jerom wrote:To be truly OP itd have to win convincingly against most civ and have only a few match ups that are relatively close. I dont think china meets those critera tbh.
I disagree. Anything above average is overpowered. More or less so.
You just called China top civ... I think thats beyond above average? China might be very strong but their meta is not fleshed out as much as wed like it to be. Changing them now would be a mistake.
[quote author="@forgrin" source="/post/54642/thread" timestamp="1442647596"]Why the decrease in food cost for vills specifically for Ports? Obviously this plays into their extra TCs and could, maybe-ish make their long term colonial better, but I have trouble seeing how this makes them more viable in a standard supremacy 1v1. Just reducing expenditures on vills by, say, %10 doesn't really make Ports any less hunt-dependent, and especially with reducing wall HP turtling to age IV isn't as practical either. If used well, CM and TC fire can be effective, but it's still essentially a gimmick that gives up a lot of the map and only works if your opponent is silly enough to rush you with no-siege units. Ok, so here's the broad issues with Ports as I've seen from my experience playing them:
[ul type="disc"][li]Always running out of food. It's not just running out of hunt' I've often found that even with ST, getting enough food for an army and 2-3 TC vill production is often impossible in early-mid colonial and early fortress. Obviously this only gets harder when you are inevitably pressured, and rarely are you safe enough to think about sending Spice Trade. [/li][li]Complete lack of siege in fortress comp. Although organ guns are powerful, they lack siege, which seriously limits what could otherwise be a fairly decent fortress push. I've crushed the opponent's army in the field with cass + goon + mams many times, but this comp is so lacking in siege I often can't threaten my opponent meaningfully afterwards. You can ship halbs, I guess...[/li][li]Lack of unit upgrade cards. This naturally makes Ports a lost cause in many drawn out colonial (and even fortress) games, especially in teams, as despite their strong economy they lose in efficiency when other civs ship these cards. If some of their 4th age upgrade cards could be sent down in age, this could be quite effective. [/li][li][span style="background-color:transparent'"]Overly dependent on Huss and/or Mams to secure an otherwise paper thin Fortress comp. Both goons and especially Cass are very fragile against heavy cav or even just massed musk, and it's not like you can afford to make a bunch of huss in fortress anyways (this is why the mediocre semi-FF is preferred nowadays, IMO). With other fortress civs where a 3-unit comp can be unnecessary for the initial push(es), Ports absolutely need tanky units to protect the cass before they can move out.[/span]
[span style="background-color:transparent'"] [/span][span style="background-color:transparent'"]Other than their age 4, all their options are underwhelming (for reasons above + more). Wanna colonial boom? Sorry, missing vill cards, and you don't have enough food to create vills and defend without wasting a shipment on 700f most days. Can't easily make a TP and go for market ups in transition for boom either, as you don't have enough vills in transition to make it effective. Can't really FF because you need to boom in order to afford vills from multiple TCs. Can kind-of Semi-FF, but basically just a worse version of France with much slower eco. Can't play colonial semi-boom, because you'll likely survive, but will never have enough army to secure more hunts later on. Can't really play colonial aggro, because there's pretty much no way for you to recover as you lack vill cards, and you lack the early game eco of a civ like Germany or France to xbow-pike. [/span][/li][/ul][div]
How these could be solved...
[ul type="disc"][li]Don't reduce vill cost (or maybe try it?), but instead give Ports a minor boost to hunting. Econ percentage boosts play much more into the Port's economical ramp-up than slight savings on each vill would due to the mathematical nature of pumping out 2-3 vills at a time rather than one- you tend to have alot more vills on food with Ports, and therefore a boost to gathering food can actually have a distinct effect. [/li][li]Either improve Organ gun siege slightly, improve shipment (include 2 cass maybe?), maybe card sends 2 organs and increases building attack slightly instead? I mean, it is 200 res less than the falc card, have some mercy. Maybe even have 2 falcs + 500g as a merc shipment? [/li][li]Send some of the upgrade cards down to colonial and fortress. I don't think any other civ in the game has this random stratification of only age 4 upgrade cards, I don't see why Ports should be stuck with it. [/li][li]If Ports could age with 4 huss (like Spanish) or send a huss card, this could be solved. Mams are powerful, but getting to Fortress and hoping you have 1k gold and a shipment available every game isn't viable when so much of your success depends on it. Honestly for the siege issue, you could do either organ gun buff or huss age/card, as HC have decent siege, or enough that it wouldn't be as painful to try and burn things. [/li][/ul][div]All of these things being implemented could make Ports rather strong, potentially moreso than wanted, but just guessing with 10% better hunting, better siege potential, useful upgrade cards and decent composition, I'd guess they'd be around the level of France, with better lategame but weaker early. [/div] Sorry, wrote this just before bed, my apologies it's rather jumbled. I just really wanna see Ports be more viable, and honestly making their already boring and ineffective turtle-boom style slightly better isn't going to save them. If someone can show me or explain how a decrease in Port vill cost will achieve this, please let me know. [/div] [/quote]Generally we are looking at changes that buff or nerf a civ without forcing their hand. For Port especially this is an important consideration because they already play the way they're supposed to: defensively and focused on map control. The problem right now is that whatever they do, they're just slightly too weak. A vill cost change buffs all of their options instead of just one, it buffs the civ without changing the way they play. Buffing organs for example would buff a very specific style which is not what we want.
shaolinstar wrote:China is easily a top 5 civ. You just suck. Learn to play and everything will be okay.
I don't need learn for china. I play china only. I know everything for china. and I learn world history. Im world history book.
chinese people are really strange
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.
See the diference that comes from the voting and what reality , everyone has opinion !!! but the fact that matters is players results, comes from real experience .
From this table u can see that JAPAN isnt really top 4 has the voting process shown above, its why the FP team is not at the moment touching them but the 2 lowest civs wich are POrt, dutch . Nerfing Iroquoi,Otto and Sioux !!! nerf sioux or otto u should nerf india and china also.
If anlyse the Statisc well u can see that otto civs looses % win on top level and China on contrary wins % at top level players. China low level scores 53% win , at top level scores 57% wich means China is potencial better , that means china >' otto . Also means China is more op at top level than is low level.
See the diference that comes from the voting and what reality , everyone has opinion !!! but the fact that matters is players results, comes from real experience .
From this table u can see that JAPAN isnt really top 4 has the voting process shown above, its why the FP team is not at the moment touching them but the 2 lowest civs wich are POrt, dutch . Nerfing Iroquoi,Otto and Sioux !!! nerf sioux or otto u should nerf india and china also.
If anlyse the Statisc well u can see that otto civs looses % win on top level and China on contrary wins % at top level players China low level scores 53% win , at top level scores 57% wich means China is potencial better , that means china > otto . Also means China is more opat top level than is low level.
Are those statistics from Eso? That means they include all Pr plus team games for history of Tad. That''s irrelevant to the current meta.
If u think OTTO >' CHINA or INDIA , i really Doubt , i believe more in statiscs than the voting
regarding china it matters a lot whos playing that civ the better the player the better the civ becomes, in general this is a good concept as it rewards players for skill and experience because the civ scales so much with the skill of the one playing it
Its necessary too take in consideration that some civ is more strong on bad map (like india, because their vilis don't cost food, and this is generally the limited factor). Statistic is an information, they don't explain anything, your interpretation explain.
And its important to take in consideration the map, for exemple china destroy totaly otto whitout so this is the reason why otto have only 54% win (its porbably 60% with tp and 50 % without or something like that). This is the reason why india is a top civ, they are good agaisnt all civ and all map and they are not really afected by bad hunt.
But personaly iam more agree with stat classement,
Those statistics are from all unbalanced ES maps from the entire history of ESO. This is why India seems to do well' all they have to do is drop an agra fort in the middle of the map and sit on your 2nd/3rd hunt to win. The same applies to Iroquois, Sioux, Otto, etc.
I'm surprised Russia only has a 52% winrate though for the same reasons why India's winrate is so high.
chronique wrote:Its necessary too take in consideration that some civ is more strong on bad map (like india, because their vilis don''t cost food, and this is generally the limited factor). Statistic is an information, they don''t explain anything, your interpretation explain.
And its important to take in consideration the map, for exemple china destroy totaly otto whitout so this is the reason why otto have only 54% win (its porbably 60% with tp and 50 % without or something like that). This is the reason why india is a top civ, they are good agaisnt all civ and all map and they are not really afected by bad hunt.
But personaly iam more agree with stat classement,
Statistics can be done badly, in which case, they are wrong. 1) It is on bad maps which won''t be the case on the fp 2) It is outdated.