But its becoming much different than the actual game.
But if the mission statement for EP is now "Create a patch in hopes that it is adopted by MS as the official patch", then this is great.
Otherwise its too different than RE.
At least generally, I don't agree these changes in particular make anything very different. Still, it would be very helpful if you were to help play-test them.
As for your suggestion, it is largely the case, yes. As has been mentioned before, it will be defined and explained in the somewhat near future.
I'm probably late with this idea but how about native embassy 100w? Even with good natives it sucks to make them cause tradepost is located in a shitty place.
Definetely not all changes are good. 30% of them are strictly "not good". Another 10% is questionable. 70% of them are likely to be unecessary and completely neglactable. Also, on the AOE3DE topic: - you are all a bit delusional if you think they will simply adopt our changes. Even the most positively accepted thing of the EP (maps?) can't be employed in a possible remake. At least not in its current state. - if I were a developer of AOE3DE I would think twice before accepting any suggestion from the community, even if it comes from well trusted people. The interests of the developers of a game only partially coincide with those of the people actually playing it. And the extent of this is just the maximization of customer satisfaction, which hardly comes exclusively from balance.
Simply put, EP adoption is just not realistic. What's realistic is a patch with only a number of relevant changes (e.g. any old official patch), mostly tweaking existing numbers (crates, unit shipments, unit stats) and maybe a couple maps to include in the official pack. Then for all the other features it is entirely possible that we can help devs to implement/create them (e.g observer UI).
[Armag] diarouga wrote:When Garja and me agree, you know something is wrong.
I agree. I do know something is wrong.
About the AoE3DE topic:
edeholland wrote: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.
Garja wrote:Simply put, EP adoption is just not realistic.
where's my downvote button
Do you really think they will just adopt the EP? Even if it were a perfect patch there would still be legal problems etc.
What is realistic is that when it comes to balance and general suggestions they will save time (and improve customer satisfaction) by consulting the community. If we provide a simple enough packet of requests it is possible that they will accept it. But it has to be acceptable from their pov. Even as a community/pr guy I would never dive into the mess that is picking up 200 changes and selecting those which are ok and those who are not. EP packet has to be credible. Right now even just Sioux bs makes it laughable.
Garja wrote:Simply put, EP adoption is just not realistic.
where's my downvote button
Do you really think they will just adopt the EP? Even if it were a perfect patch there would still be legal problems etc.
What is realistic is that when it comes to balance and general suggestions they will save time (and improve customer satisfaction) by consulting the community. If we provide a simple enough packet of requests it is possible that they will accept it. But it has to be acceptable from their pov. Even as a community/pr guy I would never dive into the mess that is picking up 200 changes and selecting those which are ok and those who are not. EP packet has to be credible. Right now even just Sioux bs makes it laughable.
I'm not a lawyer, but my basic understanding is that MS has full rights to our derivative works based upon their IP, including the right to entirely revoke us the licence to use those derivative works and the right to use our derivative works for any purpose without obligations to us.
momuuu wrote: ↑theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Garja has a point though. If only half of the community is fine with this new patch, there's no way MS will go for it. They can't risk a boycott.
They don't give a shit about the 400 people that play the EP.
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Garja has a point though. If only half of the community is fine with this new patch, there's no way MS will go for it. They can't risk a boycott.
They don't give a shit about the 400 people that play the EP.
No, but if half of the aoe3 community doesn't want it, they'll give a shit.
EAGLEMUT wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but my basic understanding is that MS has full rights to our derivative works based upon their IP, including the right to entirely revoke us the licence to use those derivative works and the right to use our derivative works for any purpose without obligations to us.
I'm not a lawyer either but they surely don't have full rights. Just as an example if we give them something which is the result of our work then we could totally sue them for stealing our work, if there is no precise contract for the transaction. That is regardless of who is actually right in the end. This is basically why they never accepted to adopt FP stuff. I think Zuta mentioned something like that in past. When it comes to intellectual property it is a mess.
EAGLEMUT wrote:– “Bastion” improvement decreased from +400% Wall hitpoints to +300% Wall hitpoints; Moved from Colonial to Fortress Age Extends the pre-existing change (to wood walls) to stone walls, decreasing hitpoints by 1500 and lessening abusability.
HP boost reduced by 25% but not the coast and research time? it s a very expensive and long upgrade.
I missed the moment Japan became op and deserve all these nerfs. Did someone try to play them in other map than kamchatka,gran chaco and baja?
I see a single Japanese nerf significant to 1vs1 balance. In case you read the comments, it is pointed out that it is being made to compensate for the Exiled Prince/Fortress Messenger nerfs, from which the civilization stands to gain quite a bit. Personally, I would guess that these two changes, in isolation, are a net buff to Japanese. As well, notably, the Golden Pavilion nerf only impacts the game at a point where Japanese is already doing well, and it improves the viability of wonder options – within and without the wonder. Overall, this change makes good sense. If it appears that it should be compensated for or reverted, we should consider options.
You can t say the daimyo cost isn t a significant nerf in 1v1... I use to fight with it at the end of each battle and i lose it regularly. The Exiled Prince is effectively a buff for japan, but bow/pike are nicely buff and this can be problematic for japs. Bow/pike strat use to works pretty well against japan. Seems -again- an over nerf.
Although I wouldn't have changed the cost, I like this xbow pike buff. About people complaining, I'd like to recall that this is the entire concept of Beta, testing stuff before saying "X totally sucks" or "Y is definitely the best feature ever"
I've had this problem in my scenarios before and i think there are only two ways to achieve a good result.
a) Stick to the original and just fix the bugs -> goal completed, it is what it is. b) The problem of infinite changes: Everybody would make different changes according to personal preference + game knowledge => Therefore, you have to have a certain vision or outcome in mind and communicate it. What do you want to achieve? If the players aren't happy then change it again, but the playerbase should know what you wanted to do. If trolls complain it doesn't matter, but if you get constructive criticism, then it's time to rethink it.
You can test forever and everytime you will find something new, until you find yourself back at the starting point again. You can't make x amount of patches of the game, so you have to decide.