts: 1095
ESO: Sav0rybeef
Location: Milky Way!

15 Feb 2018, 17:36

Personally, I think it's not only going far away from RE, it's going away from base game itself, if I am right, then no building follows such rule, and this is first of a kind. Those rules in place where to prevent building in first tc premises of opponent.
Fantastic Friday Showdown
Fantastic Discord : https://discord.gg/69XVRE4
Twitch : https://www.twitch.tv/trgaoe3

Image

#SavetheBeef
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 17:43

gamevideo113 wrote:
zoom wrote:
gamevideo113 wrote:The minimum distance between teepees makes it basically impossible to use them as they were meant to be used on RE, not a fan of this change.
How so? Please elaborate. The way I see it, they will be used the exact same but less stacked.

On RE you can build a lot of teepees close to each other where you are fighting so that you can benefit from a decent amount of them. With the minimum distance between each teepee you will be able to build max 2/3 tepees in proximity of the fight, which makes it less profitable and does not really give any incentive to send cards for them. Now it's harder to secure one specific spot since you can build a limited amount of teepees in said spot, assuming you want to use teepees to their full potential. As Garja says, i think the eco aura for teepees should be granted by a card, so that we don't have to worry about the early overstacking of tepees in the sioux base and there would be no need to add a minimum distance between each tepee.
Thanks!

Firstly, isn't that the same as what I said in my last post – that the difference is the extent of the stacking and not how they are used? Try it in game; stacking is still very much a factor.

Secondly, that argument is perfectly sound, and the option is being considered. However, this is an alternative to it we'd like to test in the mean time (while nothing is changing regardless), to see whether keeping the gather-rate aura (which has its pros as well, remember) is viable.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7563
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

15 Feb 2018, 17:44

princeofcarthage wrote:Personally, I think it's not only going far away from RE, it's going away from base game itself, if I am right, then no building follows such rule, and this is first of a kind. Those rules in place where to prevent building in first tc premises of opponent.
Firstly, the TCs indeed. Secondly, I don't see why a feature being different is inherently bad, on a personal level.

Forum Info

Return to “News”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest