I_HaRRiiSoN_I wrote:@vividlyplain also bud i think the new maps still contain the old treasure set, possibly somehting to look into.
I havent tested all the maps yet but that swampy map is absolutely huge
the treasure set is dictated by the map but the treasures are the EP treasures
swamp map isn't mine
Whose map is Bering Straits? It's using the siberia treasures, which we haven't necessarily touched as no esoc map used that map type before. Most of the treasures are probably fixed already as they also spawn on, say, himalayas (for e.g kamchatka), but I'm sure some are proper to that map and aren't balanced. Like the 110w for 2 white tigers, that other free macaque treasure, or the horrible 195f/205f for 10 macaques. Could be worth looking into before EPL2.
i made bering, didn't realize that treasure set wasn't balanced
i guess i could change that one word in the xs file before epl2 starts
Plantinator wrote:Random idea: could we have nat tps spawn a vill when built instead of xp trickle? (Kind of like a manor)
That would guarantee the uniqueness of normal tps while still makin nats viable somewhat.
Please, stop with random idea. Zoi's knowledge about the game isn't good enough to make the difference between a good and a random change.
Well i Think if a random idea is approved by the Top players and then tested and it works its a good idea
Except it won't necessarily be approved by the top players because Zoi can be very stubborn and ignore the opinions, and it won't be tested.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I_HaRRiiSoN_I wrote:@vividlyplain also bud i think the new maps still contain the old treasure set, possibly somehting to look into.
I havent tested all the maps yet but that swampy map is absolutely huge
the treasure set is dictated by the map but the treasures are the EP treasures
swamp map isn't mine
Whose map is Bering Straits? It's using the siberia treasures, which we haven't necessarily touched as no esoc map used that map type before. Most of the treasures are probably fixed already as they also spawn on, say, himalayas (for e.g kamchatka), but I'm sure some are proper to that map and aren't balanced. Like the 110w for 2 white tigers, that other free macaque treasure, or the horrible 195f/205f for 10 macaques. Could be worth looking into before EPL2.
i made bering, didn't realize that treasure set wasn't balanced
i guess i could change that one word in the xs file before epl2 starts
Or if you want to keep that treasure set, I can rebalance its few problematic treasures, I don't mind.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Jotunir wrote:Hello again, since there is no easy way to do it, how do I disable the new start menu manually? (the one that looks like minecraft)
Is there any way?
I don't think so, for now
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Kaiserklein wrote:So we're first making nat posts viable with the xp trickle, so that people build them, before balancing what they provide? Sounds real smart
Should have been done before or simultaneously, I agree.
Just need to be honest with what the purpose is. If you want to just buff nat play and see that come more into effect, then just buff actual nat play with buffing nat units/build limits/nat techs and stop this nat tp xp trickle. However if you want to simply make no tp maps have sort of a tp still, then keep the nat xp trickle but then say that's why you are doing it. Now it's so counterproductive to nerf a nat so the buff to nat play didnt get to big? Like what? What you are doing is making nat play less viable. You make getting nat tp more viable, yes, but actual nat play less viable.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
Kaiserklein wrote:So we're first making nat posts viable with the xp trickle, so that people build them, before balancing what they provide? Sounds real smart
Should have been done before or simultaneously, I agree.
Just need to be honest with what the purpose is. If you want to just buff nat play and see that come more into effect, then just buff actual nat play with buffing nat units/build limits/nat techs and stop this nat tp xp trickle. However if you want to simply make no tp maps have sort of a tp still, then keep the nat xp trickle but then say that's why you are doing it. Now it's so counterproductive to nerf a nat so the buff to nat play didnt get to big? Like what? What you are doing is making nat play less viable. You make getting nat tp more viable, yes, but actual nat play less viable.
I think Zoi has been clear that it is to add a passive xp option and nothing to do with native play specifically.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
Ya, exactly why ESOC should try to balance it in the EP...
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
Ya, exactly why ESOC should try to balance it in the EP...
Currently it's almost useless so I'm not sure about the "exactly why".
I can already tell you what is going to happen. You're going to "try" to balance it in the EP, and it will create more balance issues, so you're going to make more changes to fix that and it's never going to end.
That's what's currently happening.
There are many examples of that . You want to give nat TP an exp trickle but it's too strong on some maps, so you nerf the natives (that inca change is not going to change shit btw, inca rush will still be lame). India got nerfed, then buffed, then nerfed again. Same with Japan etc.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
Is it? balance is a matter of perspective
Balance is not a matter of perspective, no. The way people perceive balance is a matter of perspective, but balance is objective.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
Is it? balance is a matter of perspective
Balance is not a matter of perspective, no. The way people perceive balance is a matter of perspective, but balance is objective.
That is what I meant, thank you for having clarified what I said, I am still waking up haha
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
Is it? balance is a matter of perspective
Balance is not a matter of perspective, no. The way people perceive balance is a matter of perspective, but balance is objective.
Balance is objective when you have 2 weights perfectly balanced on a weighing scale. Its becomes perspective when you consider relative balance which is in case of aoe 3.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
Is it? balance is a matter of perspective
Balance is not a matter of perspective, no. The way people perceive balance is a matter of perspective, but balance is objective.
Balance is objective when you have 2 weights perfectly balanced on a weighing scale. Its becomes perspective when you consider relative balance which is in case of aoe 3.
I dont know if this is true. There definitely is an objective balance. However, we do not have the means of objectively measuring balance. Think about it in terms of a scientific experiment; there is an objective truth, but we can't always measure this truth very objectively or accurately. That doesn't mean the truth does not exist.
EAGLEMUT wrote:
β Incan Huaminca attack decreased from 15 to 14 By mitigating the pre-existing significant risk of the minor native alliance trickle, this nerf helps faciliate its slight buff.
This makes no sense. Didnt you add nat tp xp trickle to buff native play? Then just actually buff natives lol, and stop trying to make nat tps into normal tps
It makes no sense only if you believe that all native subcivs were already perfectly balanced between each other.
Which is why you don't randomly nerf one nat, but actually rebalance the nats, which is long overdue...
EP9 should balance natives, consulate options and politicians.
I guess we have to hope DE comes before EP9 then.
And then hope that DE just has a bunch of useless or broken native shit
It's better to have a useless shit than an unbalanced game.
Is it? balance is a matter of perspective
Balance is not a matter of perspective, no. The way people perceive balance is a matter of perspective, but balance is objective.
Balance is objective when you have 2 weights perfectly balanced on a weighing scale. Its becomes perspective when you consider relative balance which is in case of aoe 3.
I dont know if this is true. There definitely is an objective balance. However, we do not have the means of objectively measuring balance. Think about it in terms of a scientific experiment; there is an objective truth, but we can't always measure this truth very objectively or accurately. That doesn't mean the truth does not exist.
I agree with you. However I was speaking more practically.
I wouldn't entirely agree with the idea that balance is completely subjective in practice. There's definitely the possibility to get a reasonable grasp on balance. One of the problems is that we've never properly defined balance. For example, balance can mean that across the 13 match ups a civ has close to a 50% expected winrate. But then should we weight this for how often other civs are played? I feel like subconsciously we do weigh balance like this; if a civ is good against very popular civs and bad against unpopular civs, we tend to consider that civ (too) strong. The maps also complicate the process. Water maps, no TP maps, low res maps, very high res maps and high TP maps all skew balance a lot. Are we rating civs for their average performance on the map pool, or should we balance for a standard map and then consider all overly non-standard maps to be gimmicks (as in, these won't be as balanced and that is fine)? Sometimes I feel like people let no TP maps influence their opinion of balance a lot, even though in my opinion the balance has clearly been done with TP maps in mind.
As far as I'm concern balance is always something that is relative to a map, and the aim should not to have all MU fair on a given map but a high enough number of MUs fair on a given map. So if only half the civs are fine on a water map or a no TP map I'm ok with that.
Besides a LOT of balance problems (maybe most of balance problems) come from the way MU are decided in tournament with a first pick and a counter pick. To give an example: a mirror is fair on every single map obviously. So a port mirror is a perfectly fine MU on Thar desert, but the way MU are decided in tournaments this kind of MUs are unreachable because nobody can pick port first on Thar desert cause he would obviously get counterpicked.
For now I have only one complain/suggestion for Eaglemut if it has not been done already:
Make a quick fix to give us the option to disable the new start menu ui (the one that looks like minecraft) or revert back to the original one. Other than that, I find this patch to be a breath of fresh air for AOE3.
Jotunir wrote:For now I have only one complain/suggestion for Eaglemut if it has not been done already:
Make a quick fix to give us the option to disable the new start menu ui (the one that looks like minecraft) or revert back to the original one. Other than that, I find this patch to be a breath of fresh air for AOE3.
The minecraft thing was a joke for april fools. It'll be reverted shortly I presume.