ZP: The Zoi Patch

[n0el]

Good thing it is a beta, so people can test it!

In practise, beta has never really been a thing for EP. It's just the new release of the patch..
The testing of the beta has been bad enough to the point where I, of all people, discovered that in one version of EP gates were literally broken (as in, units could walk right through them) in the one test game that was played on that version of EP. Of course there's nobody to blame for this, but simply calling a full release a beta doesn't make it a beta. Unless ESOC was inspired by Bethesda of course, then anything can be called a beta.

That's fair, but truly in the past, having a beta limited to certain users and the difficulty associated with getting on that channel was prohibitive. The new beta system that @EAGLEMUT has implemented should make it actually playable in substitution with the current EP version.

[[Armag] diarouga]

True, it's a QOL improvement.
Too bad you don't have good players to test it.

[n0el]

Well, anyone can test it. Whether you consider them a good player or not.

[momuuu]

Good thing it is a beta, so people can test it!

In practise, beta has never really been a thing for EP. It's just the new release of the patch..
The testing of the beta has been bad enough to the point where I, of all people, discovered that in one version of EP gates were literally broken (as in, units could walk right through them) in the one test game that was played on that version of EP. Of course there's nobody to blame for this, but simply calling a full release a beta doesn't make it a beta. Unless ESOC was inspired by Bethesda of course, then anything can be called a beta.

That's fair, but truly in the past, having a beta limited to certain users and the difficulty associated with getting on that channel was prohibitive. The new beta system that @EAGLEMUT has implemented should make it actually playable in substitution with the current EP version.

It wasnt really that hard.. its just that nobody bothers to test it.

[edeholland]

@momuuu Nice summary

I have no trouble believing that a patch with minimal changes would be the best way to let Boneng/Dia/Kynesie/Breeze/Japanese guys play on it. I even think that it makes it easier for users of all skill levels to start playing on EP. Less drastic changes and smaller patch notes make it more of a 'patch' than a 'mod'. Minimal changes means you can use the patch for the anti-cheat, bugfixes and ESOC maps only, without having the idea that you play a different game. It also makes it easier to switch to RE (because admit it, sometimes you just can't find people on EP). As long as we don't add completely new content to EP (like other mods do), a more minimalistic patch will be more attractive to use.

However, I get the counter-arguments. The AoE3:DE is the main reason for Goodspeed to drop the "Stay as close to RE as possible" philosophy. If some/all changes of EP get incorporated into the DE (which seems likely from what I have seen), I understand why we would want to make more drastic changes. EP becoming DE would be the only chance we will ever get to get thousands of people to play with new content. Assuming almost all of us switch to DE (which seems like a fair assumption, they may actually drop ESO entirely and see no reason why DE would be worse than RE) this would be a major opportunity for us to change how the game is played by everyone, not just by the top 1%. New content will not only attract new players (like I said before, new maps/shipments/politicians/units being viable is much more interesting to new players than small balance changes nobody cares about) but also be refreshing to us. The argument "but it's so hard to switch to EP, the patch notes are too long!" also won't hold up anymore, because everyone is playing on the new patch and because it's official it's fine if you don't know every change exactly, you will figure it out eventually.

And of course, making new civs is the best way to create new content and attract new players. But I'm not sure if that's a viable option. It would mean we have to accept the current balance ideas and only focus on the new stuff, because those new civs will need hundreds of hours of testing before being close to balanced. It also means we would have to make graphics, voice lines and make up new features for the civ. It would make us a modding community.

So in the end I think I understand both the philsosophies and the reasoning behind it. I am just not sure how they would be compatible.

[look]

Nerf iro, abus, japa FI, azz fi hero, then we Have a new aoe3de balance.

[deleted_user0]

Has anyone even spoken to the aoe3de people...?

[gamevideo113]

Has anyone even spoken to the aoe3de people...?

I don't think these people exist yet

[edeholland]

I don't think these people exist yet

Has anyone even spoken to the aoe3de people...?

As far as I know there has been some communication between us and them, but I don't know anyone who is employed to work on DE or something like that.

It's anticipated that DE3 will go in beta for some time to gather feedback from (experienced) players. During that time we could suggest the EP changes to been implemented in the DE. In the end I would say it's definitely worthwhile to focus on EP being used for the development of DE, it's not a stretch.

[Imperial Noob]

How much time is left till we get the DE? If less than 2 years, then the most sensible reasoning is that of @edeholland
1. DE contains all EP content, ESO down => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
2. DE contains all EP content, ESO alive => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
3. DE contains some EP content, ESO alive => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
4. DE contains some EP content, ESO down => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
5. DE contains no EP content because EP didn't seem to offer anything, ESO alive => should have listened to Ede
6. DE contains no EP content because EP didn't seem to offer anything, ESO down => should have listened to Ede
7. DE contains no EP content because they were not interested at all, ESO alive => minimalists were maybe right
8. DE contains no EP content because they were not interested at all, ESO down => rocks fall, everyone dies

[WickedCossack]

I don't think these people exist yet

Has anyone even spoken to the aoe3de people...?

As far as I know there has been some communication between us and them, but I don't know anyone who is employed to work on DE or something like that.

It's anticipated that DE3 will go in beta for some time to gather feedback from (experienced) players. During that time we could suggest the EP changes to been implemented in the DE. In the end I would say it's definitely worthwhile to focus on EP being used for the development of DE, it's not a stretch.

The people involved can't say anything publicly for obvious reasons, which is why nothing has been said.

[Garja]

In any case dropping the minimilastic approach doesn't mean include weird ass changes. It just means you can double the amount of tweaks for example.

[EAGLEMUT]

How much time is left till we get the DE? If less than 2 years, then the most sensible reasoning is that of @edeholland
1. DE contains all EP content, ESO down => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
2. DE contains all EP content, ESO alive => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
3. DE contains some EP content, ESO alive => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
4. DE contains some EP content, ESO down => should have bargained for more => should have listened to Ede
5. DE contains no EP content because EP didn't seem to offer anything, ESO alive => should have listened to Ede
6. DE contains no EP content because EP didn't seem to offer anything, ESO down => should have listened to Ede
7. DE contains no EP content because they were not interested at all, ESO alive => minimalists were maybe right
8. DE contains no EP content because they were not interested at all, ESO down => rocks fall, everyone dies

Disagree with 7. / 8., they should be "should have listened to Ede".

[Imperial Noob]

In any case dropping the minimilastic approach doesn't mean include weird ass changes. It just means you can double the amount of tweaks for example.

Which category would 4 Yojimbo for 1000 -> 5 Yojimbo for 1000 fall into?

[Dsy]

Without risk - there is no win. Without making mistakes - you wont improve.
I think age of empires 3 and EP community the one of the most conservatives ive ever seen. Even a game like LoL changes 10 times more and bigger things, when it has much more money on table to lose...
Changes are for improve the gameplay aspect of the game and maintain balance between the civs. Or at least it should do that.
For me improvements would be like:
I wanna use grenadiers in the game since they are designed to use however ultra weak - Ep answer: No thats change the meta
I wanna use mercenaries since they look cool - Ep answer: No thats change the meta, they need to stay ultra non cost effective (except some, but those some are okey since thats the meta)
I wanna use other politicians since it would be cool always instapick whats the best - Ep answer: No thats change the meta, there needs to be one option always ( Its funny since it looks like a communist election. You have choice on paper )
I mentioned once to remove auto stance switch from cannons since thats the most annoying bug in game which makes cannons the most annoying: Ep answer: No thats change the meta
I wanna use halberdiers since they are in the game - Ep answer: No these units were always totally useless thats the way they need to be
Fixing starting crates for removing rng - Ep answer: No thats change the game design, there needs to be unbalanced rng in the game
I wanna use some times natives - Ep answer: No thats change the meta, they needs to be ultra not cost effective
I wanna play spain - Ep answer: Thats the civ designed to be the weakest, thats the meta good luck
I wanna increase wall cost since its almost free which is strange - Ep answer: no thats change the meta
I wanna rework water since fishing ships + docks counter all fighting ships which is strange - Ep answer: no thats change the meta

So basicly exploait all resources which are hidden in the game (lot of choices) and aiming for the balance next to it - Ep answer: no thats change the meta. Even balance is unimportant compared to staying in meta.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Without risk - there is no win. Without making mistakes - you wont improve.
I think age of empires 3 and EP community the one of the most conservatives ive ever seen. Even a game like LoL changes 10 times more and bigger things, when it has much more money on table to lose...
Changes are for improve the gameplay aspect of the game and maintain balance between the civs. Or at least it should do that.
For me improvements would be like:
I wanna use grenadiers in the game since they are designed to use however ultra weak - Ep answer: No thats change the meta

Otto should be the only civ to have good artillery units vs infantry in colonial, that's the game design tbh. Grenadiers are a siege unit, and they were designed to be great at sieging buildings, while not so good (though okish) against infantry.
You can't really play god with the game and say that actually, grens aren't siege units, but anti infantry units like abus guns, that'd be totally arbitrary, and unfair for the civs which don't have grens.
The real issue is that buildings are too weak in aoe3, and thus you don't really need siege, but in a game like aoe2, they'd be great, like rams in age 2.

I wanna use mercenaries since they look cool - Ep answer: No thats change the meta, they need to stay ultra non cost effective (except some, but those some are okey since thats the meta)

Mercenaries are already kinda viable. The big issue with mercenaries is that they're the same for every civ, and if they were better than normal units, then you'd go merc with every civ, and your civ composition would be irrelevant. That's really standardizing, all civs would make the same unit then.
Still, you can use mercs with Germany, they're viable, or in niche situations where you're out of food while you have a lot of gold.

I wanna use other politicians since it would be cool always instapick whats the best - Ep answer: No thats change the meta, there needs to be one option always ( Its funny since it looks like a communist election. You have choice on paper )

That's another issue. If you changed the politicians, it would totally break the balance. For instance, as Brit, you have a better eco than France, and better units in colonial. Thus, Brit should be the better civ. In practice it's a fair MU because France is faster in early colonial thanks to 400w, and 1min faster when doing a semi ff, thanks to the fast age up.
And actually it's nice you bring that up, because many civs can pick a politician. As Brit you can take either 500f or tower+200w, as Port you can age with 400w or 500f, with Sioux/Iro, fast age up or resources. You actually have a lot of options.
As France and Germany you have to go 400w>exiled prince ofc, but if you don't like it, just play a less boring civ lol.

I mentioned once to remove auto stance switch from cannons since thats the most annoying bug in game which makes cannons the most annoying: Ep answer: No thats change the meta

No, that wouldn't change the meta. I guess the issue is that it would make the game easier, while it's kinda unecessary. QOL improvements are always very debatable, because on the one hand, it's nice to have a smart game, but on the other it makes things too easy.

I wanna use halberdiers since they are in the game - Ep answer: No these units were always totally useless thats the way they need to be

The big issue with halbs is that they're a hand combat unit tbh, and hand infantry is bad because you can just hit and run vs it. Also, you can't make melee units too good, because they become very lame, since they don't need micro (like urumis).

Fixing starting crates for removing rng - Ep answer: No thats change the game design, there needs to be unbalanced rng in the game

I'm all for this one.

I wanna use some times natives - Ep answer: No thats change the meta, they needs to be ultra not cost effective

Natives and mercs are the same issue actually, they standardize the civs, because all civs get the same unit and the civ composition doesn't matter as a result. Also if natives were good it would be a bit lame since you need a TP to train them, and sometimes because of a treasure your opponent can steal it.

I wanna play spain - Ep answer: Thats the civ designed to be the weakest, thats the meta good luck

You have no clue, Spain is a good civ on the current EP. The issue is that most top players haven't played them a lot, and thus, aren't confident with them. As I said previously, the meta isn't stale at all, the issue is that we master some civs, and we don't want to learn other civs.

I wanna increase wall cost since its almost free which is strange - Ep answer: no thats change the meta

Walls got nerfed, what do you want? Walls aren't almost free by the way.

I wanna rework water since fishing ships + docks counter all fighting ships which is strange - Ep answer: no thats change the meta

It has nothing to do with the meta lol. Vills can fire from a TC, likewise fishing ships can fire from a dock. Also if it didn't work that way, it would be dumb because your opponent could kill your docks, and then you'd lose the water forever as you can't train warships since you don't have docks anymore lol.

So basicly exploait all resources which are hidden in the game (lot of choices) and aiming for the balance next to it - Ep answer: no thats change the meta.

They're not aiming for balance at all. The more a game is complicated, the harder it is to balance, and going for these changes would ruin the balance (like Brit with 400w/exiled prince would be imba, some civs would be better at abusing natives, mercs, halbs, grens, and they'd become a lot better).
I mean, that's not even a matter of opinion, if you start to mess with unit stats and stuffs like this, the game will be a lot lot harder to balance.

Even balance is unimportant compared to staying in meta.

[HUMMAN]

Imo grens should be viable when oppenent CM's and turtles. Against civs like port, dutch jap.
And buffing natives wouldnt be standartazing at all, they are limited to build, requires map to obtain. If anything it would make MU less standart and more map dependent. If we go by the logic investments on the map pays off somehow( hunts = food, mines=gold, tp's=xp, nats=more military power and tech, like how xp grants more shipments) nats should be an investment too. And it should be on a thin line where both sides dont go nats auto(kind of with some civs you build tp or not according to game), thus i can see why people dont want to blur it.

[n0el]

Read back through some old patch notes yesterday...would be interesting to revisit some old changes and revert them back considering the drastic meta shifts that have occurred. Natives being one, but there are others like age up politicians and wonders, etc..

[jesus3]

way to go, zoi! proud of ya

[edeholland]

Imo grens should be viable when oppenent CM's and turtles. Against civs like port, dutch jap.

You should watch back Challe vs Knusch.

[dansil92]

Imo grens should be viable when oppenent CM's and turtles. Against civs like port, dutch jap.

You should watch back Challe vs Knusch.

Which round featured the grens?

[Kaiserklein]

Gren/musk straight up loses to port making units though. I don't think grens are viable, it's just that knusch decided he'd go full turtle everytime. A huss semi with mm or bows deal with that easily, or even an 8 cassas shipment if you don't slow age

[deleted_user0]

5 to snipe the age up tc, maybe. but then you have a wasted foundry. grens should really be trained from the barracks.

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah, it's just way too easy to scout an art foundry. Then you can just make huss and win. From the rax it would be another story

[dansil92]

5 to snipe the age up tc, maybe. but then you have a wasted foundry. grens should really be trained from the barracks.

^this

You can train them from forts so why not?
(Also get rid of that heavy infantry tag)

@Kaiserklein I've tried going musk gren vs pr18-25 players and yeah, even at that level they are just not viable vs ports. If they ship colonial militia there's nothing you can do since minutemen do double damage and cass move too quick to get more than one throw against them (i mean if the player just leaves his cass standing there then yeah the grens do actually really well but if someone is that bad you might as well go pure musks)
I still say musk gren is pretty good vs aztec or Russia at lower levels but it would be just so much better if you could train them at the barracks