ESOCommunity

Kaiserklein wrote:Anyway, I think we pretty much know how to deal with most treasures. My concern was mostly about treasures on 2 maps: kamchatka and manchuria.


On kamchatka, "difficulty 3" treasures are all problematic. These are:
- 5 pet macaques for 2 samurais
- 5% coin discount for a macaque + 3 dacoits
- 30% HP on hero for 1 samurai + mongol rider
- 195f for 10 macaques

It feels almost impossible to change these treasures in an elegant way. They basically are just sad in age1, as you never want to come across them (while your opponent might just find 90w...), and potentially too strong later on (at least, the coin discount).


In a similar way, some Manchuria treasures cause problems:
- stable/warhut wagon for 3 mongol riders
- 10% cav training speed for 2 mongol riders
- 10% cav hp, 10% cav siege, etc, for 3 or more mongol riders

Same as kamchatka. You're just sad to stumble accross any of these treasures in age 1, but they might also be too good later on (especially the free stable/warhut wagon for any civ that goes for a forward base). Tweaking them into reasonable treasures seems impossible.


Please, anyone who accesses these forums, do let us know what you think of these treasures, specifically. Should they be removed? Changed (if yes, how)? Or just untouched?
We're of course also interested in your opinion regarding treasures, generally speaking.

I would leave 5 Pet Macaques (or remove it from 1vs1, only), remove 5% coin discount from 1vs1 (only), buff 30% hero HP to 40%, and leave 195f.

I would add a Mongol Rider to the Wagon (it's basically a big, glorified wood treasure), halve -10% cavalry training speed to -5% and move it from treasure tier 2 to 3 (so that it only spawns in the middle of the map), halve +10% cavalry hitpoints to +5%, leave +10% cavalry base siege attack. As well, one of the few treasures I would remove, completely (which you did not mention, here), is +5% cavalry speed. I think it's broken, and cannot be fixed.

Mitoe wrote:I can’t address this whole post because I have to go to work but the problem is that a lot of those treasures simply aren’t takeable for some civs; namely India and Japan.

Also it’s really dumb on a map like Kamchatka, where you have 3 spots along the river to look for treasures, and the level 3 and level 2 treasures spawn in the same spots; so if you go to one spot and find 195f for 10 monkeys and 5 monkeys for 2 samurais, you just instantly lose cause the opponent’s going to be taking 90w and 85w, 80f, etc on the opposite side of the map uncontested. It’s not fair, really.

Also what do you think about reverting the change to add 2 groups of 2 goats to the middle of the map on Kamchatka? It’s super annoying because with the good tres and the goats you feel you HAVE to go there no matter what or you lose something in age 1. This makes it really boring and I much preferred the older version of the map for this reason.

How about removing 195f from the map in 1vs1? That seems like a sound compromise.

I agree that Kamchatka is too center-centric. It isn't healthy for game-play on the map. Reverting the goats would be good, I think.

There is nothing changed in the goat spawn! It just happens that one pair sometimes doesn't fit in the island. Can't really change the constraint because that's needed to strech all the other goats and spawn them evenly. Surely can use 2 different constraint for paired and single goats but is it worth? The bug isn't too frequent. I guess I can take a look at that..

About 195f I'm not sure it's better if removed. I think that having few big treasures that you can realistically take only with other units is desireable. Anyway I already explained that changing the whole logic of big treasure placement on Kamchatka isn't that easy.

zoom wrote:

Kaiserklein wrote:Ah and finally. Do you think the free macaque should be nerfed? I mean it's arguably the best treasure, and I don't really want to add guardians to it as it would just totally change the treasure, so I think a first step towards balancing it is to reduce its hp and lower the multiplier (currently x3) vs treasure guardians

How about having every player spawn with such a treasure, on the given map?

Yes, I'd be fine with that. It would be sort of a mongolia thing where you start with an extra macaque in your base. Would be more fair than now.

zoom wrote:As I've said many times, regarding many things, I want to avoid removing anything, where acceptable. I've already communicated this to Kaiserklein and Mitoe, elsewhere, yet it's worth reiterating.

About native treasures, I don't wish to marginalize them, either. For instance, I think simply halving multipliers (from 1 to 0.5) vs buildings and gatherers, for the duration of Discovery Age – would go a long way. I definitely think they are broken currently, in Discovery Age.

Removing treasures should be a last resort, but eventually we'll realize there's no alternative for some of them.
Yeah, giving a multiplier vs vils and buildings is the only needed change for nats I think, on top of removing the snare for incas and nootkas. Maybe x0.5 is enough.

zoom wrote:I think nerfing Outlaw Rifleman range from 18 to 15 is a good change, since it doesn't alter its combat prowess as a guardian, but makes it significantly less exploitable against another player. The only other guardian change I would suggest is a Pirate hitpoints nerf.

I don't think removing native warrior snare is a good idea; balancing them vs buildings and gatherers in Discovery Age should be plenty. Since the Native Scout has already had its snare removed, I conversely don't know that any further nerf to it is warranted.

Yes the range change should be fine. Though the rifleman would still be a 40 attack unit, so I could still see it be a problem in some cases, but would definitely be much better than now because you'd have the opportunity to crackshoot it. And yes, pirates need an HP nerf.

I think removing the nootka/inca snare is a priority. Actually more important than giving them a multiplier vs vils, I'm quite sure. Picking one of these nats simply means you autowin the age 1, cause when you find the opponent's explorer, it's simply dead. I mean, they're faster and they snare, and have so much hp they won't ever really die.
I don't mind so much the native scout.

zoom wrote:I would leave 5 Pet Macaques (or remove it from 1vs1, only), remove 5% coin discount from 1vs1 (only), buff 30% hero HP to 40%, and leave 195f.

I would add a Mongol Rider to the Wagon (it's basically a big, glorified wood treasure), halve -10% cavalry training speed to -5% and move it from treasure tier 2 to 3 (so that it only spawns in the middle of the map), halve +10% cavalry hitpoints to +5%, leave +10% cavalry base siege attack. As well, one of the few treasures I would remove, completely (which you did not mention, here), is +5% cavalry speed. I think it's broken, and cannot be fixed.

I'd be glad to remove the 5 macaques and the coin discount from 1v1.
However, 30 => 40% HP won't change the fact that no one will ever want to pick that treasure up in age 1.
195f is the most acceptable of these 4 treasures I guess, but still a very stupid one. You don't want to start microing that, unless for a couple civs, for which it's potentially a broken 200f treasure.

Garja wrote:About 195f I'm not sure it's better if removed. I think that having few big treasures that you can realistically take only with other units is desireable. Anyway I already explained that changing the whole logic of big treasure placement on Kamchatka isn't that easy.

Having big treasures you pick up with units is fine as long as they spawn always in the same spot, basically. For example, I changed my mind a bit about the Manchuria treasures. Since the level 3 treasures spawn always in the middle, it's fine because you can go pick up treasures elsewhere on the map instead. And then in colo, you can pick up that 150g or whatever else with some units.
What really sucks is when you just randomly find a treasure you can't take, while opponent finds 80 ish food/wood. It's just sad, and it's what happens on Kamchatka.


Talking about Manchuria, I'd just like to make the 10% cav training speed treasure difficulty 3 instead of the current 2, so that if it spawns, it also spawns in the middle like the others, and not instead of a relevant treasure. I'm fine with the other cav treasures that spawn in the middle. Just those that spawn only in team will be nerfed, as they're currently broken: 10% => 5% cav hp, +50% => +25% multiplier for cav vs vils.

So it's all fine, the only big problem left is the stable/warhut/war academy wagon treasure. It spawns very often and gives a huge advantage to the aggressive player. Like as sioux, you can open with a stable in your base and pick that treasure up for a free forward warhut. As russia/iro, you can fb with a warhut/blockhouse and get a free stable at your fb. Even civs like france can, in some match ups, open with heavy infantry and pick up that treasure to get a free stable. The value of that treasure is simply insane, especially since it's not even hard to pick up.
I'd like to make this treasure spawn in team only (so level 4), and probably add 1 or 2 Mongol riders to it, as it's currently too strong in team too. Removing it is also an option but again it's a last resort.

Alright guys, here's the spreadsheet of the current treasure changes draft. It's a read-only document, but feel free to post in this thread any suggestions you may have. Keep in mind it's a draft, and subject to change.



A few comments regarding our work

- We focused on treasures that are relevant for 1v1 on esoc maps. Team treasures have been changed too, but not exhaustively. Treasures that spawn only on RE maps haven't been reworked, except for a couple outliers. If you wish for a treasure which isn't in the list to be changed, feel free to let us know.

- We do not control which treasures spawn on each map, nor where they spawn. That’s up to the mapmaker. All we did is change the treasures individually.

- We tried to keep treasures somewhat close to what they used to be. This includes having guardians that are coherent with the concerned maps (e.g no polar bears on high plains), and not changing the kind of reward it grants (e.g the same type of resource).

- We tried to keep weaker treasures reasonably weaker and stronger ones reasonably stronger. There will always be discrepancies in treasures strength, the goal was just to make these discrepancies reasonable.

- Our priorities were the following:

• Make the more "useless" treasures (e.g pets, explorer HP, livestock...) viable, because there is nothing more unfair than finding no relevant treasure while your opponent does;
• Nerf the OP treasures;
• Buff the UP treasures;
• Ideally, when scouting the map, you should always find roughly equivalent treasures, and the time and HP spent to pick these treasures should be somewhat proportional to the reward they grant.

General changes

- Pirates HP nerfed from 600 to 400. This guardian is currently absurd as it's virtually unkillable, especially for asian civs.

- Native warriors (excluding native scouts) and the gurkha get a multiplier against vils and buildings, as they're currently gamebreaking (can deny herding, forward bases, etc). The inca and nootka warriors no longer snare. All stats reverted upon colonial.

- Outlaw riflemen (aka renegados) and thuggees range decreased from 18 to 15. Doesn't affect their fighting abilities as guardians, but nerfs them once converted by a warchief.



Some explanations regarding the spreadsheet

- Rows in red are those we're undecided about. I draw your attention to these lines in particular, as more opinions would help us greatly take a decision.

- Rows in grey are those where after a discussion, we finally decided to leave the treasure untouched.

- Rows in blue are those where the "difficulty" (which we also referred to as "level", or "tier", in the sheet) of the treasure is changed. The difficulty is what rules whether the treasure will spawn in 1v1 or in team, and sometimes, where it will spawn. For instance, on High Plains:

• Difficulty 1 treasures are 30g, 40g, 50g, or 30f, and spawn in base only;
• Difficulty 2 treasures include, among many others, 60f, 70 xp, 95w, and spawn anywhere on the map;
• Difficulty 3 treasures include 320xp, 210xp, and a cdb, and spawn anywhere but in fewer numbers;
• Difficulty 4 treasures, such as 455f, do not spawn in 1v1, but spawn in team.

- By hovering/selecting the cells in the "Comments" column, you can view the history of exchanges between myself, Mitoe and Zoi, which might help you understand the changes better.

- You may need to click on a cell of the "Map(s) affected" column to view the entirety of its content.

- The "Treasure name" column refers to the <name> tag of each treasure, in the nuggets.xml file. You can ignore that column.

- "NuggetUnit" refers to the "design" of the treasure, e.g a broken wagon, an abandoned shrine, etc. You can ignore comments about that.



Thanks to @Mitoe for going through the entirety of the EP treasures with me and listing the desired changes. Thanks to @zoom for reviewing these changes and bringing his input.

Really good job guys. A good way to improve balance ! Treasures value seems proportional to the strength of the guardians now.
My only remark is that we shouldn t buff hero hp treasures, which are already excellent for twc civs, india or china...

Thanks!

About the HP, we just felt like currently, people kind of ignore these treasures in age 1 and just walk away, no matter the civ. And we just don't want this to happen since it's unfair, while your opponent probably finds a good treasure.
I think twc/tad civs come back to pick them up in age 2. So in this case, having less guardians on these treasures shouldn't be a problem. After all, no matter the amount of guardians, twc/tad civs will have the same HP boost on their hero, the only difference is that they can now pick them up in age 1 instead of age 2.
However, it's true that increasing the % is maybe a mistake, because it means twc/tad heroes will end up having more HP at the end of the day, which is a buff. I'm gonna think about it and try to fix that.

Gonna tag some people off the top of my head, since we didn't have many reactions in this thread. Sorry if I forget some, I don't have the full of list of people who access these forums.

@lordraphael @deleted_user2 @[Armag] diarouga @deleted_user5 @WickedCossack @Garja @Hazza54321 @deleted_user @Goodspeed @Cometk @amiggo1999 @sebnan12

Any thoughts on the treasure changes a couple posts above?
Spreadsheet

Great effort, I liked most of these changes, but still, nat nerfs shouldn't be overkill imo, remove 2x nat treasures both from 1v1 and team games and we can start with adding nats 0.75 bonus to vills, a bit harrashment should still remain, else it would result scouting to be boring/uninteresting age1

I don't think that adding or removing 10 ressources to a treasure is a priority considering the current state of the patch (nerfing natives vs vills is the biggest part imo) but these changes sound balanced if you want my opinion.

Reworking all treasures is a pain in the ass, I must say that.
We should really consider if changing so many of them it actually considerably improves the game or if it's mostly a nerd exercise.

Ah also one thing to consider when removing guardians is that each kill is worth some xp. It's an extra bonus in a sense.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:I don't think that adding or removing 10 ressources to a treasure is a priority considering the current state of the patch (nerfing natives vs vills is the biggest part imo) but these changes sound balanced if you want my opinion.

It's not a priority for the patch overall. But my job wasn't to balance the patch, just to take care of treasures. Anyway, good if it looks balanced

Garja wrote:Reworking all treasures is a pain in the ass, I must say that.
We should really consider if changing so many of them it actually considerably improves the game or if it's mostly a nerd exercise.

Ah also one thing to consider when removing guardians is that each kill is worth some xp. It's an extra bonus in a sense.

Well, I don't see any drawback in balancing treasures. Don't know how considerably it will improve the game, but it will definitely improve it to some extent.
The xp you get from guardians isn't as relevant as the time/hp invested into taking a treasure imo, but yes it does matter a bit.

deleted_user wrote:Great effort, I liked most of these changes, but still, nat nerfs shouldn't be overkill imo, remove 2x nat treasures both from 1v1 and team games and we can start with adding nats 0.75 bonus to vills, a bit harrashment should still remain, else it would result scouting to be boring/uninteresting age1

"remove 2x nat treasures both from 1v1 and team games" not sure what you mean by that.
0.75 is still quite high, I think nats would still be too strong vs vils then. Either way, nats do a lot besides harassing vils already: extra scouting, extra damage vs treasure guardians, can kill opponent's explo/deny a TP, and it's 1 extra unit in age 2. So I don't think giving them x0.5 vs vils is an overnerf

@Kaiserklein My biggest question is why the "Give1.2HP" treasure is being so significantly buffed. Those types of treasures are already quite powerful pickups for TWC/TAD civs and now they're even stronger/easier to take. I suppose the intention of going from 3 jaguars to 2 is to make it easier for European civs to take them on their own? But then why also buff the treasure from 20 -> 30%? Am I missing something here? As I see it this just makes laming explorers with India/Iro/Sioux even more disproportionately powerful.

Cometk wrote:@Kaiserklein My biggest question is why the "Give1.2HP" treasure is being so significantly buffed. Those types of treasures are already quite powerful pickups for TWC/TAD civs and now they're even stronger/easier to take. I suppose the intention of going from 3 jaguars to 2 is to make it easier for European civs to take them on their own? But then why also buff the treasure from 20 -> 30%? Am I missing something here? As I see it this just makes laming explorers with India/Iro/Sioux even more disproportionately powerful.

Yeah I think I should explain that more in detail, it does look weird at first sight.

The problem is that currently, when you find this kind of treasure, you just ignore it and try to find another. It's imo just not acceptable, because it's unfair, as meanwhile your opponent most likely finds good treasure. That's why we're making them more accessible by removing some guardians, so that taking them in age 1 becomes somewhat viable. If you think about it, all this does is making these HP treasures better in age 1. And in age 2+, the amount of guardians honestly doesn't matter all that much for twc/tad civs, as they can easily pick the treasure regardless, with a stronger hero and maybe some units.

Meanwhile, it even gives euro civs a counterplay to the "explorer laming". Now, you can actually try to pick the treasure up yourself, to prevent twc/tad civs from getting it. While atm, who will ever start an HP treasure with 3 jaguars... Even with 2, if it's only 20%, I doubt you'd try to take that instead of trying to find one of the many good treasures of gran chaco or tassili. That's why we also buffed it to 30%, as 1 jaguar for 20% would be OP.

The downside is that 30% means, regardless of the amount of guardians, that twc/tad civs will end up having stronger explorers in age 2+. Maybe it's acceptable, I guess 30% is still okay, but it's a bit of a useless buff.

Instead of increasing the percent, I think a better alternative would be to change the guardians, so that we can keep 20% while making it a bit easier than 2 jaguars. Sadly I can't think of a guardian that spawns both on gran chaco and tassili, except the jaguar. Though we could still make it 2 alligators I guess, should look fine on tassili. But then it's kind of a whole new treasure, idk.

Kaiserklein wrote:Instead of increasing the percent, I think a better alternative would be to change the guardians, so that we can keep 20% while making it a bit easier than 2 jaguars. Sadly I can't think of a guardian that spawns both on gran chaco and tassili, except the jaguar. Though we could still make it 2 alligators I guess, should look fine on tassili. But then it's kind of a whole new treasure, idk.

Yes, if possible, I too would prefer a solution like this.

In all of this nootka and inca treasures should probably be removed. That or use the x0.1 multipliers altho I'm not a huge fan of that.

x0.1 multiplier, why bring a new game? I don't think overkill changes will help us to reach to the balance. I don't get the intention. Maybe the real question should have been why did we even abondon the small changes only policy?

@Garja thanks for commenting on the doc, it's appreciated. I replied to the first 50 lines or so, will finish it later.
About nootka/inca, why do they need to be removed, if they already don't snare anymore in age 1 and have some multiplier vs vils? (more than 0.1 though, something like 0.25 or 0.5)

Well if they don't snare then it's fine. I was just thinking that the reason why cherokee and tomahawk don't snare is because they are RI and RI doesnìt usually snare (skirms don't right?). Also making those units not snare means all nat units don't. Which again is okish but maybe not ideal.
I just think those 2 nats are way better than the ranged ones, unless the neg bonus. Neg bonus straight up solve the problem as they fix 99% of cases. It's just very artificial change.

Well, I'm assuming it's technically possible to get these nats to gain snare upon colo. I really hope so, else we'll have to find another solution.
These nats currently are a problem regardless of the multiplier vs vils, as if you pick them up you pretty much automatically kill the opponent's explo. That's why removing the snare would be really nice.

I agree

Kaiserklein wrote:

zoom wrote:

Kaiserklein wrote:Ah and finally. Do you think the free macaque should be nerfed? I mean it's arguably the best treasure, and I don't really want to add guardians to it as it would just totally change the treasure, so I think a first step towards balancing it is to reduce its hp and lower the multiplier (currently x3) vs treasure guardians

How about having every player spawn with such a treasure, on the given map?

Yes, I'd be fine with that. It would be sort of a mongolia thing where you start with an extra macaque in your base. Would be more fair than now.

zoom wrote:As I've said many times, regarding many things, I want to avoid removing anything, where acceptable. I've already communicated this to Kaiserklein and Mitoe, elsewhere, yet it's worth reiterating.

About native treasures, I don't wish to marginalize them, either. For instance, I think simply halving multipliers (from 1 to 0.5) vs buildings and gatherers, for the duration of Discovery Age – would go a long way. I definitely think they are broken currently, in Discovery Age.

Removing treasures should be a last resort, but eventually we'll realize there's no alternative for some of them.
Yeah, giving a multiplier vs vils and buildings is the only needed change for nats I think, on top of removing the snare for incas and nootkas. Maybe x0.5 is enough.

zoom wrote:I think nerfing Outlaw Rifleman range from 18 to 15 is a good change, since it doesn't alter its combat prowess as a guardian, but makes it significantly less exploitable against another player. The only other guardian change I would suggest is a Pirate hitpoints nerf.

I don't think removing native warrior snare is a good idea; balancing them vs buildings and gatherers in Discovery Age should be plenty. Since the Native Scout has already had its snare removed, I conversely don't know that any further nerf to it is warranted.

Yes the range change should be fine. Though the rifleman would still be a 40 attack unit, so I could still see it be a problem in some cases, but would definitely be much better than now because you'd have the opportunity to crackshoot it. And yes, pirates need an HP nerf.

I think removing the nootka/inca snare is a priority. Actually more important than giving them a multiplier vs vils, I'm quite sure. Picking one of these nats simply means you autowin the age 1, cause when you find the opponent's explorer, it's simply dead. I mean, they're faster and they snare, and have so much hp they won't ever really die.
I don't mind so much the native scout.

zoom wrote:I would leave 5 Pet Macaques (or remove it from 1vs1, only), remove 5% coin discount from 1vs1 (only), buff 30% hero HP to 40%, and leave 195f.

I would add a Mongol Rider to the Wagon (it's basically a big, glorified wood treasure), halve -10% cavalry training speed to -5% and move it from treasure tier 2 to 3 (so that it only spawns in the middle of the map), halve +10% cavalry hitpoints to +5%, leave +10% cavalry base siege attack. As well, one of the few treasures I would remove, completely (which you did not mention, here), is +5% cavalry speed. I think it's broken, and cannot be fixed.

I'd be glad to remove the 5 macaques and the coin discount from 1v1.
However, 30 => 40% HP won't change the fact that no one will ever want to pick that treasure up in age 1.
195f is the most acceptable of these 4 treasures I guess, but still a very stupid one. You don't want to start microing that, unless for a couple civs, for which it's potentially a broken 200f treasure.

I'm not fond of removing snare for units that obviously should have snare. How about giving these warriors 0.25 or 0.5 vs buildings, heroes and villagers, for the duration of Discovery Age? That should go a long way.

When I think about the RE native scout snaring and molesting explorers, despite doing only 5 damage, I don't feel like a multiplier vs explos would be enough

I'd like to get input from you guys regarding a few specific treasures from the spreadsheet. We're currently undecided and some more opinions would be appreciated: what should we do with these treasures? You can ctrl+f the treasure names below to find them easily in the sheet.

Treasure names:
- Give1.2HP2 (20% hero HP for 2 polar bears)
- Coureur5 (1 cdb for 3 renegados)
- SpawnCattle4 (2 cows for 2 pirates)
- ypSpawnMonkey (1 pet macaque for free)
- ypSpawnMonkeyPack (5 pet macaques for 2 samurais)
- ypMizuna2 (195f for 10 macaques)

Keep in mind you can check the comments from Mitoe, Garja, zoi and myself in the column on the right, to help you get some more context. Feel free to reply to these comments, or in this thread. Of course, opinions on other treasures than those I listed are welcome.