ZP: The Zoi Patch

[Darwin_]

I think buffing xbox and pike attack and HP by a little bit would have made more sense than changing cost.

[Goodspeed]

The cost change tho is bad for several reasons:
- it has the undesired effect of boosting the early xbow/pike spam with wood crates.
- it simply doesn't adhere to a very simple rule for which cheap units should be buffed with stats, while premium units sohuld be buffed with cost (and viceversa for nerfs).

What's wrong about being able to spam more bow/pike out of crates? I don't see the problem with it. About the "simple rule" you stated, I have no idea where you pull it from.

It actually makes more sense the other way around. Buffing the cheap units with stats and the premium ones by reducing cost is standardizing. You'll end up with all of your units costing the same.

[Garja]

The cost change tho is bad for several reasons:
- it has the undesired effect of boosting the early xbow/pike spam with wood crates.
- it simply doesn't adhere to a very simple rule for which cheap units should be buffed with stats, while premium units sohuld be buffed with cost (and viceversa for nerfs).

What's wrong about being able to spam more bow/pike out of crates? I don't see the problem with it. About the "simple rule" you stated, I have no idea where you pull it from.

It changes the amount of units you get in that time frame, altering the existing balance between bow/pike rush and other strats. And since the amount of units was never the problem that change in particular is strictly bad.

About my simple rule, it is jsut logical game design rule to avoid extremizations.
If a unit is cheap but weak, there isn't room to make it even cheaper without disrupting balance (see the problem of the amount of X unit in the rush).
If a unit is premium aka good but expensive there isn't much room to buff its stats further without making it super OP (e.g buff halb attack when it's already 25, so more than huss per cost).

Add to this that xbows already used to have a higher attack, adhering to the other rule for which archer units are less of hard counter than skirms but have more base attack.

[Garja]

The cost change tho is bad for several reasons:
- it has the undesired effect of boosting the early xbow/pike spam with wood crates.
- it simply doesn't adhere to a very simple rule for which cheap units should be buffed with stats, while premium units sohuld be buffed with cost (and viceversa for nerfs).

What's wrong about being able to spam more bow/pike out of crates? I don't see the problem with it. About the "simple rule" you stated, I have no idea where you pull it from.

It actually makes more sense the other way around. Buffing the cheap units with stats and the premium ones by reducing cost is standardizing. You'll end up with all of your units costing the same.

Yes, it's a partial standardization, but that's exactly the intention when you buff/nerf stuff. You are trying to bring those units in line with the rest of the game.
Also it is worth to point out that cost-per-stat isn't subjective. Cost-per-stat is basically a constant in balance which you can only tweak as long as there is margin for it. For example is when units have side stats such as speed, resistance, range, etc.
That's why ashigaur is so expensive compared to regular musks or why rods cost mroe than musks.

[Goodspeed]

Yes, it's a partial standardization, but that's exactly the intention when you buff/nerf stuff. You are trying to bring those units in line with the rest of the game.

You can do that without standardizing. In this case, buffing premium units' stats and cheaper units' cost.

[Garja]

No you can't do that, because it brings extremizations which is the opposite of balance.
And the fact that now you can get more xbow/pike units out of wood crates is the exact example of it.

[HUMMAN]

doesnt it add variety? Like compare streelet vs. skirm, and jeager. Why would you make them similar while they do more or less same job in different ways?

[Aykin Haraka]

it is possible for you to stop trying to get a new age of empires 3 every month ?
with all your bullshit ideas

if you really want to create/edit all units stats/meta, idk what, just go mod yourself a game

[Garja]

doesnt it add variety? Like compare streelet vs. skirm, and jeager. Why would you make them similar while they do more or less same job in different ways?

What do you mean?
Merc units are the exact example of what I'm saying. They are the exact counterpart of standard units but they have better stats and cost more. The only thing not perfectly in line is the resistance which in fact makes some mercs broken (e.g. mams and to a lesser extent jaegers).

[[Armag] diarouga]

Nah, we are arguably moe neutral than you are. Or at least I am.

I want the EP to be close to the RE, that's objective and neutral. Wanting to change the meta isn't, since it's going to change the balance and the game.

Anyway, tell me this one is neutral lol.
– Qiang Pikeman hand attack light infantry multiplier increased from 2.25 to 3.5
We can all see that it's a Mitoe change who wants to see China colonial being buffed against Aztecs, which is totally undeserved.

Likewise the bow/pike buff is here because the guys who made the changes like bow/pikes. Same, India got nerfed because people think that the civ is op, while India is actually very weak against ff and semi ff builds.
Anyway, you guys buff a civ, and when you realise that the civ is strong, you nerf instead of reverting the buff, how is this objective?

That wasn't your intention until recently, was it? Aren't you the one who wanna base balance solely on TP maps, who is in favor of fixed crates, who thinks that every civ should have equal eco options and so on?

I didn't say that every civ should have equal eco options. I'm in favour of TP maps and fixed crates because it's the only way to balance the game.

As for the qiang pikemen multiplier vs light infantry, it is inferior to those of other pikes. In fact, China is well known to be weak against coyotemen (check on RTSS there are old posts I could literally quote).
Also that change was part of a more consistent change of standardizing all multiplier vs light infantry to a certain % of the multiplier vs cav. That's cause lot of units don't counter coyotemen properly. On the other hand coyotemen kinda need some buff because they are a bit weak as a cav role unit, especially vs other cav early on.

Yea, that's just standardizing the unit, and that's totally unfair, because China doesn't need that. I mean, if you want to make the game more consistent, you have to make sure it doesn't hurt the balance, and as you said, coyote are awful vs melee cav and they'd need a buff either against melee cav or they'd need more RR, but I see none in this patch.

As for bow/pikes, they just suck balls, that's why they should be buffed (and you could even add that it would encourage more colonial and aggressive play, which isn't bad given current meta).

Pikes suck balls, bows don't however. In fact, they're very underrated and I think that their cost is totally fine atm. I'd be fine with a pike buff, but the bow buff is unnecessary.

The cost change tho is bad for several reasons:
- it has the undesired effect of boosting the early xbow/pike spam with wood crates.
- it simply doesn't adhere to a very simple rule for which cheap units should be buffed with stats, while premium units sohuld be buffed with cost (and viceversa for nerfs).

[Garja]

You are not neutral when you say the TP or fixes crate thing. Besides it's not even true that you can balcne the game only that way.

You just don't know what you're talking about with the qiang pike thing. They absolutely deserve it because it's basically a bug and coyotemen beat qiang pikes per cost (which is not supposed to be since pikes counter coyotemen). It wouldn't hurt balance since China has always been hopeless vs coyote runners.

Xbows also suck balls, not only they barely counter musks per cost but also their attack is just not good compared to other archers. And this is because they have been nerfed in past.

[[Armag] diarouga]

it is possible for you to stop trying to get a new age of empires 3 every month ?
with all your bullshit ideas

if you really want to create/edit all units stats/meta, idk what, just go mod yourself a game

Yea, from what I've seen, at least half of the top players agree with that. The patch changes are just too frequent (it's already EP 6.0 lol, it means a new game every 6months, that's too often), and too big.
People want to play aoe3 to be honest, what the EP team is doing is kinda unfair. People asked for a patch because they wanted to be able to play every civ, and because they wanted to play on the new maps. I think that this goal is reached, why do you need to change the game?

[[Armag] diarouga]

You are not neutral when you say the TP or fixes crate thing. Besides it's not even true that you can balcne the game only that way.

I don't want to argue again about that.

You just don't know what you're talking about with the qiang pike thing. They absolutely deserve it because it's basically a bug and coyotemen beat qiang pikes per cost (which is not supposed to be since pikes counter coyotemen). It wouldn't hurt balance since China has always been hopeless vs coyote runners.

What makes you think it is a bug? Honestly, I'm quite sure it was done on purpose by the TAD team lol. And China being hopeless vs coyote runners is part of the MU.
Likewise, Aztec is hopeless vs the China age 3 cav, does it mean that you should buff aztec against the China age 3 cav? No, it's how the MU works, if China survives until the 3rd age, China wins. Besides, China isn't even hopeless vs coyotes, keshiks are quite good vs coyotes, as they have a *2.5 bonus, and it becomes *3.5 once you send a shipment lol. With that shipment they're as good as zams against coyotes.

Xbows also suck balls, not only they barely counter musks per cost but also their attack is just not good compared to other archers. And this is because they have been nerfed in past.
Their stats are bad, but they have more range than musks, which means that the guy who has xbows is going to have the range advantage, and that's big.

[Garja]

Because qiang multiplier is not in line with that of other pikes (x3.5) which is arguably lower already (was buffed on FP1.2 in fact).
Being totally hopeless in colonial vs colonial is not part of any MU. You can be favorited or not but at least the unit counter system has to be balanced on paper. Again, qiang pike lose to coyote runners per cost. Other pikes sucks coyote runners but they still win per cost.
Keshik barely counter coyote runners, while they absolutely destroy other cav, again per cost. For reference, Kehisk multiplier vs coyotemen is x2.5, zambs multiplier is x3.0.
And no lol, Aztecs age3 units are arguably better than China age3 units. The way the MU plays (colo vs fortress for example) is not a reason to keep bugged multipliers.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Because qiang multiplier is not in line with that of other pikes (x3.5) which is arguably lower already (was buffed on FP1.2 in fact).
Being totally hopeless in colonial vs colonial is not part of any MU. You can be favorited or not but at least the unit counter system has to be balanced on paper. Again, qiang pike lose to coyote runners per cost. Other pikes sucks coyote runners but they still win per cost.
Keshik barely counter coyote runners, while they absolutely destroy other cav, again per cost. For reference, Kehisk multiplier vs coyotemen is x2.5, zambs multiplier is x3.0.
And no lol, Aztecs age3 units are arguably better than China age3 units. The way the MU plays (colo vs fortress for example) is not a reason to keep bugged multipliers.

China vs Aztecs isn't hopeless in colonial as China has Keshiks, as I said. It should be Aztec favoured of course, because China is much much better in age 3.
I don't see why keshiks would barely counter coyotes with *2.5 while destroying other cav with *3 lol. Zambs have *3 vs coyotes, and *3.5 vs cav, which makes sense.

Anyway, you can't just say that it's a pure "bug fix" because first of all, it probably wasn't a bug as I said. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft did that on purpose, and furthermore, balance comes before "bug fix" and you can't give China the option to play in colonial while Aztec's only option is to rush.

[Djigit]

And what do you even mean with your second comment? Mod the Ear?
I'm saying that people are too often solely promoted based on their sympathy towards the existing staff.

People aren't "promoted" solely because they are friendly with staff They are, and with rare exceptions it's always been the case. For example, some were able to join the staff because they were close to you or Ryan. It would be okay if it was acknowledged at least , but it certainly helps. Absolutely

Do you not understand how that sort of thing could be seen as a bonus? It makes sense to want to work with people who you get along with and who you know can be trusted. If you ask me it should be a requirement. I thought I made myself clear by using "too often". I mean it's common knowledge that HR not only look for a candidate with relevant skills, but also a "personality" that allows a better integration within his future team. The problem with ESOC's recruiting process is the emphasis on the latter.

[Garja]

Because qiang multiplier is not in line with that of other pikes (x3.5) which is arguably lower already (was buffed on FP1.2 in fact).
Being totally hopeless in colonial vs colonial is not part of any MU. You can be favorited or not but at least the unit counter system has to be balanced on paper. Again, qiang pike lose to coyote runners per cost. Other pikes sucks coyote runners but they still win per cost.
Keshik barely counter coyote runners, while they absolutely destroy other cav, again per cost. For reference, Kehisk multiplier vs coyotemen is x2.5, zambs multiplier is x3.0.
And no lol, Aztecs age3 units are arguably better than China age3 units. The way the MU plays (colo vs fortress for example) is not a reason to keep bugged multipliers.

China vs Aztecs isn't hopeless in colonial as China has Keshiks, as I said. It should be Aztec favoured of course, because China is much much better in age 3.
I don't see why keshiks would barely counter coyotes with *2.5 while destroying other cav with *3 lol. Zambs have *3 vs coyotes, and *3.5 vs cav, which makes sense.

Anyway, you can't just say that it's a pure "bug fix" because first of all, it probably wasn't a bug as I said. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft did that on purpose, and furthermore, balance comes before "bug fix" and you can't give China the option to play in colonial while Aztec's only option is to rush.

China vs Aztec colonial is very likely the most unbalanced fight in the game, because China has literally no asnwer to coyote runners in the long run. Even if Keshiks barely counter coyote runners then 20% mace addition totally screws it, while any different addition by the Chinese player doesn't improve China combo.
And no China has not better age3 than Aztecs. It can reach age3 easier of course, but in the long run Aztec age3 units are better, even tho China age3 is still amazing.
Because x2.5 is less than x3.0 and coyotes are significantly cheaper than cav. Thus, in comparison, Keshik only barely counter Coyote runners per cost, while destroy cav per cost (especially after the +1 multiplier card). In the comparison between Keshik and Zambs, there is also to account for the fact that Keshik always come with pikes and you can't mass them as you want like Zambs.
And no, again, such lower multiplier (x2.25 vs x3.5) is not on purpose. Even accounting the supposed extra efficiency of qiang pike vs normal pike (arguable since they have more drop off effect for example), it is still too much of a difference to be considered intentional.
For reference, changdao multiplier is the same as halbs (x1.5).
Balance doesn't come before bug fix, at all. And it doesn't come before bug fix when this is justified and helps balance. Aztecs can play the MU already in several ways. They definitely have more freedom than China whose only hope is to do some sort of FF. Even if there was a balance problem in the MU, other changes should address it. It's not like you fix imbalance by leaving another imbalance in the other direction, especially when it doesn't even affect the way the MU is played competitively anyway.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Because qiang multiplier is not in line with that of other pikes (x3.5) which is arguably lower already (was buffed on FP1.2 in fact).
Being totally hopeless in colonial vs colonial is not part of any MU. You can be favorited or not but at least the unit counter system has to be balanced on paper. Again, qiang pike lose to coyote runners per cost. Other pikes sucks coyote runners but they still win per cost.
Keshik barely counter coyote runners, while they absolutely destroy other cav, again per cost. For reference, Kehisk multiplier vs coyotemen is x2.5, zambs multiplier is x3.0.
And no lol, Aztecs age3 units are arguably better than China age3 units. The way the MU plays (colo vs fortress for example) is not a reason to keep bugged multipliers.

China vs Aztecs isn't hopeless in colonial as China has Keshiks, as I said. It should be Aztec favoured of course, because China is much much better in age 3.
I don't see why keshiks would barely counter coyotes with *2.5 while destroying other cav with *3 lol. Zambs have *3 vs coyotes, and *3.5 vs cav, which makes sense.

Anyway, you can't just say that it's a pure "bug fix" because first of all, it probably wasn't a bug as I said. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft did that on purpose, and furthermore, balance comes before "bug fix" and you can't give China the option to play in colonial while Aztec's only option is to rush.

China vs Aztec colonial is very likely the most unbalanced fight in the game, because China has literally no asnwer to coyote runners in the long run. Even if Keshiks barely counter coyote runners then 20% mace addition totally screws it, while any different addition by the Chinese player doesn't improve China combo.
And no China has not better age3 than Aztecs. It can reach age3 easier of course, but in the long run Aztec age3 units are better, even tho China age3 is still amazing.
Because x2.5 is less than x3.0 and coyotes are significantly cheaper than cav. Thus, in comparison, Keshik only barely counter Coyote runners per cost, while destroy cav per cost (especially after the +1 multiplier card). In the comparison between Keshik and Zambs, there is also to account for the fact that Keshik always come with pikes and you can't mass them as you want like Zambs.
And no, again, such lower multiplier (x2.25 vs x3.5) is not on purpose. Even accounting the supposed extra efficiency of qiang pike vs normal pike (arguable since they have more drop off effect for example), it is still too much of a difference to be considered intentional.
For reference, changdao multiplier is the same as halbs (x1.5).
Balance doesn't come before bug fix, at all. And it doesn't come before bug fix when this is justified and helps balance. Aztecs can play the MU already in several ways. They definitely have more freedom than China whose only hope is to do some sort of FF. Even if there was a balance problem in the MU, other changes should address it. It's not like you fix imbalance by leaving another imbalance on the other direction, especially when it doesn't even affect the way the MU is played competitively anyway.

Balance comes before bug fix, that's why this change is going to be put in the "balance change" section of the patch notes, and not in the "bug fix" section. Likewise the age 4 Shogunate nerf was a balance change first, and then a bug fix.

[Garja]

No, balance doesn't come before bug fix.
First you fix bugs, then you adjust balance with fixed game.

Shogunate was a bug fix change. If it needed compensation it would have been given.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It doesn't come before chronologically, because you indeed need to fix bugs and then adjust balance, but it is more important.

[Garja]

Most of times, it is not. If the bug is neglectable then it may be. It is good practice anyway to first fix bugs, then adjust balance.

[Garja]

For the record: http://www.rts-sanctuary.com/The-Asian- ... cs++coyote

[Mitoe]

It's definitely a balance change more so than a bug fix, something I remember Ryan and I tried to point out numerous times during early EP discussions.

[Garja]

Hard to be more balance change than bug fix, when it fixes a bug.

[Kaiserklein]

It changes the amount of units you get in that time frame, altering the existing balance between bow/pike rush and other strats. And since the amount of units was never the problem that change in particular is strictly bad.

It doesn't really change the amount of units you get. You can already spam basically 10/10/10 bow pike with double rax while shipping wood crates anyway. In fact it changes the follow up, as in, you'll have more wood left to add a stable, placer mines, houses, etc, and transition into regular food/gold units.

About my simple rule, it is jsut logical game design rule to avoid extremizations.
If a unit is cheap but weak, there isn't room to make it even cheaper without disrupting balance (see the problem of the amount of X unit in the rush).
If a unit is premium aka good but expensive there isn't much room to buff its stats further without making it super OP (e.g buff halb attack when it's already 25, so more than huss per cost).

Add to this that xbows already used to have a higher attack, adhering to the other rule for which archer units are less of hard counter than skirms but have more base attack.

I agree with goodspeed here, it's standardizing. Buffing stats of cheap units and nerfing cost of elite units makes them more similar.