ESOC Patch 7.0.0.0 released!

[zoom]

About balance…

Thanks for fucking asian civs hard with nerf to British consulate, aswell as 100w removal from china (like wtf?) while the civ was anyway average. But don't touch to germany at all!! Great work man!

About feedback...

Thanks for reading, as well as reacting proportionately and respectfully.

Like many changes, British Allies nerf is a direct result of feedback, which nearly unaminously wanted it. This is the idea of the change, which I agree is sound (from comments found in the OP):

"This is a significant nerf to Chinese, a less significant nerf to Indians, and will help the viability of Consulate options for both of these civilizations."

About giving Chinese dynamic crates (again, from the OP):

"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."

About Germans nerfs:

– Per-shipment xp required increased from 110% to 112%
– "Hire Hessian Jaegers" shipment decreased from 13 to 12 Jaegers

Then, there's the buffs to other civilizations, and various other indirect nerfs.

[zoom]

200f/200w china makes me want to uninstall the game

Good thing there is no such thing, then! Perhaps you misunderstand. Chinese crates were 200f, 300w. Now, they are 200f, 200w – plus dynamic crates.

From the OP: "For more details, please see this post."

[Challenger_Marco]

Every civ used to get 600 resources when starting but china with 200f 300w ur literally missing 100 res worth of crate and your also less by 1 point fix that? every civ should spawn with 600 resource worth of crates..

[Hazza54321]

Lol , sure give ports 600 crates. Everyones crate start is varied for a reason, russia has more because of the batch mechanic and 5v, port have less because of 7v, jap have more because of slower gather and the more expensive house, likewise with brits and china

[Kaiserklein]

every civ should spawn with 600 resource worth of crates..

Why???

[Sargsyan]

every civ should spawn with 600 resource worth of crates..

Why???

because reasons!!

[Challenger_Marco]

every civ should spawn with 600 resource worth of crates..

Why???

because reasons!!

CONS

[Challenger_Marco]

every civ should spawn with 600 resource worth of crates..

Why???

i forgot about russia getting more than 6 crates ....thats an exception every civ with 600 crates spawn is good but as hazza said it sums it up and it makes sense.....whatever

[zoom]

200f/200w china makes me want to uninstall the game

are you talking about the base crates? coz you'll always get an addtl crate, whether that's +100f, +100w, +100f +100w, or +100f +100c

Guess it was 300f then but 1 village no tp china is nonetheless incredibly sad

Now you know the pain of other civilizations, on a non-wood start.


Still, if you've read the comments in the OP, I'm sure you realize how great a balance improvement dynamic crates is. There is no issue then balancing around it, if it leaves the civilization too strong, or too weak.

[zoom]

Oh no, what did you do to my China :(

Good job boys, China is officially ruined.

If the goal was to make nobody play China in the next tourney youve achieved it.

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.

[Lukas_L99]

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.

[Goodspeed]

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?

Fixed crates for all is and has been a controversial topic. There's a lot of passionate opposition to it, so it's reasonable not to go for it. People argue that it's a core part of AoE3, and that's hard to argue against. Another point that's hard to argue against is that it would throw balance out of whack. I know I had good reasons for deciding not to do it years ago, and am sure those reasons haven't changed.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9011

But you do understand that it should be either fixed crates for all, or none? So far all of the players I've seen complain about the China crate change are not acknowledging the current problem, which makes it understandable that they are complaining. After all, there wouldn't be any point to the change in their mind. Understanding the current issue might help you make sense of the choice for this solution.

[Challenger_Marco]

JUST GIVE FIXED CRATES TO ALL CIVS PROBLEM SOLVED

[Lukas_L99]

But you do understand that it should be either fixed crates for all, or none? So far all of the players I've seen complain about the China crate change are not acknowledging the current problem, which makes it understandable that they are complaining. After all, there wouldn't be any point to the change in their mind. Understanding the current issue might help you make sense of the choice for this solution.

Yes, I do understand the reasoning behind it. But I just think China is too weak without the 300w start and don't like the banner army changes at all.

[fightinfrenchman]

I don't think any civ should have any starting crates at all. Gather your own resources instead of asking for handouts

[Riotcoke]

I don't think any civ should have any starting crates at all. Gather your own resources instead of asking for handouts

America starts with no crates in game, nice that the devs modeled it after the real US.

[princeofcarthage]

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?

[RefluxSemantic]

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.

[Goodspeed]

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'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]

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?

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.

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'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.

The "optimal starting crates" for each civ is what each civ gets as fixed crates. On top of that there is the random crate which is just to increase variety.
Arguing for fixed crates is basically arguing for just removing the extra random crate. Any other combination of fixed crates would be arbitrarily decided and based purely on meta.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Oh no, what did you do to my China :(

Good job boys, China is officially ruined.

If the goal was to make nobody play China in the next tourney youve achieved it.

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.

Yes sure, let's make more unecessary changes because you randomly decided to change the crates instead of reverting it.

[[Armag] diarouga]

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?

Fixed crates for all is and has been a controversial topic. There's a lot of passionate opposition to it, so it's reasonable not to go for it. People argue that it's a core part of AoE3, and that's hard to argue against. Another point that's hard to argue against is that it would throw balance out of whack. I know I had good reasons for deciding not to do it years ago, and am sure those reasons haven't changed.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9011

But you do understand that it should be either fixed crates for all, or none? So far all of the players I've seen complain about the China crate change are not acknowledging the current problem, which makes it understandable that they are complaining. After all, there wouldn't be any point to the change in their mind. Understanding the current issue might help you make sense of the choice for this solution.

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.

[Cometk]

Show hidden quotes

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?

Fixed crates for all is and has been a controversial topic. There's a lot of passionate opposition to it, so it's reasonable not to go for it. People argue that it's a core part of AoE3, and that's hard to argue against. Another point that's hard to argue against is that it would throw balance out of whack. I know I had good reasons for deciding not to do it years ago, and am sure those reasons haven't changed.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9011

But you do understand that it should be either fixed crates for all, or none? So far all of the players I've seen complain about the China crate change are not acknowledging the current problem, which makes it understandable that they are complaining. After all, there wouldn't be any point to the change in their mind. Understanding the current issue might help you make sense of the choice for this solution.

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...

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

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?

Fixed crates for all is and has been a controversial topic. There's a lot of passionate opposition to it, so it's reasonable not to go for it. People argue that it's a core part of AoE3, and that's hard to argue against. Another point that's hard to argue against is that it would throw balance out of whack. I know I had good reasons for deciding not to do it years ago, and am sure those reasons haven't changed.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9011

But you do understand that it should be either fixed crates for all, or none? So far all of the players I've seen complain about the China crate change are not acknowledging the current problem, which makes it understandable that they are complaining. After all, there wouldn't be any point to the change in their mind. Understanding the current issue might help you make sense of the choice for this solution.

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...

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

[RefluxSemantic]

So if EP doesnt include a change (fixed crates) because it is controversial, then how the fuck did we end up with ep7? Because it seems pretty controversial to me too, so maybe we shouldnt go for ep7 either?