User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Tournament Admin
Posts: 4384
ESO: DJ_Cometk
Location: California

10 Dec 2019, 18:39

so you're telling me... china getting an age 1 tp every single game while a ger player has a 40% chance to get it... is more balanced than when both civs have equal chances of getting the age 1 tp?
Image
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Tournament Admin
Posts: 4384
ESO: DJ_Cometk
Location: California

10 Dec 2019, 18:40

RefluxSemantic wrote:
Cometk wrote:
Show hidden quotes

actually, closer to 90% agree it is a good change...

This is just one change about the gold start, which diarouga didnt mention at all?

it's implied because 100c crate start removal was an alternative solution to addressing crate start balance w/o fixing crates

besides, where is he sourcing this misinformation he's spouting?
Image
User avatar
Malawi princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2113
ESO: Princeofcarthage
Location: Milky Way!

10 Dec 2019, 19:04

RefluxSemantic wrote:
princeofcarthage wrote:Dynamic Crates is part of relative balance, if you want unique civs with unique playability, having everything fixed isn't the way to go. Like Hazza already pointed out every civ has different start and hence different crates(dynamic crates). That is the way to ensure uniqueness and relative balance. Dynamic crates isn't the bad thing and it would be prejudiced without enough testing. The questions are 1) Is china now weak or strong or relatively balanced to other civs? 2) Does china has enough other viable options in case of poor wood start on the current maps we have?

What even is this Relative balance? It just sounds like a buzzword you made up to justify imbalance..

Dynamic crates just mean that the game will always screw over certain civs on certain crate starts.

Every MU isn't same and depends on lot of different factors. When all civs have fairly balanced all mu is what is called relative balance, such as a weaker mu not exceeding maybe ~45-55, and stronger mu not exceeding ~55-45. I am not the first one to use the term. It has been used earlier as well.

Goodspeed wrote:That's not what dynamic crates means in this context. Fixed crates doesn't mean all civs get the same crates. It means that you decide, per civ, what the optimal starting crates are for that civ and make sure they're the same every game, like with pre-EP7 China. Russia would still start with a ton more food crates than Dutch.

Garja wrote:That's not how dynamic crates work in the game.
Every civ has its own set of fixed crates. On top of that there is 1-2 random crate which is the same for every civ.
Because the fixed ones are tailored for the specific civ and the random ones are instead the same for every civ, balance is assured.


I mean exactly the same thing. I even said "Like hazza already pointed out." You are only saying the same thing I wished to express in different terms/wordings.
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8303

10 Dec 2019, 19:19

"Fixed crates" in this context doesn't mean every civ gets the same crates, and that's what you were apparently arguing against. What I was trying to explain to you is that your argument isn't relevant in the ongoing discussion of random crates versus fixed crates. After all, each civ would still have "dynamic" crates by your definition. Only the additional random crates would be scrapped. There's no discussion about having every civ start with the exact same crates. That would be ridiculous.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9912
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

10 Dec 2019, 19:26

Cometk wrote:
[Armag] diarouga wrote:
Show hidden quotes

I do acknowledge the current problem. However, removing fixed crates for China creates more imbalance than keeping the initial problem.
It's also interesting to note that EP refused fixed crates while 60% support it but went for some random changes when 90% of the people are against it.

actually, closer to 90% agree it is a good change...

I didn't mention that one lol. It is a good one because it is a step toward fixed crates.

If you want to know what changes I dislike and criticize, refer to this post :

Yes, there are some big changes that totally change the game :
1. Starting Town Center building placement minimum range no longer applies to Trading Posts Or how to lame by stealing your opponent's TP
2. Trading Posts at minor native settlements now grant a trickle of 0.7xp each Still can't believe people can't understand that this is wrong
3. 100w removed from starting crates; dynamic ("random") starting crates added Again, I just don't know why some people even think it can be good
4. "Old Han Reforms" shipment now includes Keshiks and Steppe Riders; renamed "Old Dynasty Reforms" Just because Zoi is obsessed with China and wants the civ to be changed
5. Steppe Rider speed increased from 6.75 to 7.25; obstruction radius decreased from 0.79 to 0.65 Randomly increasing a unit's speed while the 7 steppe shipment is already very good.
6. Yabusame ranged attack increased from 8 to 9 Let's fix Japan's only weakness in late game : artillery
7. Great Bombard train-time decreased from 115s to 100s What? Why?
8. The Port changes are totally untested
9. Rifle Rider cost reduced from 120f, 100c to 120f, 90c (bounties adjusted accordingly) RR is a super specialised unit. It's insane against musk/huss and some people would already train them
10. War Chief ranged resistance increase from 10% to 30% moved from Fortress to Colonial Age lol

And so so many random changes that don't make the game better, confuse the inactive players and can potentially make it worse :
1. Castle cost reduced from 250w, 100c to 250w, 50c
2. Halberdier hand attack increased from 25 to 28; hand resistance increased from 10% to 20% (Russian Halberdiers adjusted accordingly) Like seriously ? What the fuck
3. Spy hitpoints now increases by 25% in Fortress Age
4. "5 Coyote Runners" shipment increased to 6 Coyote Runners
5. Eagle Runner Knight speed increased from 6 to 6.5; ranged resistance decreased from 30% to 20%
6. Jaguar Prowl Knight hand attack increased from 18 to 20; hitpoints increased from 230 to 240
7. Great Temple of Quetzalcoatl Support shipment cost reduced from 2000c to 1500c
8. Great Temple of Huitzilopochtli shipment cost reduced from 2000c to 1500c
9. "Cavalry Cuirass" improvement cost reduced from 100w, 300c to 300c
10. "Incendiary Grenades" improvement cost reduced from 400w, 300c to 250w, 250c
11. "Infantry Breastplate" improvement cost reduced from 200w, 200c to 100w, 100c
12. "Socket Bayonet" improvement cost reduced from 400w, 400c to 200w, 200c
13. Medicine Man population cost reduced from 1 to 0 A unit that doesn't cost population ?
14. Priest cost reduced from 200c to 150c; bounties adjusted accordingly
15. Keshik obstruction radius decreased from 0.79 to 0.65
16. Mongolian" banner-army changed from 3 Keshiks and 3 Hand Mortars to 2 Keshiks and 2 Steppe Riders; cost changed from 495f, 270w to 230f, 170c; train-points decreased from 30 to 25; moved from Fortress to Colonial Age and from Castle to War Academy
17. "Black Flag" banner-army changed from 3 Arquebusiers and 1 Flamethrower to 4 Changdao Swordsmen and 2 Meteor Hammers; cost changed from 170w, 425c to 380f, 350c; train-points decreased from 40 to 33; moved from Castle to War Academy
18. Envoy train points decreased from 30 to 15
19. Flail Elephant hand attack increased from 5 to 10; population cost reduced from 4 to 3; Mansabdar updated accordingly
20. Rajput siege attack increased from 20 to 25; speed increased from 5 to 5.5; Mansabdar updated accordingly
21. Siege Workshop cost reduced from 300w to 200w (bounties adjusted accordingly)
22. Samurai hand attack increased from 25 to 28
23. Imam heal-rate increased from 10 to 20 hitpoints per second
24. Spahi ranged resistance increased from 10% to 20%
25. War Club hand attack increased from 10 to 12
26. "Adoption" shipment increased from -25% to -40% Villager train-time
27. "Caballeros" shipment changed from +1 hand attack infantry multiplier to +1 hand attack infantry multiplier and +1 hand attack range for Lancers

When I can list 10 game changing changes, and totally untested as well as about 30 random changes in a few minnutes you know there's something wrong with this patch.

Honestly, I'd rather play on the RE with EP maps and Iro banned.


Some of these changes are super unpopular and shouldn't even be considered (banner armies for example) and most would get less than 60%.
User avatar
Malawi princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2113
ESO: Princeofcarthage
Location: Milky Way!

10 Dec 2019, 19:26

Yes and I understand that, thats why I was referencing hazzas post, looks my bad I didn't mention the same thing again. @Goodspeed
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9912
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

10 Dec 2019, 19:27

Cometk wrote:so you're telling me... china getting an age 1 tp every single game while a ger player has a 40% chance to get it... is more balanced than when both civs have equal chances of getting the age 1 tp?

I've already explained it... If Germany doesn't get a wood start, you still get the market while you don't as China.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8303

10 Dec 2019, 19:29

princeofcarthage wrote:Yes and I understand that, thats why I was referencing hazzas post, looks my bad I didn't mention the same thing again. @Goodspeed
Ok. Your wording was confusing in your first post, so we seem to have misunderstood it to be arguing against fixed crates. Are you?
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9912
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

10 Dec 2019, 19:30

Cometk wrote:
RefluxSemantic wrote:
Show hidden quotes

This is just one change about the gold start, which diarouga didnt mention at all?

it's implied because 100c crate start removal was an alternative solution to addressing crate start balance w/o fixing crates

besides, where is he sourcing this misinformation he's spouting?

1) Removing gold start makes the crates less random. We just need to fix the wood crate now.

2) There is not a single top player who agrees with the banner army change (source Mitoe)
Likewise, I highly doubt the TP LOS and native exp trickle would get more than 25% among the top players.
User avatar
Malawi princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2113
ESO: Princeofcarthage
Location: Milky Way!

10 Dec 2019, 19:33

I am just trying to explain that random crates (on top of every civs fixed crates) isn't necessarily a bad thing and that it may (or may not) help in balance. That it also makes certain strategies on certain maps and different build orders increasing variability. @Goodspeed Does this sound okay? :flowers:
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8303

10 Dec 2019, 19:39

Yes but it's a completely different point than the one Hazza made, and also a different point than your previous post seemed to make. I suspected that this is what you actually meant which is why I kept trying to clarify.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 9254
Location: USA

10 Dec 2019, 19:51

princeofcarthage wrote:I am just trying to explain that random crates (on top of every civs fixed crates) isn't necessarily a bad thing and that it may (or may not) help in balance. That it also makes certain strategies on certain maps and different build orders increasing variability. @Goodspeed Does this sound okay? :flowers:
Random crates may or may not help balance? Wtf are you saying? Non random crates would 100 percent be better for balance. That's not even debatable.
User avatar
Malawi princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2113
ESO: Princeofcarthage
Location: Milky Way!

10 Dec 2019, 19:53

gibson wrote:
princeofcarthage wrote:I am just trying to explain that random crates (on top of every civs fixed crates) isn't necessarily a bad thing and that it may (or may not) help in balance. That it also makes certain strategies on certain maps and different build orders increasing variability. @Goodspeed Does this sound okay? :flowers:
Random crates may or may not help balance? Wtf are you saying? Non random crates would 100 percent be better for balance. That's not even debatable.

Yes but that doesn't mean random crates would be 100% worse for balance. It just depends on things you want or don't
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7900
ESO: Garja

10 Dec 2019, 19:55

Balance is better with dynamic crates for every civ, that's for sure.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 9254
Location: USA

10 Dec 2019, 19:56

princeofcarthage wrote:
gibson wrote:
princeofcarthage wrote:I am just trying to explain that random crates (on top of every civs fixed crates) isn't necessarily a bad thing and that it may (or may not) help in balance. That it also makes certain strategies on certain maps and different build orders increasing variability. @Goodspeed Does this sound okay? :flowers:
Random crates may or may not help balance? Wtf are you saying? Non random crates would 100 percent be better for balance. That's not even debatable.

Yes but that doesn't mean random crates would be 100% worse for balance. It just depends on things you want or don't
Yes random crates are 100 percent worse for balance than non random crates. The reason we have random crates is the same reason why we have 14 civs even though 8 civs would be 100 percent better for balance.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7900
ESO: Garja

10 Dec 2019, 19:58

Easier is not better
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Dragoon
Posts: 456

10 Dec 2019, 20:01

Imo, crate starts are the primary limiting factor (together with no-TP maps I guess, although those technically aren't being considered much) in balancing the game further.

At this point the overall balance is and has been good enough to make most civs at least reasonably competitive on most crate starts. You cannot however deny that some civs benefit far more from certain crate starts than others. The difference between Germany on a 200w start vs Germany on a food start is enormous, however for example the difference between Dutch on a 200w or 100f start is almost neglible. There are many such examples. I think it's kind of impossible to want a civ to be between 45% and 55% winrate when crates can (imo) make a bigger than 5% positive or negative difference. I also don't see how this tiny increase in variety really is worth the terrible effect it has on balance.

In that light, I'm pretty sure the 100c only start was voted out because most people just want fixed crates, but for some reason this "controversial" change is not supported enough (while some changes that aren't even supported made it through somehow, which is a bit strange).
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8303

10 Dec 2019, 20:11

Which makes -100c a great compromise. It's one of those changes I wish I would've thought of
No Flag spadel
Musketeer
Posts: 91

10 Dec 2019, 21:35

I didn't read all the changes, but I really think ports are going to be waaay to strong with that cassador change. They are going to win all semi ff matchups just by kiting now.
User avatar
Austria supahons
Dragoon
Posts: 354
ESO: supahons

10 Dec 2019, 21:37

Gj for fixing the maps and bugs and developing it further. A few ideas:

* [Arrow Knight population cost reduced from 2 to 1; speed increased from 3.75 to 4], [ERK speed increased to 6.5]

Reminds me a bit of the (C/W)olosseum-Scenario
You can't make a step, after there is a a critical mass (like Longbows/Yumis, but with 30 range). Maybe a bigger change than an additional +1 coyote imo and most likely really annoying to play against in late game.
Example: Defensive dance turtle strategy and wall the land map until you're ready -> Antiartillery-Wall with max. 91 ArrowKnights or ERK vs Cav at maximum eco (both with speed buff now + switch from attackdance to defensivedance). A population cost of 2 prevents that, they are only relatively weak/niche units in low numbers.

* ["Gunpowder Infantry Attack" shipment moved from Industrial to Colonial Age]
* ["TEAM Gunpowder Infantry Hitpoints" shipment moved from Industrial to Fortress Age]

I don't think there's a need to change the unique core of the civs and redesign them eg. the Portuguese.
It's a defensive civ (survive/save villagers until you're ready, at least on TAD). With the defensive/mapcontrol/shipment point advantage the TCs gives you, you get a disadvantage with weak units in the beginning, if the other player forces you to send shipments, delays the age up or idles your villagers.
If you want to buff it slightly just revert eg. the mameluke nerf or add a musk/crossbow to the age2 shipments. Or buff a few shipments with native military units eg. 2 organ guns+ 2 native skirmishers, if it's really needed and it isn't solved by changing the unit stats slightly.
I don't think it's necessary to invent totally new shipments by changing the techtree and moving shipments around. After a few changes like this, it just makes the patchnotes more and more confusing. Quantity vs quality + rock-paper-scissors should just work fine.

Most changes in this patch are in the back to TAD category, only a few are somewhat significant and questionable. Most changed units and shipments you probably never build/send anyway (eg. Samurais). Just put them in a separate category, to make the patch notes easier to read. (eg. the +1 melee attack ones for units you never see in most cases, -15 envoy trainpoints (what?)). Then it gives a quick overview for new players and everybody, who is not up to date with all the changes every patch and it makes it less complicated. (Units significantly or slightly changed, see list below) I think most players (me included) won't even notice it/care, if it the stats only changed slightly.
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Dragoon
Posts: 456

10 Dec 2019, 21:59

Goodspeed wrote:Which makes -100c a great compromise. It's one of those changes I wish I would've thought of

It doesn't mean that fixed crates isn't still the best option though.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 8984
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

10 Dec 2019, 22:35

RefluxSemantic wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:Which makes -100c a great compromise. It's one of those changes I wish I would've thought of

It doesn't mean that fixed crates isn't still the best option though.
You're right – this is why it is not, in practice, the best option:

"A divisive and fundamental change to the game, fixing crate starts would – beyond alienating many in the community – cause major balance issues for the foreseeable future, by drastically altering the strength of 14 civilizations in largely unpredictable ways, instead of altering one civilization in such a way that directly improves balance. Simply put, I will not be responsible for such an irresponsible change. Ultimately, this alternative is a more than sufficient compromise to balance the game."

Chinese not having a practical wood start every time other civilizations don't is a necessity to acceptably balance the game; fixing every civilization's crates is not. If it were, it might have been a responsible option.

That's all I have to say about it.
:chinese:

For more comments on other changes, please see the spoiler towards the bottom of the OP!
Currently effective ESOC Patch notes

Some players: "190w is such an awkward and ugly cost for Villages; not at all like 135w for Manor Houses! Oh, and make Musketeer batches cost 281.25f, 93.75c again!

Blue-haired girl dying
Georgia Qosashvili93
Musketeer
Posts: 61
ESO: Qosashvili93

10 Dec 2019, 22:41

This game is shit because balance was/is/will be anyway shit no matter on ep1 or on ep7

So why complain dont understand everyting new is interesting, hope ep 8 also will have many changes
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Dragoon
Posts: 456

10 Dec 2019, 22:42

So one change that will in the long term drastically improve balance but in the short term might have a slight negative effect (and to be honest, fixing crates is just to remove the outrageously strong or outrageously weak options that I believe aren't really taken into account properly, it should not be huge) is not okay, but a patch with a 1000 changes that combined will have a large effect, completely alienate the community and new players especially and that doesn't actually have such a huge benefit as fixed crates have, is okay? Talk about some double standards.

In the end, random crates are holding the balancing progress back. If you really want good balance, you should fix the crate starts. If you want to endlessly iterate on some state, including tons of random changes and thus alienating some people each iterations (in other words, eventually alienating almost everyone), then be my guest. But it's a pretty stupid idea.
Germany lordraphael
Jaeger
EWTNWC LAN SilverDonator 01
Posts: 2369

10 Dec 2019, 22:55

i think this patch is going to be good
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.

Forum Info

Return to “News”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests