User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9564
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

17 Dec 2018, 22:24

Kaiserklein wrote:@[Armag] diarouga You're not answering half of my post.

And what else than "you can't be taken seriously" can I tell you tbh? Arguing is useless since you decided that you have almost perfect knowledge and there's no way to make you change your opinion. You've always been extremely stubborn, sorry to say that. I know I myself can be quite a dickhead sometimes but still, discussing with you just feels fruitless because you just consider you know the absolute truth, the way things are, the way they should be. I know you hate Garja... Well, to me, you're acting exactly in the same way as he is.
Trying to argue is not leading us anywhere, so instead I'm trying to show you why you can't be taken seriously, for example because you're saying that no tp maps should be removed.

I agree that arguing is not going to lead us anywhere, because I have my point of view on the patch, and you have your, and we re not going to change our mind.
Does it mean that you don't have to take me seriously?
No, you can just stop arguing and disagree.
I think that I have the right to think that fre and ger are top tier (and I explained why I think so), and I have the right to think that only TP maps are relevant balance wise.

To me playing on no TP map is another game mode. I'm emphasizing it of course, but to me, saying that we should consider no TP maps to balance the game, is like saying that we should consider team games, treaty, death match or settler massacre lol.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4099
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

17 Dec 2018, 22:26

It seems to me that people don't really not want change, they just want different change. Why else return to RE instead of arguing not to make changes from the current version of EP?

Also no-TP maps are definitely not another game mode--you're clearly just biased towards one style of play that you prefer over all others. Hence why you hate playing on random maps whenever we play together. You always pick the most "standard" map you can think of--either Hudson Bay or Arkansas, for example.

I have a lot of ideas to help balance them that won't affect TP maps for the most part, but no one ever wants to hear me out on those changes :(
User avatar
Portugal breeze
Howdah
Donator 01
Posts: 1584
ESO: Breezebrothers

17 Dec 2018, 22:33

Mitoe wrote:It seems to me that people don't really not want change, they just want different change. Why else return to RE?

I think bonengs post is really worthful to read because it just summarizes everything. community is small and because of it when you switch between re => ep you shouldnt feel the difference at all unless its about civ balance like dutch-sioux-spain buff to cards etc. iro still should be able to rush and same as otto should not be an eco civ just leave the civs with its design. best fix could be smt like if %70+ community thinks about something to be broken. like oldhan is broken then tweak it by %10 or w.e. not with radical changes like %30-%40, the maximum change amount shouldnt reach %10 ( expect early walls ). when you tweak it by %10 you also should decrease its food cost accordingly etc and it gets more complicated. the main issue patch should focus is map balance and anti cheat Imo.
Lordraphael wrote:if you can spare money, consider donating. Depending on the number of donations i might decide to stream more.
bwinner wrote:I was happy when breeze posted a rec where he beat me once, which means he believes I am good.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1706

17 Dec 2018, 22:35

Mitoe wrote:The level of overreaction is insane. Everyone needs to calm down and bit and just wait for the changes to be made before providing your opinion.


For sure, I would like to add however the issue why changes are so controversial has little to do with balance.

There exist an infinite number of theoretically perfectly balanced EP's, each with wacky and wonderful changes. Maybe one such patch exists with flying rajputs that can leap down from the sky to engage the enemy and it's balanced by all the other equally weird changes. Now some people will think that's really cool, other people will find it 'ruins' the game for a variety of personal reasons.

The more extreme the change, the more the polarisation, the more the controversy. Even though it's theoretically balanced.

Hence logically the patch to make that is most agreeable to everyone would by definition be the one with the least changes (in number and magnitude.)

From my own perspective a change like spanish gold would be a wacky change. I don't like it. I know others love it. Others will see wacky changes they don't like and I like. Now these may all be 'balanced.' But the end result is no one likes the patch.

That right there is the issue.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4099
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

17 Dec 2018, 22:41

I agree that changes on overall balance should be minimal. For individual civs there should be as few changes as possible for each civ to make them competitive, and changes that change a civilizations identity a lot should be removed and a new change considered. I'm not disputing that.

I don't see why we can't make small (really, very small) changes to things like Grens and stuff though, with the intention of improving them, but not to the point where they're truly viable--I, like others, don't want to risk making these things meta and destroying the current feel or balance of the game. I wouldn't even list these changes under the same locations as the normal changes. I would just give them their own designation, like "quality of life changes."

I don't know. Maybe it's frivolous and pointless. I just feel like it would still improve the game a lot without breaking anything. Part of the reason I feel like people outside of this community hate AoE3 is because there's just so much garbage in this game. 80% of shipments feel absolutely worthless, many techs and units are equally worthless, and the game, while not truly one-dimensional IMO, can definitely feel that way to a lot of people. There's a lot that could be done to improve this without really changing the feel of the game.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1706

17 Dec 2018, 22:45

Mitoe wrote:I agree that changes on overall balance should be minimal. For individual civs there should be as few changes as possible for each civ to make them competitive. I'm not disputing that.

I don't see why we can't make small (really, very small) changes to things like Grens and stuff though, with the intention of improving them, but not to the point where they're truly viable--I, like others, don't want to risk making these things meta and destroying the current feel or balance of the game. I wouldn't even list these changes under the same locations as the normal changes. I would just give them their own designation, like "quality of life changes."

I don't know. Maybe it's frivolous and pointless. I just feel like it would still improve the game a lot without breaking anything.


I could get on board with the smaller QOL changes like minor improvements to underused units.

What I struggle to get on board with is:
House -20w
Zamb - 1 range
Gurhka + 2 attack
Mahout + 50hp
Rajput reduce train time 2seconds
Sepoy - 10hp
Howdah -30c +20f
Exp malus reduced by 2%
etc etc etc
Balanced!

Add the wacky changes I mentioned in my previous post that will polarise the community and stoke controversy even if they could be argued to be balanced.
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 3937
ESO: edeholland
Location: the cloud
GameRanger ID: 4053888

17 Dec 2018, 23:00

Mitoe wrote:Part of the reason I feel like people outside of this community hate AoE3 is because there's just so much garbage in this game. 80% of shipments feel absolutely worthless, many techs and units are equally worthless, and the game, while not truly one-dimensional IMO, can definitely feel that way to a lot of people. There's a lot that could be done to improve this without really changing the feel of the game.

Is that true though? I have seen tons of players using grens with brits, advanced market, mills in age 1, not using a market at all, spamming buildings with iro fire pit, using the spy wonder for japan, staying age 2 with spain to make rods, going IV with brits to send estates etc etc etc

I dont't the think the things we consider "useless" matter to anyone who isn't PR 20+. I think the reason people hate AoE3 is because it's too different from AoE2 (home city shipments, cards you have to unlock, trade posts, natives, little civs but with huge differences, no drop-off points).
Image
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4099
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

17 Dec 2018, 23:19

Those are probably the larger points of contention, yes, but I feel like many of those things could have been ignored if it had been executed well. Which it definitely was not at launch. I would argue--with little resistance, I assume--that the largest barrier to people enjoying AoE3 was the Home City leveling mechanic and how much of a barrier to entry it is for newer players. Remove that, and I think my points are at least relevant.

Listen, I understand that people are afraid of change, that they don't want something they've loved for so long to change so drastically. I get that. I don't want it to change overly much, either. But I do think we can do better.

It honestly sounds like there's a very real possibility that the devs for AoE3:DE will use our input in that game. This is such an incredible opportunity for our community, and one that should not be undervalued. AoE3 is by no means a perfect game; even many top players, by their admission, consider AoE3 to be a poor game overall. While I don't agree that the game is poor, I don't think that we should settle for "fine," "ok," or even "good" as long as we are able to make any changes; especially if we have any input in how AoE3:DE turns out. We, as a community, have the opportunity to transform the arguably mediocre game of AoE3 into something truly great: how many gaming communities, particularly ones as old as AoE3, have that kind of opportunity? We shouldn't settle for less if we can help it.

Is the current method of change ideal for this? No, I don't think it is, and clearly many others don't either. However, with the amount of hate, mudslinging/flame, and otherwise unproductive discussions going on right now, I can't see how we can do much better unless everyone calms the hell down. If you truly want to change the way things are done, this is not the way to go about doing it. There is time. Nothing we do here is permanent if we don't want it to be, but improving things will involve a lot of growing up from many people who could otherwise be great contributors, and some much-desired patience.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 8850
Location: USA

17 Dec 2018, 23:29

I think the question isnt whether or not aoe can be better, it certainly can, but whether or not ep is making it better. However this community tends to be very closed minded so its hard to know whether or not things are really bad or just people not wanting to change.
User avatar
Brazil look
Lancer
Posts: 568
ESO: LoOk_tOm
Location: Brasil, UK

17 Dec 2018, 23:53

I just want RE with balance maps.. then we have a very good game
Kaiser sucks
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
User avatar
Serbia Atomiswave
Lancer
Posts: 794

17 Dec 2018, 23:57

look wrote:I just want RE with balance maps.. then we have a very good game


You are just wrong, any iteration of esoc patch is better than re. I just can't go back to re, no way, its too broken...
User avatar
Brazil look
Lancer
Posts: 568
ESO: LoOk_tOm
Location: Brasil, UK

17 Dec 2018, 23:59

i'm talking about balance
maps and small changes
all right
Kaiser sucks
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
User avatar
United States of America GiBthedurrty
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 442
ESO: [YumiW]-GiBthedurrty

18 Dec 2018, 00:08

RE is love
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

18 Dec 2018, 00:42

Mitoe wrote:If you don't want the meta to differ much from RE, then why make a patch in the first place?

Because meta and balance are different things?

Mitoe wrote:
I think it's more important that civilizations maintain more-or-less the same identity as they do on RE patch, with slightly different power curves. Right now, I think most civilizations do feel pretty close to the same as RE, with the only exceptions being Sioux and maybe Iroquois or Portuguese.

So when is india getting their iconic sepoy rush back?
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4099
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

18 Dec 2018, 00:44

momuuu wrote:
Mitoe wrote:If you don't want the meta to differ much from RE, then why make a patch in the first place?

Because meta and balance are different things?

Mitoe wrote:
I think it's more important that civilizations maintain more-or-less the same identity as they do on RE patch, with slightly different power curves. Right now, I think most civilizations do feel pretty close to the same as RE, with the only exceptions being Sioux and maybe Iroquois or Portuguese.

So when is india getting their iconic sepoy rush back?

Dude. Everyone still makes sepoy all the time.
User avatar
United States of America IAmSoldieR
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1749
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

18 Dec 2018, 04:38

I haven't read any of this mess because there is too much, but when Mitoe gets pissed off, you know you did something wrong.
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 3445
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Location: [WPact]

18 Dec 2018, 04:50

[Armag] diarouga wrote:– Zamburak maximum range & line of sight decreased from 12 & 15 to 11 & 14, respectively; Ranged resistance decreased from 30% to 20%; Mansabdar Zamburak updated accordingly

Zamburaks aren't even good. They're useful because they're goons in age2, but they just bad goons, it makes no sense to nerf them. Can you even understand how big -3 range is? Because I really doubt it.

– "Disciplined", "Honored" and "Exalted" Zamburak improvements now increase maximum range & line of sight by 1 each

Compared to before, Zamburaks get -1 range in colonial, same range after vet upgrade, and +1 range when fully upgraded. At no point do they get -3 range.

Wtf? Can anyone understand why you would change advanced dock for Germany? What's its goal, except making the change list even longer and harder to understand.

Are you aware that the German Advanced Dock is currently different from that of all other civs, for no apparent reason?
Image
momuuu wrote:theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Howdah
Donator 01
Posts: 1402
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: Frankfurt

18 Dec 2018, 05:00

EAGLEMUT wrote:
Wtf? Can anyone understand why you would change advanced dock for Germany? What's its goal, except making the change list even longer and harder to understand.

Are you aware that the German Advanced Dock is currently different from that of all other civs, for no apparent reason?


One reason I can think of is that Germany should be a very strong civ on land but weak on water. Makes also sense historically cause Frederick the Great wanted Prussia to have the best military on land and kinda neglected the navy.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9564
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

18 Dec 2018, 07:16

Mitoe wrote:Those are probably the larger points of contention, yes, but I feel like many of those things could have been ignored if it had been executed well. Which it definitely was not at launch. I would argue--with little resistance, I assume--that the largest barrier to people enjoying AoE3 was the Home City leveling mechanic and how much of a barrier to entry it is for newer players. Remove that, and I think my points are at least relevant.

Listen, I understand that people are afraid of change, that they don't want something they've loved for so long to change so drastically. I get that. I don't want it to change overly much, either. But I do think we can do better.

It honestly sounds like there's a very real possibility that the devs for AoE3:DE will use our input in that game. This is such an incredible opportunity for our community, and one that should not be undervalued. AoE3 is by no means a perfect game; even many top players, by their admission, consider AoE3 to be a poor game overall. While I don't agree that the game is poor, I don't think that we should settle for "fine," "ok," or even "good" as long as we are able to make any changes; especially if we have any input in how AoE3:DE turns out. We, as a community, have the opportunity to transform the arguably mediocre game of AoE3 into something truly great: how many gaming communities, particularly ones as old as AoE3, have that kind of opportunity? We shouldn't settle for less if we can help it.

Is the current method of change ideal for this? No, I don't think it is, and clearly many others don't either. However, with the amount of hate, mudslinging/flame, and otherwise unproductive discussions going on right now, I can't see how we can do much better unless everyone calms the hell down. If you truly want to change the way things are done, this is not the way to go about doing it. There is time. Nothing we do here is permanent if we don't want it to be, but improving things will involve a lot of growing up from many people who could otherwise be great contributors, and some much-desired patience.

I told you how to convince aoe3:DE to make the EP official: make new civs.
People want new maps and new civs, they don't give a fuck about grens getting +1attack, or the exiled prince getting nerfed, it's just the same for most people.
Also, it's not like aoe3 will become a great game just because you gave India a bigger exp malus and you nerfed the exiled prince.

Anyway, there's a big difference between nilla and TAD, and some people just didn't like the TAD design and stayed on nilla. Until a few years ago, the community was equaly split between nilla and TAD, if you keep playing god with the game, that's what might happen, half of the player base will stay on TAD.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4099
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

18 Dec 2018, 07:21

No, but clearly going back to RE will. It's about the big picture, not the small details.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9564
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

18 Dec 2018, 07:25

Mitoe wrote:No, but clearly going back to RE will. It's about the big picture, not the small details.

Then why make small changes like zams -1 range, India -2% exp?
Also I'd argue that changing the bow/pike cost, or nerfing the fast age up are big changes.
Anyway, we just shouldn't change the unit costs and the politicians lol.
User avatar
Kiribati SirCallen
Gendarme
Posts: 7904
ESO: KTRAlN
Location: Midwest best west

18 Dec 2018, 07:27

[Armag] diarouga wrote:lol.
and the giving famishes the craving
sweet thames, run softly, til I end my song

The shepherd's staff's tantalus around my neck

let the water
touch the tongue
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4099
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

18 Dec 2018, 07:29

1) I never said I agreed with all of the changes. I dislike many of them, in fact. But I don't think that many of these changes will make it into the final product, in the end.

2) In my opinion, Fortress age times are a big strategic barrier in this game that force you to play a certain way depending on whether your civ can fast age or not, and whether or not the map has TPs. I think it's worth testing, although I really think that slow age needs to be buffed as well. I understand that my opinion is controversial, but whose isn't?

3) Why not? As long as it's not something crazy like making Macehaultin cost coin, or skirmishers wood, I don't think it's really as large a change as you make it out to be.


How do you people even remember that EP 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever version is even better than the current version? That just seems so random. IMO the game is pretty close to balanced at the moment, a fact you acknowledged during one of our discussions a few weeks ago. I believe you said something along the lines of "so we agree that this is the first time you cannot pick a single civ and guarantee that you win every matchup," or something very similar. I would try to find the direct quote but I'm not sure if it was on Discord or on ESO.

Instead of trying to improve it even more, you just want to fall into complacency--or worse, regression--because you're afraid of what might happen.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9564
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

18 Dec 2018, 07:46

Mitoe wrote:1) I never said I agreed with all of the changes. I dislike many of them, in fact. But I don't think that many of these changes will make it into the final product, in the end.

Apparently many people dislike these changes, and many actually don't want any change at all. Why shouldn't we listen to these people? It's shocking to me to see that Zoi is the only one who can make changes, while he doesn't play the game at competitive level, and doesn't understand our concerns.
He probably hasn't even read that topic.
Don't you think that it's a big issue?


2) In my opinion, Fortress age times are a big strategic barrier in this game that force you to play a certain way depending on whether your civ can fast age or not, and whether or not the map has TPs. I think it's worth testing, although I really think that slow age needs to be buffed as well. I understand that my opinion is controversial, but whose isn't?

Yes, it's a very controversial change, probably the most controversial change of all the EP history, and it was decided kinda randomly by Zoi.

3) Why not? As long as it's not something crazy like making Macehaultin cost coin, or skirmishers wood, I don't think it's really as large a change as you make it out to be.
Idk, maybe make a poll and ask to the community if they want the unit costs to change. I could be wrong but I'm quite sure many people agree with me.

Anyway, back when I was in the EP team, a general rule was to have about 65% of the community who agreed with the changes. Here we're very far from it.
The biggest issue isn't even the changes, it's Zoi, a random aoe3 player who doesn't play the game anymore, who makes random changes which are unpopular. He doesn't even have a plan lol, these are random changes.
I think the EP should consider the community and the top players more, and at least have a plan.

The plan used to be: reach a good balance with minimal changes.
Which made a lot of sense, as it's what people wanted when GS asked if the community wanted an ESOC Patch. In fact, many people (me included) were afraid because they didn't trust the people who were going to make this patch, and thought that it was going to change the game too much, which is what is happening.
Also I think that there should be a lot more transparency: the EP leader changed, and the EP policy too, the community should be aware of that, they're affected by this decision after all.

Anyway, "making the game more fun" isn't a good plan, as it's not objective at all. We saw in this thread that we don't all have the same definition of fun. Some think that changing the bow/pike cost and nerfing the exiled prince is fun, some don't. Thus, it can't be the EP policy.
It could be "let Zoi do whatever he wants with the game". That would be a plan, as it is objective, but arguably not a good one.

"don't change the existing civs too much, but make new civs in order to make the EP official" could also be a plan. That's actually what Microsoft did, the almost didn't change the nilla/TWC civs when they made TAD, but they added new maps and 3 new civs.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTNWC LAN Top 8
Posts: 4099
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

18 Dec 2018, 08:29

"Fun" is not really what I personally hope to achieve, although it is still important. Apparently you don't agree that the game should be fun? :hmm:

We want a patch where all civs are viable. Arguably, we have achieved this--or mostly achieved it--by now. From here, the goal should be to broaden the versatility of civs, slowly, and not drastically. This means that most civs should at least have some options on TP maps, non-TP maps, and on water. Obviously perfect balance here is impossible, but we can do better: I know we can. Ideally, every civ should at least be playable in the lategame as well, as this makes win conditions more reliant on skill, rather than civilization, although it is important that civs still differ in strength at different stages of the game.

Ideally, the end product requires interactions between players throughout all stages of the game. I see people complain all the time about how AoE3 is often about massing units for 1 big fight, and whoever wins the fight wins the game. How do you avoid this? Making scouting and adaptation more important is a good start, and you cannot make that important without providing room for civs to adapt to different situations. Perhaps making win conditions less obvious, but provide more of them: you want to stack your win conditions in order to win a game. How do you accomplish this?


Take a matchup like Aztec vs China, for example. In this matchup, it's completely unwinnable in age 2 for China, and equally unwinnable for Aztec if China reaches age 3 with their economy and infrastructure mostly intact. Aztec's win condition is obvious: prevent China from reaching Fortress, or cripple them so hard that they cannot do anything once they get there. China's win condition--obviously--is to avoid this. This makes the matchup so one-dimensional that it's not even worth scouting by either player, so you simply rush as hard as possible as Aztec, or FF/turtle as much as possible as China. There are no adaptations to be made, nothing to really think about. To fix this, you have to make China's Colonial a little bit better (in this case, it's easy, just make sure that Qiang Pikemen actually counter coyote runners to the same capacity that they counter cavalry, which at the moment they do not), and Aztec's Fortress follow ups better, but you maintain some of China's weaknesses in Colonial and some of Aztec's weaknesses in Fortress.

With this done, it becomes much more important to know what your opponent is doing. Suddenly, it matters to Aztec whether or not China is staying age 2 because it determines how fast they need to play the matchup.

Is China FFing? Should I delay 5v to get more units out earlier while he's aging? Is he staying age 2? Should I do a slightly slower build to get more units out during the times he chooses to age with this semi-FF?

Equally, as Aztec's Fortress options are better, China needs to consider that staying age 2 could result in getting punished by an early Fortress timing or something, and need to actually scout to see what Aztec's plan is.

Suddenly, Aztec has multiple win conditions: (1) Abuse China's Colonial weaknesses as much as possible before following them into the Fortress Age, and (2) Either survive China's Fortress power spikes or outplay them on the map in some capacity. At which point the next stage of the game also becomes relevant. Before, it would be okay: Did he take significant damage from my rush? Yes (China resigns) or No (Aztec resigns).


And there are lots of matchups like this. Even mirrors would benefit from these kinds of changes, as there's no longer a clear "best build" in all situations that you must adhere to. In a Brit mirror, for example, maybe you should be concerned that your opponent could actually go for some sneaky semi-FF or something, and have to actually check out his build, instead of trusting that muskets + map control is going to win you the game against anything.

At the end of the day this will make the game more about skill and game knowledge and less about massing up with the same build order every game and hoping that you can win that big fight this time around. And, yes, hopefully the game will be more fun as a result.


I don't think any of this is unachievable. Perfection? Unattainable, certainly. But doing better than we currently have? Absolutely.

And so I see no reason to stop here. If it means treading more carefully with our future changes than in the past, then so be it: we can slow to a walk instead of a run--a crawl, if we must. If it means that we stop and take the time to redo some unpopular and arguably unsuccessful changes, then that's great too, but if you want to reach that point then you need to be less pessimisticly hateful and more optimistically open-minded and patient.

Forum Info

Return to “ESOC Patch Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest