Lukas_L99 wrote:zoom wrote:Although I expect Chinese to perform average or below, on this iteration, that most certainly isn't the goal. It's difficult to work with the above comments, alone. Please elaborate on the issue, that we may solve it.
If you think the start needs a buff, I would try buffing Village cost from 200w to 180w, Iron Flail cost from 240f to 220f, and nerfing Meteor Hammer cost from 175 to 190, which would make Black Flag army weaker, and Imperial Army stronger.
I think it's just the wrong way to change so much stuff. Shouldn't the goal be to have balanced (fixed) crates for each civ than removing the only fixed crates and add some random banner armies?
I also don't quite understand the ERK change to be honest.
First, thank you for your post—and for your patience. I'm a tortoise, when posting, and this one took more effort than most.
Your comments, like those of some other players, lead me to believe that you misunderstand what dynamic crates actually does for Chinese performance, relative to other civilizations.
In case you haven't already, please read the following excerpts, from the comments, in the OP:
"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."
"Currently, depending entirely on the crate start, Chinese can be up (or down) 100 resources—a 200 resource swing. Necessarily, this is a major balance issue for the civilization, making it impossible to balance. Now, that won't be the case anymore, which will automatically make the civilization more balanced – and allow it to be balanced, in the first place. For more details, please see
this post."
In case you have already read these excerpts, please excuse my repeating them; they are absolutely integral to understanding the impact of the changes made, and why they were made, in the first place. As noted above, fixing crates for every civilization would, In practice, disrupt balance for the foreseeable future, on a scale far greater than this update has (prior to any tweaks to it). By contrast – as explained to the best of my ability – giving Chinese dynamic crates has the exact opposite effect; it necessarily improves the balance of the civilization, provided that potentially warranted starting compensation is given, e.g a Village cost buff; thus the suggestion and my wondering if you think Chinese is currently too weak on non-wood starts. This information would be very useful towards making the right decision.
I resent the notion that the banner-army changes are random. They are perfectly deliberately filling the void of missing compositions (featuring the four units that previously occur only in one army). In general, increasing options adds strategic depth and variety to the game, improving the experience. Provided that the armies aren't inherently unbalanced – which is all I wish to test, mind you – I think they are worthwhile additions. After giving them a fair shake, if players opine they pose a balance issue, in themselves, (or even if they prove unpopular, regardless), I remain fully willing to revert them. Ultimately, my only goals are improving the quality of the patch, and its perception among players. The two mostly align, one way or the other; you just have to give it a little time, testing it.
I was discussing the ERK changes, with a few other players, yesterday. The idea is to both help the viability of other anti-cavalry options (specifically the Jaguar Prowl Knight, Puma Spearman and Skull Knight), and avoid the risk of overbuffing the civilization, by nerfing its most viable unit's performance against ranged units. The speed buff is intended to then help the unit better perform its role as pseudo-light cavalry. While I find that intent sound, I agree(d) that it does not justify nerfing the civilization in early Fortress Age, since the unit, while dominant, is fairly counterable, and ERK mono-compositions arguably isn't a pressing issue. As a result, then, the speed buff were undesirable, too. What's more, it's standardizing the unit, and Crackoyote Runners have plenty of speed to catch cavalry. Among a few other things, I intend to revert the ERK changes, in their entirity, in a limited balance update, coming before the tournament.
