User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9033
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

16 Oct 2017, 14:21

Chinese top civ.
Effective ESOC Patch notes

Blue-haired girl being slain

'This is no declaration, I just thought I'd let you know goodbye'
Said the hero in the story
'It is mightier than swords. I could kill you sure, but I could only make you cry with these words'
Great Britain Hazza54321
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 6444
ESO: PrinceofBabu

16 Oct 2017, 14:39

yurashic wrote:
Garja wrote:Hmm, perhaps it's not phrased well. I mean if there is anything wrong with China is that its fortress is too good and colo too bad or it is the fattening nerf.
The latter does nerf fortress just as much as it nerfs colonial. And in any case it wasn't a proper nerf since it's one of China side bonus. The major impact was to allow China to camp for longer in base. Every other benefit was legit (easier to address early pressure, fluent spam in early fortress, etc.).
I'd rather consider more problematic the fact that all their fortress shipments are significantly above par. 10 skirms, 11 changdao, 5 meteor hammers, british intervention just to name the most blatant cases.
China FF is too strong compared to others. The only civ on same level is probably Germans, which is also incredibly strong in fortress.
China just needs better cav in colo. Steppes aren't even bad stat-wise. Maybe just some more HP. Keshiks perhaps need to be less expensive (their stats are exactly the same of Zambs). Also German consulate buff as suggested above is a nice way to buff China colonial.

The crate thing not only has facepalm logic but is also impactful. 100f means like 15 secs faster aging everytime China gets it. It's totally undeserved considering that a civ like India needs it way more.


Umm... Do you seriously think that China is on the same level with Germany? Have you ever played China in your life?

China is a decent civ on RE because other civs have less natural resources while China doesn't depend on them. China doesn't have a goon unit except for the manchu shipment and no way to mass a lot of skirms, so you rely on your melee surround. It is a civ that always ages up at 5 minutes and sits in the base while having a low eco and no map control to get an army. Many civilizations on EP (Ports, Spain, Dutch, Sioux) were significantly buffed while China was only nerfed lol. It is one of the least played civilizations and that is for a reason. Let's look at the matchups:

Aztec - China is too slow to hold the rush. In certain circumstances China can do well with CM but usually Aztec win.
Iroquois - colonial pressure with some units and an age up, China is dead.
Sioux - mass a lot of cav and skirms and win. Winnable for China, but mostly a coin flip because as China you want cav against skirm/cav and pure inf against cav spam, so you have to guess what to make.
Ports - hold the push, then outeco. Free map control against China is great for Ports.
Spain - China favoured, Spanish units are too weak compared to Chinese.
France - musk huss or age and hit and run a lot, hard but winnable for China but France was nerfed a lot so it is understandable.
Germany - age 3 Germany is just so much stronger, not really winnable.
Britain - free map control and great outeco.
Dutch - free 5 banks and a big mass that hit-and-runs the hell out of China.
Russia - make strelets, sit under TC, win games.
Ottomans - China favoured, but a jan rush can hurt a lot if unexpected.
India - India favoured, India can age up with great eco in this MU and use it's powerful age 3 units.
Japan - winnable for China but quite hard, we all know how strong Japan is if it is untouched for 9 minutes.

Ok, so we have 2 favoured matchups (against weak civs) and 3-4 winnable matchups. Now compare it to Britain or Germany that lose 1-2 matchups. China definitely deserves a hard nerf lol...

Regarding the 100 f thing, you completely ignore the fact that China always has to chop 100 wood to either get 3 vills and not 2 or to get a tp while sending 2 vills. I mean, China is arguably the slowest civ to age up to colonial, only India or Japan can age up later than China but they usually choose to age up before 5 minutes. It is logical and reasonable to get 100 f more when your opponent gets it too.

sorry buddy but most of this isnt true, think youre slightly biased but you make some good points
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 7918
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

16 Oct 2017, 14:42

somppukunkku wrote:China is fking good already. Didn't mitoe beat Kaiser like 8-0 with them?

what
Can sirmusket calculate 5x - x??
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 ..
User avatar
France Rikikipu
ESOC Maps Team
Posts: 1622
ESO: p-of
Location: In your base

16 Oct 2017, 14:49

Kaiserklein wrote:
somppukunkku wrote:China is fking good already. Didn't mitoe beat Kaiser like 8-0 with them?

what

He meant Kickass, not Mitoe
Great Britain Hazza54321
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 6444
ESO: PrinceofBabu

16 Oct 2017, 14:50

Rikikipu wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:
somppukunkku wrote:China is fking good already. Didn't mitoe beat Kaiser like 8-0 with them?

what

He meant Kickass, not Mitoe

you dont beat kickass, kickass beats you
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9033
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

16 Oct 2017, 15:29

2ezlee, 2
Effective ESOC Patch notes

Blue-haired girl being slain

'This is no declaration, I just thought I'd let you know goodbye'
Said the hero in the story
'It is mightier than swords. I could kill you sure, but I could only make you cry with these words'
User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1169
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

16 Oct 2017, 17:46

Hazza54321 wrote:sorry buddy but most of this isnt true, think youre slightly biased but you make some good points


Would you like to play these matchups with me?
User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1169
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

16 Oct 2017, 17:53

Garja wrote:We can play China MUs, if I will have time to play at all.


How about tomorrow evening?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8396

16 Oct 2017, 18:01

Ok @Garja I guess I will try to explain the reasoning one more time even though the food crate change is not going to be in the patch. We may change crates in another way though so it's important for you and everyone else to understand why China's current crate situation is a big problem, and while there is no ideal fix we should look for the lesser evil. I hope I manage to convey my thoughts, because I find this is not at all easy to put into words.

Where we are ultimately in disagreement is that you, for some reason, consider China's crate history relevant to whether it deserves the additional food crate. I'm getting deja vu here so I think I probably argued this already somewhere else, but anyway, what I see is very simply a civ which gets no random crate. Looking at purely the current state of affairs, that's what anyone would see. What you see is a civ which was balanced before but had issues with consistency, so they fixed the random crate to wood to make it more consistent. You then argue that since they got this free wood crate where other civs only get this in 1/3 of spawns, they don't deserve the additional random food crate that other civs get.

A civ "deserves" whatever crates make them balanced. There is no magic truth when it comes to which crates a civ should or shouldn't get, and the history of its crate start is not relevant to its current situation. Which crates a civ "deserves" depends entirely on their position on the balance scale, which is decided by a lot more than just crate starts and it changes with time.

The meta changed and we changed things in the patch which means balance is completely different from where it was back when they made that decision. Their reasoning, and the fact that China's crate was effectively fixed to wood, is no longer relevant. The current situation is that China lacks a random crate, which is neither good for them nor bad for them. Understand this if nothing else. It's not good for them or bad for them, it's just not balanced, because China's strength is based on the crate start of the opposing civ (therefore based on pure chance). It is that opposing crate start we should be comparing to.

So what is currently the situation?
China's crates are fixed. What are they fixed to? Doesn't matter. What matters is the difference between the opposing civ's possible starts.
Other civs get the following random crates:
100w in 1/6 of spawns
100w + 100f in 1/6 of spawns
100f in 1/3 of spawns
100c in 1/6 of spawns
100c + 100f in 1/6 of spawns

So you can have 2 spawns where in one of them, China's opponent has 100w and 100f in random crates. In the other, they get only 100c.
In which of these spawns would you rather be the China player?

Please note how huge of a difference 100w+100f vs 100c is. Take a second here to imagine the impact if we took away 100f+100w from any civ's crate start and replaced it with 100c. They would instantly become unplayable. They would lose every match up. This is a much bigger balance issue than I think anyone currently realises. This makes sense, because over many games the issue is not prevalent. I doubt anyone ever played China and after losing thought "damn, I lost this game due to the other player getting a wood start (therefore an early TP) and ageing up 10 seconds before they normally would because they also got an additional 100f". No, they think they lost because of this and that mistake, or their opponent outplaying them or China being a shitty civ. Same thing but the other way around when they win because the opponent started with just the 100c.
The problem is that in any given map spawn, China can start with a big advantage or a big disadvantage (or neither, in about half of the spawns).

Do you understand that China's own crates are not relevant to this point? All that matters is that they are fixed and therefore cause the above imbalance.

The proposed change would mean that China would get the additional food crate in the 2/6 cases where the opposing civ also gets the additional food crate. The first spawn in my example above would then be more balanced. There, the opponent still gets 100w and 100f but China also gets +100f. In the second spawn, there is no change. Still not ideal, but it balances the crate spawns without messing up the consistency in China's start that ES wanted to accomplish by fixing their wood crate. The situation would then be:

Other civs get:
100w in 1/6 of spawns
100w + 100f in 1/6 of spawns, China gets +100f
100f in 1/3 of spawns
100c in 1/6 of spawns
100c + 100f in 1/6 of spawns, China gets +100f

Anyway, moving on.

We're currently considering removing a wood crate, adding 100f and adding the random crate(s). This would be a slight buff, so we'll have to consider ways to compensate.

The impact would be, compared to China's current 200f 300w start:
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f (other civs: 100w)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f (other civs: 100w + 100f)
In 1/3 of spawns they get +200f -100w (other civs: 100f)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c + 100f)
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9033
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

16 Oct 2017, 18:10

You disgust me.
Effective ESOC Patch notes

Blue-haired girl being slain

'This is no declaration, I just thought I'd let you know goodbye'
Said the hero in the story
'It is mightier than swords. I could kill you sure, but I could only make you cry with these words'
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8396

16 Oct 2017, 18:19

By the way here's another possible change that I would like feedback on while we work on finalizing the list:

Town center cost decrease to 400w.
No Flag tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3436

16 Oct 2017, 18:21

pls no
Great Britain Hazza54321
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 6444
ESO: PrinceofBabu

16 Oct 2017, 18:22

definitely not
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8396

16 Oct 2017, 18:23

Appreciated but preferably more than two words
Great Britain Hazza54321
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 6444
ESO: PrinceofBabu

16 Oct 2017, 18:26

another unnecessary change that seems to have no goal to achieve
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 7918
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

16 Oct 2017, 18:32

With 400w tc, you really pay only 300w because you anyway need 100w for a house, so it's basically as cheap as a tower. With no ranged attack (unless you put vils in), but way more hp, a set of mm, and ofc you can boom with it if you want. Not very balanced
Can sirmusket calculate 5x - x??
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 ..
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 744
ESO: HUMMAN

16 Oct 2017, 18:37

Goodspeed wrote:By the way here's another possible change that I would like feedback on while we work on finalizing the list:

Town center cost decrease to 400w.


I think idea behind it is that tc are not worth in age3 in most cases, so you want to make standart. Yet TC is not supposed to be common in everygame , its not aoe2 its aoe3. Instead of putting outposts to outiside hunts i would build tc just for map control/garrisoning which is not the main purpose of tc, lol even for minute man+shipment timings it may be worth.
This also and inderect nerf to port, and nerf to sieging civs(russia, otto etc) since establishing map control is a lot more easier, and buff to other civs: u get the point. You possibly consider TC as a long term investment, which it is, it is also a bih hp garrisoning map control building. It should not be worth to build tc without making vills, but you manage to do that. Problem why tc is not that worth is not build cost, but vill cost+ vill time. So if you want to make vill boom more avaible, just make a card that reduces build time(i know it already exists but not enough) or a card decreases vill cost.
So all in all, you change the meta; which i am not against but you should ensure it is somewhat balanced, and test it carefully.
Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8396

16 Oct 2017, 18:40

Hazza54321 wrote:another unnecessary change that seems to have no goal to achieve
Obviously the goal is to make additional TCs an option, which they now aren't.

Some quick responses to arguments:
Yes it's almost as cheap as a tower. Thing is nobody builds towers because they are way too expensive so this is a non-argument.
Remember the vast build time. Early TCs will still be easily punishable by map ctrl. 400w still means 5 less skirms. Only issue there is Asian TCs can be built with more than one vill.

Alternatively 500w.
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 744
ESO: HUMMAN

16 Oct 2017, 18:44

It is an option for some games, i respect if you want to make it more common(change is fun as interjection says)but your claim on tc's are not an option is wrong. It is like saying forts are not an option.
Edit:For your defence i am a 1st lt scrub, but i believe no one in this forum is able to describe balance changes/strats in tc cost change, so words are rather weak. Pro players should do MUs to test these general changes in game, but its not a good idea before 2 weeks of a tournament. Other changes (sioux tepe, otto mosk, china create) are fine since established on one civ and easy to imagine.
Image
User avatar
Turkey LONEWOLF123
Dragoon
Posts: 298
ESO: LONE_WOLF123

16 Oct 2017, 18:50

ok, i have a idea lets just change the game aoe 6 i want planes and tanks because it is unfair otto vs aztec otto too op i want tanks for aztec and planes for british(because long bows cant fly) and sea mines because porto too op and bla bla....just play the game why do you guys always change the game lol -
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9033
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

16 Oct 2017, 18:51

Given the last tournament it doesn't seem like it is very viable. All poor Goodspeed wants is for nerds to build a Town Center every now and then.
Effective ESOC Patch notes

Blue-haired girl being slain

'This is no declaration, I just thought I'd let you know goodbye'
Said the hero in the story
'It is mightier than swords. I could kill you sure, but I could only make you cry with these words'
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1749

16 Oct 2017, 19:07

I would preferably like to see more composition variety.

Small buff to the grenadier (and/or artillery foundry) !
User avatar
France Rikikipu
ESOC Maps Team
Posts: 1622
ESO: p-of
Location: In your base

16 Oct 2017, 19:17

Goodspeed wrote:By the way here's another possible change that I would like feedback on while we work on finalizing the list:

Town center cost decrease to 400w.

After the shock of reading this proposition, it's actually not stupid. It's true that we don't see oftenly people dropping another tc on the map. However I think you use the easiest solution. If TC aren't that much used, it's maybe because they cost slightly a bit too much, but overall because the meta is playing fortress asap, which means you do not have a lot of eco early on, and so you can't afford to drop a TC because it will hurt your unit spam. If the meta were more playing colonial, then later when you hit age 3 you have enough resources to build a TC, and map control is important at the stage of the game.
Another point though, is that we would probably see more TCs dropped if the map were bigger for obvious reason of map control.
Anyway I think your proposition is worth the shot although it seems weird at first glance
User avatar
Sweden Gendarme
Gendarme
Donator 03
Posts: 5120
ESO: Gendarme

16 Oct 2017, 19:22

It is technically a small nerf to stagecoach builds too, which is a good thing I think.
Capitalization matters.https://pastebin.com/KEuaQCrR
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 744
ESO: HUMMAN

16 Oct 2017, 19:48

For balance changes, i want to mention few points.
Firstly aoe3 does not have the same player group like heartstone, dota or starcraft. Means game is tended to be discovered slower which is an issue if you want to change meta. Also since for years there is no official patch, most players consider it a game like chess/aoe2, they play team matches on week ends or nights to play the good old game they know. Few players play it competitevely, yet i believe ratio is quite good for us. Many people are passionate with respect to the player base which shows its a good game.
Since EP is not a common patch, any big change is bad since even pro players play quick search in order to find players. You should not play 2 versions of game, it confuses mind and i dont think it should be explained detaily, point is obvious.
So right on, i will explain how meta should be changed given the conditions: 1 eager playerbase(which is half correct for aoe3) 2 patch is forced to everyone. small changes may be implemented weekly, removing bugs and maybe nerfing imba play styles, yet avoiding the nerf/buff as much as you can. Every 6 months or so you need to refresh gameplay with new contents and changes. For example new maps, new natives and cards in aoe3. More important, in this major patch u should buff/nerf certain variables since adabting and discovering are the elements makes people eager. For example you buff missioneries, bad politicians and cards, buff greaniders/halbs/natives, nerf strong units to make more options viable. But it should not be drastic, you should change it slowly and steadily. Given goodspeed's example 550 w is enough for player to say "hımm what if i try it". Purpose of meta gaming is not changing game drastically but to evolve it. I remember in dota a hero skill got buffed 5 times until it got nerfed, if its not enough you keep the process to be smooth evolution. In this aspect, generally buffs/nerfs should not exceed %15 if variable is not imba/not even situational.
Image

Forum Info

Return to “ESOC Patch Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest