ESOCommunity

japan

Who is this suggestion for? Is anyone going to read all these opinions and consider it for EP? I don't get it

princeofkabul wrote:Well I was the one driving that goon RR change the hardest back then. My opinion of teamgames (3v3) and goons haven't changed, however 30 rr for 1v1 is totally good, and it sucks you can't have it both lol.
Drags would become once again the meme unit if the resist would be nerfed, also i'm not surprised knush complaining about this because apparently his playstyle these days is 100% 80f vills and goons.

i havn't seen a single post about goons rr apart from u. im talking about range upgrade for ports in IV

The EP leader is pretty much whoever Eaglemut acknowledges as EP leader, since in the end he is the one pushing the changes. I would personally say you would have to be a high-level player to be in the EP team, but perhaps that isn't logical at all. A poll would be cool for sure, even if it's just to fuel the competition.

Diarouga wrote:Aztecs:
x3 exp on deleted buildings

Just a small change, but it's very frustrating when people deleted their building (especially shrines) when you have a *3 exp bonus as Aztecs. I think it's cheating because that's not how the game is supposed to work.

How will that work in team games? Let's say you are in a 2v2 and the building gives 100 kill xp. When you delete a building, will one player get 50 xp (half of the kill xp) and the Aztecs player get 150xp? That's still less in total than what the Aztecs player would get alone (300xp). Or do both players get 150 xp? That also sounds stupid since the Aztecs bonus isn't a team bonus. Or does one player get 100xp and the Aztecs get 200xp?

knusch wrote:

princeofkabul wrote:Well I was the one driving that goon RR change the hardest back then. My opinion of teamgames (3v3) and goons haven't changed, however 30 rr for 1v1 is totally good, and it sucks you can't have it both lol.
Drags would become once again the meme unit if the resist would be nerfed, also i'm not surprised knush complaining about this because apparently his playstyle these days is 100% 80f vills and goons.

i havn't seen a single post about goons rr apart from u. im talking about range upgrade for ports in IV

Fair enough. I think the unit versatility is good now in teamgames, bringing jinetes back would discourage this. It's mean to be light cav, not light cav skirmisher and culverin in one unit.

princeofkabul wrote:

knusch wrote:

princeofkabul wrote:Well I was the one driving that goon RR change the hardest back then. My opinion of teamgames (3v3) and goons haven't changed, however 30 rr for 1v1 is totally good, and it sucks you can't have it both lol.
Drags would become once again the meme unit if the resist would be nerfed, also i'm not surprised knush complaining about this because apparently his playstyle these days is 100% 80f vills and goons.

i havn't seen a single post about goons rr apart from u. im talking about range upgrade for ports in IV

Fair enough. I think the unit versatility is good now in teamgames, bringing jinetes back would discourage this. It's mean to be light cav, not light cav skirmisher and culverin in one unit.

reverting the change would have basically no impact on unit versaitility in teamgames, since it is specific to ports
ofc assuming that this doesnt make port nr1 civ and we simply see more ppl playn port.

20% rr for goons is a good change. RI used to not counter it hard enough, especially RI with short range or setup animation.

I think EP would do well if they tried to undo all of the weird additions/changes that didn't end up doing something meaningful. For example silk road, spanish gold, abus range all seem to clutter the changes. I think nerfing sepoy attack and reverting their hp and then reverting the house buff would put india in a much better spot too. Honestly there are quite a few changes that I think should be reverted because they don't really solve the problems that some civs face. I'm honestly doubtful about for example Goon range or old han reform nerfs, as those were hardly viable parts of the game to begin with.

i like spanish gold!

umeu wrote:i like spanish gold!

ofc only from watching stream, right?

i like it too

knusch wrote:

umeu wrote:i like spanish gold!

ofc only from watching stream, right?

i like it too

well no, i like it cause it was my idea lol (or something similar to it anyway)

Part of my problem with these changes is that they, while unique, still standardize the game. Otto, Sioux and Spain have always been some of the low eco aggressive civs. If you start making those eco civs then you're making the meta less diverse.

momuuu wrote:Part of my problem with these changes is that they, while unique, still standardize the game. Otto, Sioux and Spain have always been some of the low eco aggressive civs. If you start making those eco civs then you're making the meta less diverse.

i agree, to a certain extent. but the silk road change was just to make the card more useful. it used to be quite good in nilla, and otto was still pretty low eco. spanish gold fits well into spain design, imo, but yes, it's not really needed, it's just another way for them to boom instead of going for tc's. It works well for FI's, I think. same with sioux teepee eco aura.

I don't think giving an eco option is standardizing. What's standardizing is giving eco options that are stronger than the other options, making it another greedy civ. But for example, EP otto is usually still quite aggressive, they just have a less powerful all in rush and a better follow up, and more eco alternatives. Ep sioux is still making a lot of cav and has strong units and strong timings, but they don't auto lose to musks rushes anymore and they have a decent eco. EP spain also usually still goes for an aggressive ff, don't forget the military shipments were buffed too.

Anyway it's impossible to remotely balance the game if you keep so many "broken" aspects, like being RE otto and having super strong early timings but zero eco, because it means some civs will be able to hold the timings = auto win, and some won't be able to hold them = auto lose. Same for RE spain with their fortress timing, same for RE sioux relying purely on raiding or crushing one fight. Therefore the civs need to have some flexibility for balance purposes, imo, as well as variety/design purposes (which is secondary).

Kaiserklein wrote:I don't think giving an eco option is standardizing. What's standardizing is giving eco options that are stronger than the other options, making it another greedy civ. But for example, EP otto is usually still quite aggressive, they just have a less powerful all in rush and a better follow up, and more eco alternatives. Ep sioux is still making a lot of cav and has strong units and strong timings, but they don't auto lose to musks rushes anymore and they have a decent eco. EP spain also usually still goes for an aggressive ff, don't forget the military shipments were buffed too.

Anyway it's impossible to remotely balance the game if you keep so many "broken" aspects, like being RE otto and having super strong early timings but zero eco, because it means some civs will be able to hold the timings = auto win, and some won't be able to hold them = auto lose. Same for RE spain with their fortress timing, same for RE sioux relying purely on raiding or crushing one fight. Therefore the civs need to have some flexibility for balance purposes, imo, as well as variety/design purposes (which is secondary).

vote kaiser for ep team leader

There needs to be more all in but strong timing civs though, generally more interesting to watch and more interesting to play rather than this greed meta, otto sioux iro are all in civs and should be kept that way

Hazza54321 wrote:There needs to be more all in but strong timing civs though, generally more interesting to watch and more interesting to play rather than this greed meta, otto sioux iro are all in civs and should be kept that way

All in should only work as a surprise, else it's broken.
The issue tbh is that it's to easy to scout and defend so even if you manage to surprise an unprepared opponent, it doesn't work.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:There needs to be more all in but strong timing civs though, generally more interesting to watch and more interesting to play rather than this greed meta, otto sioux iro are all in civs and should be kept that way

All in should only work as a surprise, else it's broken.
The issue tbh is that it's to easy to scout and defend so even if you manage to surprise an unprepared opponent, it doesn't work.

Just wondering, is there a such possible scenario: You all in, cant destory your enemy but harm oppenents eco such that you both in equivalent position. Kind of these base races.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:There needs to be more all in but strong timing civs though, generally more interesting to watch and more interesting to play rather than this greed meta, otto sioux iro are all in civs and should be kept that way

All in should only work as a surprise, else it's broken.
The issue tbh is that it's to easy to scout and defend so even if you manage to surprise an unprepared opponent, it doesn't work.

There's no problem with an "all in" that does precisely enough damage for the game to go on.

Idk, take as an example Otto rush vs. Spain ff, pretty much biggest condition is whetever spanish TC stays alive. At that perspective its kinda black and white.

HUMMAN wrote:Idk, take as an example Otto rush vs. Spain ff, pretty much biggest condition is whetever spanish TC stays alive. At that perspective its kinda black and white.

Yes and that's what happens with all in strats, which is why it shouldn't be viable.

Hazza will fix the problems...

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:There needs to be more all in but strong timing civs though, generally more interesting to watch and more interesting to play rather than this greed meta, otto sioux iro are all in civs and should be kept that way

All in should only work as a surprise, else it's broken.
The issue tbh is that it's to easy to scout and defend so even if you manage to surprise an unprepared opponent, it doesn't work.

Have to agree with Diarouga here. I can't possibly see how playing/watching a civ that NEEDS to all in to win is anymore interesting than it would be right now, and would totally break the game on top of it too.

It's because the games supposed to have unique civs, every civ shouldn't be able to play lategame, every civ shouldn't be able to go water, every civ shouldn't be able to rush. So it's okay that otto is basically an auto lose late game, cause they already have several viable and strong options early game. Trying to give soiux and otto strong boom options so they can be viable late game is dumb. If you want every civ to be able to do everything just go the sc2 route and delete 11 civs cause otto isn't unique if they have the same eco as brit late game just cause their musks are called Jans and their goons are called cav archers.

gibson wrote:It's because the games supposed to have unique civs, every civ shouldn't be able to play lategame, every civ shouldn't be able to go water, every civ shouldn't be able to rush. So it's okay that otto is basically an auto lose late game, cause they already have several viable and strong options early game. Trying to give soiux and otto strong boom options so they can be viable late game is dumb. If you want every civ to be able to do everything just go the sc2 route and delete 11 civs cause otto isn't unique if they have the same eco as brit late game just cause their musks are called Jans and their goons are called cav archers.

Spot on.

I have two things to add:
(1) The liberal usage of the world all by mitoe/diarouga is frustrating. Ultimately, there are tons of match ups where, if both players play very well, one civ has to do damage to stay in the game. That means that they have to do an 'all in' push where they have to do at least some damage. Generalizing all pushes as something that has to end the game seems silly and also generally untrue. If you're playing vs Dutch for example you generally have to do direct or indirect damage to stay in the game, and that generally leads to fun gameplay. For example consider Dutch vs Russia, where Russia has to put serious pressure on the Dutch player. This doesn't at all lead to black and white gameplay but instead it leads to dynamic, interactive fun gameplay with that game being fucking amazing.
(2) The fact that some players might not like playing or watching otto, doesn't mean that everybody dislikes it. Aoe3 has fourteen civs with many different identities. The idea is that there's always going to be a few civs that someone likes. Some people might love aggressive gameplay with RE Otto/Russia/India (might I point at Somppu for example) and some people might love more defensive gameplay. If you end up removing all aggressive options from the game then you are bound to alienate people, and if you do that then gibson is spot on: Just remove all civs but one and have mirror matches only.
(The only thing Gibson is actually wrong about is saying this is similair to sc2; in sc2 the design is actually very assymtric where the races have very different eco capabilities and lategame options, but I digress)