Beta Portuguese Discussion

User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by zoom »

edeholland wrote:
zoom wrote:
edeholland wrote:Thinking outside the box here and trying to come up with something that is somewhat in line with the game: what if in addition to their free Town Centers, they get starting resource crate from their home city again? The Town Center is something they get from their home city to help out, so giving them a few extra crates with that seems logical. It would give them an extra 500 resources a minute after aging. Would that be too much?
Those specific numbers would be very overpowered. I don't want to make the civilization significantly more reliant on aging, than it already is, though.
Fair enough. I don't know if Ports will ever be not reliant on aging since it's their civ bonus, but I get where you are coming from, thanks for the reply.
I know the civilization won't. I simply won't make it significantly more reliant on aging, than it already is, unless there's sufficient reason to warrant an exception.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by zoom »

deleted_user wrote:What is the final conclusion about ports now? @zoom
I try to keep an open mind. There is no such thing, to me. I do have a couple of suggestions for replacing 100c, though:

– Foraging and hunting rates increased by 5%
– "House of Braganca" shipment ("Trade Route improvements are free") moved from Fortress to Discovery Age; now also grants a trickle of 0.5f, 0.5w and 0.5c per second (description updated to include “"For the rest of the game, a small trickle of food, wood, and coin enriches you.”)

Both of these changes are disproportionately non-impactful to fishing builds; the latter increasing Discovery Age shipment options, specifically. Both of them also encourage map control, while thematically making the civilization more unique. Neither change makes for significantly faster advancement to the Colonial Age. The numbers are tweakable.
User avatar
France bwinner
Howdah
Donator 01
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mar 14, 2016
ESO: bwinner

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by bwinner »

I like the hunting rate one
Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Hunting rate sounds better.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by deleted_user »

Can we really do something about this civ? I can provide more games about how shit they are on land right now and they won't be any better without reverting one of their goon nerf since goons were nerfed from 2 aspects, random cassa changes won't change the situation any, on the paper cassa change is not even a buff btw, it's like %4, if we can't agree for changes, just go for RE ports imo, which was still better.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by WickedCossack »

Am I the only person that thinks ports are fine?

I like the 85fd villager.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Cometk »

WickedCossack wrote:Am I the only person that thinks ports are fine?

I like the 85fd villager.
EP7 beta ports have 100f villagers
Image
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by WickedCossack »

Cometk wrote:
WickedCossack wrote:Am I the only person that thinks ports are fine?

I like the 85fd villager.
EP7 beta ports have 100f villagers
Ah didn't see the changes.

I think the cheaper vil is needed and makes them a lot more fun to play. Ports is my 2nd civ for a while now and i'm not sure about any of these changes or why they are needed.

Only interesting one is nilla cass I guess.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Garja »

zoom wrote:
deleted_user wrote:What is the final conclusion about ports now? @zoom
I try to keep an open mind. There is no such thing, to me. I do have a couple of suggestions for replacing 100c, though:

– Foraging and hunting rates increased by 5%
– "House of Braganca" shipment ("Trade Route improvements are free") moved from Fortress to Discovery Age; now also grants a trickle of 0.5f, 0.5w and 0.5c per second (description updated to include “"For the rest of the game, a small trickle of food, wood, and coin enriches you.”)

Both of these changes are disproportionately non-impactful to fishing builds; the latter increasing Discovery Age shipment options, specifically. Both of them also encourage map control, while thematically making the civilization more unique. Neither change makes for significantly faster advancement to the Colonial Age. The numbers are tweakable.
That's some weird ass stuff, just as bad as 85f. Ports absolutely don't need extra eco options early on. If you want something to send that it increases your eco there is already eco theory which is 100% viable (and good) already.
Please let's just focus on buffing military units which is the only thing they need atm.
WickedCossack wrote:
Cometk wrote:
WickedCossack wrote:Am I the only person that thinks ports are fine?

I like the 85fd villager.
EP7 beta ports have 100f villagers
Ah didn't see the changes.

I think the cheaper vil is needed and makes them a lot more fun to play. Ports is my 2nd civ for a while now and i'm not sure about any of these changes or why they are needed.

Only interesting one is nilla cass I guess.
Well, no shit 85f makes them fun, you can boom insanely hard and effortless with that. Need to find a compromise, since Ports already outboom with 100f vills (which is the value that belongs to the civ) but their army isn't the greatest.
Image Image Image
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Kaiserklein »

+100f starting crates, buff cassadores, move some infantry upgrades to earlier ages, buff organ guns and/or the 2 organ guns shipment. Isn't this just enough?
Please no more funky stuff like boosting hunting rate, giving a gold crate, or cheaper vils
Image
Image
Image
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 ..
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by deleted_user »

Kaiserklein wrote:+100f starting crates, buff cassadores, move some infantry upgrades to earlier ages, buff organ guns and/or the 2 organ guns shipment. Isn't this just enough?
Please no more funky stuff like boosting hunting rate, giving a gold crate, or cheaper vils
What you are talking about is overall a nerf, I have explained many times ports started to struggle vs early mass civs on EP (which you agreed before) after the goon nerfs eg china/spain ( and otto thanks to 20 range abus ) just beat ports with less effort, offering random and conditional cassador changes won't change the civ any, you won't do crazy things with changed cassadors, you can call it a buff only if you micro, you can't call a conditional change as buff, that said cassadors will shot slower aswell, It seems we are going to a worse situation with the changes, as i stated before, bringing RE ports back is the way to go then.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Garja »

Ports suck dicks on RE period. French win with semi FF. Ger win with semi FF, etc. They do lose to China super hard and they do lose vs Spain on land, altho Spain is another very sad civ on RE (terrible shipments).
They didn't begin to struggle on EP. On EP in fact they can win ast least vs French and, possibly, vs Ger if the Ger guy doesn't seal the deal at the right moment. All because maps are better and vills are freaking cheap (plus of course Ger and Fre nerfs respectively). EP Ports just need vills reverted because it's retarded and some buff in army mostly to deal with the units of TWC and TAD civs.
You should stop to whine about Goon nerf. Not only it's not as impactful as you think but also IT MAKES ZERO DIFFERENCE IF YOU TRY TO FIGHT SKIRMS WITH IT. You lose vs skirms even on RE and if you win it's cause it's the classic Borneo shit game where you have 120 vill pop eco vs a clueless French player with 60v eco and one age behind.
Image Image Image
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by deleted_user »

I can't believe how amazing it is :mrgreen: Sorry but not gonna bother it
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Garja »

You better not, because you have no clue really. I mean I showed you that skirm rods destroy goons (hudson bay game) and still you think that going goons like a retard is good. Can't argue with a 5yo brain.
Image Image Image
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by deleted_user »

what are you talking about? when did we last play on Hudson bay? are you talking about stone age or what? In fact it's you who is misleading people with flawed infos/lobby stuffs, 80f vills port were not even top3 but recieved nerf, your offers make no sense and you have no constructive addition to the patch. Ah and forgot you are a cheater
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Garja »

Couple years ago we played. Or it doesn't count?
Port received no nerfs since RE patch wtf are you talking about? You are so on the defensive when none touched Ports.
Image Image Image
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Kaiserklein »

deleted_user wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:+100f starting crates, buff cassadores, move some infantry upgrades to earlier ages, buff organ guns and/or the 2 organ guns shipment. Isn't this just enough?
Please no more funky stuff like boosting hunting rate, giving a gold crate, or cheaper vils
What you are talking about is overall a nerf, I have explained many times ports started to struggle vs early mass civs on EP (which you agreed before) after the goon nerfs eg china/spain ( and otto thanks to 20 range abus ) just beat ports with less effort, offering random and conditional cassador changes won't change the civ any, you won't do crazy things with changed cassadors, you can call it a buff only if you micro, you can't call a conditional change as buff, that said cassadors will shot slower aswell, It seems we are going to a worse situation with the changes, as i stated before, bringing RE ports back is the way to go then.
A... Nerf? Buffing port's early fortress with a 2 organ guns buff / better cassadores, making 10/10 viable again, giving ports better late fortress units with the infantry upgrades? Instead of 85f vils?
Like G said, RE ports are garbage. Plus on land maps they only rely on dumb broken stuff like 5 mams or unkillable goons (which btw don't even matter in early fortress anyway...)
Image
Image
Image
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 ..
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by deleted_user »

Kaiserklein wrote:
deleted_user wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:+100f starting crates, buff cassadores, move some infantry upgrades to earlier ages, buff organ guns and/or the 2 organ guns shipment. Isn't this just enough?
Please no more funky stuff like boosting hunting rate, giving a gold crate, or cheaper vils
What you are talking about is overall a nerf, I have explained many times ports started to struggle vs early mass civs on EP (which you agreed before) after the goon nerfs eg china/spain ( and otto thanks to 20 range abus ) just beat ports with less effort, offering random and conditional cassador changes won't change the civ any, you won't do crazy things with changed cassadors, you can call it a buff only if you micro, you can't call a conditional change as buff, that said cassadors will shot slower aswell, It seems we are going to a worse situation with the changes, as i stated before, bringing RE ports back is the way to go then.
A... Nerf? Buffing port's early fortress with a 2 organ guns buff / better cassadores, making 10/10 viable again, giving ports better late fortress units with the infantry upgrades? Instead of 85f vils?
Like G said, RE ports are garbage. Plus on land maps they only rely on dumb broken stuff like 5 mams or unkillable goons (which btw don't even matter in early fortress anyway...)
2organ guns buff? that's just a speed buff which will be okay but defenitely falconets will still beat organs since the animation is the issue, having better fortress units i dont get what you are talking about? Because let's have a look at it from RE ports, you offer to have same eco, fuck goons up ( which is resulting ports to lose vs soain/china/otto ) and giving conditional infrantry change (only if you micro instantly) and add upgrade card for infranty to age3, I'm sorry but that's so flawed, Why just not bring RE ports back instead of playing around with cards and stuffs randomly? Would just rather RE ports back than random cassa changes, cassadors will never be good without strong goons.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by deleted_user »

Also assuming you have 85f among with cassa changes, organ speed buff and so on (which won't happen) ports still would be average, nowhere close to top. In fact ports werent even top civ even when they had 80f vills before, these changes are just insufficient, there is no intention to give real chances to this civ, which is sad because the civ is unique and deserves to be in playable spot like dutch/cihna are.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Kaiserklein »

deleted_user wrote:2organ guns buff? that's just a speed buff which will be okay but defenitely falconets will still beat organs since the animation is the issue, having better fortress units i dont get what you are talking about? Because let's have a look at it from RE ports, you offer to have same eco, fuck goons up ( which is resulting ports to lose vs soain/china/otto ) and giving conditional infrantry change (only if you micro instantly) and add upgrade card for infranty to age3, I'm sorry but that's so flawed, Why just not bring RE ports back instead of playing around with cards and stuffs randomly? Would just rather RE ports back than random cassa changes, cassadors will never be good without strong goons.
I never said the organ buff has to be a speed buff? Didn't also give any specific cassadore change? Not sure what you're talking about here. All I'm saying is the cassadore needs a buff, and so does the 2 organ guns shipment (can also give a small buff to organs overall I guess).

Why not bring RE ports back? Because again, they were fucking garbage on land. And again, they were one dimensional and relied on broken stuff like 5 mams or lame goons. I don't think anyone (except you apparently) wants that back. Plus, 30% rr goons is never gonna happen, because all goons have been nerfed and we're not gonna give ports the exact same unit with +10% rr, that doesn't make sense. Either way, goons were too strong on RE and are balanced now, it was one of the best ep changes, and again I'm sure pretty much everyone agrees on that.
deleted_user wrote:Also assuming you have 85f among with cassa changes, organ speed buff and so on (which won't happen) ports still would be average, nowhere close to top. In fact ports werent even top civ even when they had 80f vills before, these changes are just insufficient, there is no intention to give real chances to this civ, which is sad because the civ is unique and deserves to be in playable spot like dutch/cihna are.
85f vils is just bad. It's the wrong buff. For one thing, it means ports start with 1 less food crate which is so awkward, makes it basically impossible to go for market/TP with only 100f, and kills the 10/10 option. For another, it doesn't really fix the main problem, being ports having trouble early on. Sure you save some food thanks to cheaper vils, but I doubt that matters as much as having decent units. It just encourage port players even more to play super passive and spam vils while camping, instead of giving them real fortress options to fight for the map.
Anyway, with a cassadore buff (back to nilla cassas), 2 organs buff (3 organs for 200g?), infantry upgrades moved to colo/fortress, and the +100f back in age 1, I'm pretty sure ports would be quite average. And average is what we want, it means balanced.

Ah and about organs, I don't think their speed is the problem. The problem is that the volley they shoot takes too long, so most of the time they get to shoot only half of it or so. I'd like organs to shoot faster, something like halve the delay between each bullet they shoot.
Image
Image
Image
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 ..
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by deleted_user »

If the patch team has intention to never understand the fact that goon nerf effect ports mostly, then Idk what else to say, about organ buff, speed isn't the issue yea, should lower the animation if we want some real changes about them, or rather add them +1 range or something like that, I don't wanna explain why cassa buff won't change anything again and again, you can watch my game against Donald_Trump33 i posted on beta forum to get idea about that, you just can't make cassadors in some mus and even after the changes, you won't wanna go on heavy cassa, just no need for random change stuffs, %8 food gathering bonus Zoi suggested to replace with 85f is an okay deal, you will eat more hunts so you won't camp aswell, even with these changes, ports won't be in a good spot like top5 or so and that's an issue about balance imo. I even played ports land in tournaments with full of the civ potential, you probably watched my game vs erik/miggo and seen how unplayable the civ on land is right now. Imo should just stop being unnecessarily conservative about the fact that ports need real goons, not random cassadors
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Garja »

Just to be clear falconets do beat organs and do must beat organs. It's just a superior unit in art vs art and it costs more.
Organs can see a buff but it is only aimed at making the unit slightly more performant (I wouldn't even say more viable as the unit already is for a number of reasons). Organs already do better vs infantry than falconets and not just per cost but they are straight up more effective.

As for the recurrent mention of being top5 or bottom5 or w/e, I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk so much in those terms aside maybe from Diarouga. Not only it clearly exudes some latent bias but more importantly I don't think it's any relevant to the balance discussion. At this point whether a civ is top8 or top5 or top3 is a lot about who plays it, since the difference is, literally, 2-3 MUs that the civ might win or lose and that are often just a matter of a refined build.
In any case when making changes the goal shouldn't be to put the civ in some tier imo. Adjusting civ tiers is just the result of doing the correct changes.
Image Image Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Garja wrote:Just to be clear falconets do beat organs and do must beat organs. It's just a superior unit in art vs art and it costs more.
Organs can see a buff but it is only aimed at making the unit slightly more performant (I wouldn't even say more viable as the unit already is for a number of reasons). Organs already do better vs infantry than falconets and not just per cost but they are straight up more effective.

As for the recurrent mention of being top5 or bottom5 or w/e, I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk so much in those terms aside maybe from Diarouga. Not only it clearly exudes some latent bias but more importantly I don't think it's any relevant to the balance discussion. At this point whether a civ is top8 or top5 or top3 is a lot about who plays it, since the difference is, literally, 2-3 MUs that the civ might win or lose and that are often just a matter of a refined build.
In any case when making changes the goal shouldn't be to put the civ in some tier imo. Adjusting civ tiers is just the result of doing the correct changes.
Organs don't do better against infantry as they are much easier to snipe (sniping organs with skirm/goon is an option, sniping falcs isn't), and you can dodge the organ volleys (they overkill more too I think). Also no siege.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Garja »

Falconets can also be sniped by infantry almost as easy. I mean when you get 50 skirmsit's not like you're gonna split fire just to kill organs with less skirms and even so it's pointless since you need 2 volleys anyway to kill both.
organs just kill way way more infantry units than falcs, like not even close.

In any case I don't think I'm saying anything particularly controversial. It's pretty clear that the design of organs is aimed to be mostly a counter infantry unit while falcs more well rounded artillery.

Aside from speed and animations (I doubt this can be changed), we coud either add one more area of damage or buff them to 165hp so that culvs don't one shoot them. But I don't know if either of the 2 is desirable.
Image Image Image
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Beta Portuguese Discussion

Post by Kaiserklein »

deleted_user wrote:If the patch team has intention to never understand the fact that goon nerf effect ports mostly, then Idk what else to say, about organ buff, speed isn't the issue yea, should lower the animation if we want some real changes about them, or rather add them +1 range or something like that, I don't wanna explain why cassa buff won't change anything again and again, you can watch my game against Donald_Trump33 i posted on beta forum to get idea about that, you just can't make cassadors in some mus and even after the changes, you won't wanna go on heavy cassa, just no need for random change stuffs, %8 food gathering bonus Zoi suggested to replace with 85f is an okay deal, you will eat more hunts so you won't camp aswell, even with these changes, ports won't be in a good spot like top5 or so and that's an issue about balance imo. I even played ports land in tournaments with full of the civ potential, you probably watched my game vs erik/miggo and seen how unplayable the civ on land is right now. Imo should just stop being unnecessarily conservative about the fact that ports need real goons, not random cassadors
I don't need to watch your games (and for the record, you misplayed vs erik on arizona anyway), I play some ports myself. They're not as garbage as you say on land, though I agree they're too weak atm.
Why the fuck would ports need to go heavy on goons? This is just a biased opinion. There's no reason why ports wouldn't want to go cassadores, if they're buffed. Doesn't make sense. In fact, having strong skirms is usually better than having strong goons, as fortress wars are often skirm wars... Goon nerf affects france just as much as it affects ports.
8% extra gathering is extremely random and makes no sense. Again, why boost the eco, when ports naturally get a strong eco anyway, and not just buff the units?
Image
Image
Image
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 ..

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV