Beta Water Discussion

[zoom]

Please discuss anything relating specifically to water gameplay features, here.

[deleted_user]

First of all, to start with the most important problem, the existence of water is still rejected by some players, which is the bigguest issue that patch team can't do anything about it I think. If we look at the reasons why so, it's because water booming strats are one of the hardest strats to implement at aoe3, proven by diarouga, who won the NWC but couldn't make turtle strats work says enough about how hard it is, and how much nerfed it is, instead of understanding/learning water mechanics, unfortunately it was been nerfed a lot, from balance wise, map wise, and map-set wise. It would be much more benefical if we tried to understand learning water like @Mitoe / @[Armag] diarouga and some other top players did, they all found good anti-water strats and currently it's quite harder to water boom right now, ( no tp water maps such as alaska and large maps like baja are exception ). to start with, I would suggest discussing to revert some unnecessary changes about water. and going water is not rewarded at most Mu's basicly you can't really water boom unless you are porto/japan, to start with, we should make the water as rewarded as tps or so rather than nerfing it, also it's not like anyone's fault if someone couldn't learn how to make warships and stuffs to deny water after 14 years..

[Mitoe]

I don't really think water needs any buffs right now.

Mainly I'd like to see more civs being viable on water. Biggest problem to me seems to be the warship upgrades--they affect water v water balance but not really water v land balance. This is fine except that some civs are so much better at water v water than many others.

[Peachrocks]

The only thing I think about water that could be buffed is making fish last longer. The fact the boom eventually dies off while other forms (e.g manor, trade route) stay relevant forever isn't ideal. It's not even like fish traps in aoe2 where you can still use all your fishing boats albeit inefficiently. Once all the fish is gone, that's it. It's all on whales and any boats that are in excess of that are now 100% useless.

[deleted_user]

The only thing I think about water that could be buffed is making fish last longer. The fact the boom eventually dies off while other forms (e.g manor, trade route) stay relevant forever isn't ideal. It's not even like fish traps in aoe2 where you can still use all your fishing boats albeit inefficiently. Once all the fish is gone, that's it. It's all on whales and any boats that are in excess of that are now 100% useless.

another issue is the amount of water maps are significantly reduced compared to RE. it recieved nerf from many aspects aswell. and most of them were random/not needed at all.

[Goodspeed]

I think war ships should cost population instead of have a build limit. The player who invests more resources should win a water fight, not who has the most water cards in deck.
Also are we really supposed to believe that those 17th century ships are fully automated?

[deleted_user]

are we really suggesting to nerf water for the 6th time ? Sounds great

[Cometk]

i don’t think changing warships to cost population is necessarily nerfing water. think about it: the player who didn’t take water and is contesting it by sending 2 cara/1 frig is also negatively impacted by that change. It’s just about water vs water balance, as well as gimping lategame warship superiority over land units. It makes a lot of sense

[deleted_user]

i don’t think changing warships to cost population is necessarily nerfing water. think about it: the player who didn’t take water and is contesting it by sending 2 cara/1 frig is also negatively impacted by that change. It’s just about water vs water balance, as well as gimping lategame warship superiority over land units. It makes a lot of sense

you would end up failing and getting housed and would need to make early house to make warships, also, you still would have to limit warships at one point, otherwise you would end up facing 10 frigates on alaska and then have more complicated stuffs with it, would change the meta, would destroy the water while it's already been destroyed enough, you would get housed especially when you try to do early 3 caravel rushes or stuffs, anyway I'm not gonna argue about water nerfs since it's unfairly got nerfed 5 times in a row to be sure kynesie won't be in good spot.

[deleted_user]

These are indirect nerfs to water


"Wall hitpoints decreased to 1500 (from 3000); line of sight decreased to 1 (from 4)"

“Bastion” improvement increased to +400% wall hitpoints (from +150%); moved to Fortress Age (from Colonial); now also increases Wall build-time by 50%

These are random and unnecessary nerfs to water

Canoe range & line-of-sight decreased to 18 & 22 (from 20 & 24), respectively

War Canoe range & line-of-sight decreased to 25 & 29 (from 30 & 34), respectively

Monitor cost reduced to 600w, 200c (from 800w, 200c); experience-bounties adjusted to 80 (from 100); “Long-range Bombardment Attack” cooldown increased to 90 seconds (from 60) & range decreased to 70 (from 100.)

This is the most nonsense one, monitor is basicly your reward for holding the water control, but it got nerfed.


“Admiralty” shipment changed from increased warship build-limits to Dock warship improvements cost & research-time halved"

"European Cannons" shipment changed from "+20% warship attack and +5 warship range & line-of-sight" to "+30% warship attack"

"Offshore Support" shipment changed from "+20% warship attack and +5 warship range & line-of-sight" to "+20% warship attack and +2 warship range & line-of-sight"

Other nerfs which were not listed

The amount of water maps are decreased to %25 from %50 in competitive map set

The amount of fish and whales on water maps are decreased by %35

Basicly %50 of the general changes on EP are made to nerf water, why? because to be sure kynesie can be beaten easily, people might call it exaggeration and stuff, I just list the changes here, it's basicly half of the EP changes focused to nerf water, only 2 players play water in good level btw. This is just ridicilious for the EP history !



Blackstar beating kynesie's water boom on RE patch ( which is supposed to be broken as hell! )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCHiZl2NxBk

Acergamer is beating kynesie's water boom on RE patch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxUlsuymFE

Now say whatever you want, patch team is losing it's respect with holding these unnecessary nerfs.

[Cometk]

i don’t think changing warships to cost population is necessarily nerfing water. think about it: the player who didn’t take water and is contesting it by sending 2 cara/1 frig is also negatively impacted by that change. It’s just about water vs water balance, as well as gimping lategame warship superiority over land units. It makes a lot of sense

you would end up failing and getting housed and would need to make early house to make warships, also, you still would have to limit warships at one point, otherwise you would end up facing 10 frigates on alaska and then have more complicated stuffs with it, would change the meta, would destroy the water while it's already been destroyed enough, you would get houses especially when you try to do early 3 caravel rushes or stuffs, anyway I'm not gonna argue about water nerfs since it's unfairly got nerfed 5 times in a row to be sure kynesie won't be in good spot.

i’m not really understanding where you’re going with this. if caravels costing population would disproportionately hurt the land player who tries to contest the water at some point, then that sounds like a _buff_ to water. having 10 frigates on Alaska would mean you overinvested and now have a bunch of dead population - it wouldn’t be possible to make a mistake like this in a competitive game and if it were made, then it’s the overinvesters fault.

[deleted_user]

i don’t think changing warships to cost population is necessarily nerfing water. think about it: the player who didn’t take water and is contesting it by sending 2 cara/1 frig is also negatively impacted by that change. It’s just about water vs water balance, as well as gimping lategame warship superiority over land units. It makes a lot of sense

you would end up failing and getting housed and would need to make early house to make warships, also, you still would have to limit warships at one point, otherwise you would end up facing 10 frigates on alaska and then have more complicated stuffs with it, would change the meta, would destroy the water while it's already been destroyed enough, you would get houses especially when you try to do early 3 caravel rushes or stuffs, anyway I'm not gonna argue about water nerfs since it's unfairly got nerfed 5 times in a row to be sure kynesie won't be in good spot.

i’m not really understanding where you’re going with this. if caravels costing population would disproportionately hurt the land player who tries to contest the water at some point, then that sounds like a _buff_ to water. having 10 frigates on Alaska would mean you overinvested and now have a bunch of dead population - it wouldn’t be possible to make a mistake like this in a competitive game and if it were made, then it’s the overinvesters fault.

nope it wouldn't, you would go 2-3 houses and push water at one point while water player will overcommit to sea for sending warships earlier.
Also do you really approve the random changes to water? which water player was asked before implementing soo many unnecessary changes which covers half of the EP change list ?