EP 6.1.x Beta [RELEASED-LIVE]

[Goodspeed]

Yes you do see people winning games because of that. That's just not what you attribute the win to. Small wins in the early game tend to snowball, but you also tend to forget about them.

[SoldieR]

what about not changing age up time so u dont have to do 20 changes to balance it?

Smart boy.

You both seem to miss the fact that you are reverting changes, like to the real games' numbers. So many could probably be reverted with 1 nerfed. And stop making such a big deal about 10 seconds. That's 2 freaking wall segments to hold.

[Garja]

a change that makes the game slightly more strategic and slightly less mechanic based.

fast age is bad design by developers cause it's way too dominant compared to other options.

It makes it more mechanic based.
But anywayit is okish.
10 seconds is literally what a patch of trees can do to your units.
Stuff like that happens all the time.

Yes you do see people winning games because of that. That's just not what you attribute the win to. Small wins in the early game tend to snowball, but you also tend to forget about them.

You dont, it is always the combination of that plus other factors, usually in the opposite direction.
You guys make always such a big deal of these little efficiency things and then tend to ignore stuff that has 10x more impact like being idled by a rush.

[[Armag] diarouga]

These little things can often snowball into a win. A 15v age up with Aztecs, a 13v age up with France, a wood start with Germany, all these shit can change the balance of a MU.

[Garja]

Of course they snowball but that's intended. Those things are the game.

[SoldieR]

These little things can often snowball into a win. A 15v age up with Aztecs, a 13v age up with France, a wood start with Germany, all these shit can change the balance of a MU.

Yes, and a 13vil age for fren is more doable with 120f vils, so that would help counteract the fast age nerf

[Kaiserklein]

Ofc it snowballs and ofc it can make you win if the game is really close. But with that reasoning you gotta remove all treasures, fix all crates, fix all resources, and so on. Because every little thing can snowball as much as 90f does. At the end of the day you can just play chess if you want a perfectly fixed game...
10s nerf on exiled prince is just healthy for the game. Can't argue it's normal that everyone always picks that one politician. It just means that it's too strong.

[Mitoe]

The thing is that normally while you're getting that 90f your opponent should be doing something equally worthwhile. Treasures cost time to take, and that's time that could otherwise be spent taking other treasures, collecting livestock, scouting the map, etc. Map design is important here too, so that the locations of different levels of treasures are fixed--so that you don't stumble into 2v guarded by 5 invincible guardians while your opponent finds 90w. Eventually at some point we should consider adjusting treasures so that the amount of time it takes to take a treasure is roughly equal to the time it would take to take any other treasure of similar value.

But yeah I really think that nerfing fast age (50s isn't necessarily the right number, either, could be 45, or 47-48 even) and buffing slow age is the right way to go in the future. It seems like it would be easier to balance the Colonial Age this way, instead of leaving lots of civs just straight up bad in the Colonial Age because they're too strong in Fortress (as is the case with Germany, for example). This way they at least have options to be competitive in more situations instead of just FFing, which makes things like scouting and player interaction more important. At the very least it is something we should test.

[deleted_user]

this thread is full of ridiculous overreacting to stop a change that makes the game slightly more strategic and slightly less mechanic based.

fast age is bad design by developers cause it's way too dominant compared to other options.

Honestly I think Somppu is one of the smartest players alive.

[Mitoe]

Alternatively could just buff the value of slow age. Right now it's around 700-800 resources: could easily buff that to 900-1000 without breaking the game I think--considering how bad it is right now comparatively. At least then it might be worth considering delaying your shipments and tech.

e.g.

6 skirm > 7 skirm
4 huss > 5 huss
8 pike > 10 pike
7 longbow > 9 longbow
3 dopp > 4 dopp

[Garja]

That doesn't help with the semi ff meta.

[ListlessSalmon]

Ofc it snowballs and ofc it can make you win if the game is really close. But with that reasoning you gotta remove all treasures, fix all crates, fix all resources, and so on. Because every little thing can snowball as much as 90f does. At the end of the day you can just play chess if you want a perfectly fixed game...
10s nerf on exiled prince is just healthy for the game. Can't argue it's normal that everyone always picks that one politician. It just means that it's too strong.

With this reasoning you gotta nerf the 400w politician and 3v/2sw/Northern Refugees discovery age shipments.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The thing is that normally while you're getting that 90f your opponent should be doing something equally worthwhile. Treasures cost time to take, and that's time that could otherwise be spent taking other treasures, collecting livestock, scouting the map, etc. Map design is important here too, so that the locations of different levels of treasures are fixed--so that you don't stumble into 2v guarded by 5 invincible guardians while your opponent finds 90w. Eventually at some point we should consider adjusting treasures so that the amount of time it takes to take a treasure is roughly equal to the time it would take to take any other treasure of similar value.

But yeah I really think that nerfing fast age (50s isn't necessarily the right number, either, could be 45, or 47-48 even) and buffing slow age is the right way to go in the future. It seems like it would be easier to balance the Colonial Age this way, instead of leaving lots of civs just straight up bad in the Colonial Age because they're too strong in Fortress (as is the case with Germany, for example). This way they at least have options to be competitive in more situations instead of just FFing, which makes things like scouting and player interaction more important. At the very least it is something we should test.

What if your opponent gets 150w and 95w as India?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Alternatively could just buff the value of slow age. Right now it's around 700-800 resources: could easily buff that to 900-1000 without breaking the game I think--considering how bad it is right now comparatively. At least then it might be worth considering delaying your shipments and tech.

e.g.

6 skirm > 7 skirm
4 huss > 5 huss
8 pike > 10 pike
7 longbow > 9 longbow
3 dopp > 4 dopp

I'm not agaisn't it, just don't nerf the fast age up.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ofc it snowballs and ofc it can make you win if the game is really close. But with that reasoning you gotta remove all treasures, fix all crates, fix all resources, and so on. Because every little thing can snowball as much as 90f does. At the end of the day you can just play chess if you want a perfectly fixed game...
10s nerf on exiled prince is just healthy for the game. Can't argue it's normal that everyone always picks that one politician. It just means that it's too strong.

With this reasoning you gotta nerf the 400w politician and 3v/2sw/Northern Refugees discovery age shipments.

Haha yea, nerf the vill shipments because they're too good.

[Mitoe]

The thing is that normally while you're getting that 90f your opponent should be doing something equally worthwhile. Treasures cost time to take, and that's time that could otherwise be spent taking other treasures, collecting livestock, scouting the map, etc. Map design is important here too, so that the locations of different levels of treasures are fixed--so that you don't stumble into 2v guarded by 5 invincible guardians while your opponent finds 90w. Eventually at some point we should consider adjusting treasures so that the amount of time it takes to take a treasure is roughly equal to the time it would take to take any other treasure of similar value.

But yeah I really think that nerfing fast age (50s isn't necessarily the right number, either, could be 45, or 47-48 even) and buffing slow age is the right way to go in the future. It seems like it would be easier to balance the Colonial Age this way, instead of leaving lots of civs just straight up bad in the Colonial Age because they're too strong in Fortress (as is the case with Germany, for example). This way they at least have options to be competitive in more situations instead of just FFing, which makes things like scouting and player interaction more important. At the very least it is something we should test.

What if your opponent gets 150w and 95w as India?

Then wtf are you doing with your explorer

Also to be fair that rule is still true in the majority of situations. There are maps or other situations though where you do get unlucky, just because of how poorly some of the treasures are balanced compared to what they actually give you. There's just a lot of treasures that need to be adjusted or removed because they're not worth taking, e.g. 20% explorer HP for 3 bears. Same level as 150w but significantly less valuable.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The thing is that normally while you're getting that 90f your opponent should be doing something equally worthwhile. Treasures cost time to take, and that's time that could otherwise be spent taking other treasures, collecting livestock, scouting the map, etc. Map design is important here too, so that the locations of different levels of treasures are fixed--so that you don't stumble into 2v guarded by 5 invincible guardians while your opponent finds 90w. Eventually at some point we should consider adjusting treasures so that the amount of time it takes to take a treasure is roughly equal to the time it would take to take any other treasure of similar value.

But yeah I really think that nerfing fast age (50s isn't necessarily the right number, either, could be 45, or 47-48 even) and buffing slow age is the right way to go in the future. It seems like it would be easier to balance the Colonial Age this way, instead of leaving lots of civs just straight up bad in the Colonial Age because they're too strong in Fortress (as is the case with Germany, for example). This way they at least have options to be competitive in more situations instead of just FFing, which makes things like scouting and player interaction more important. At the very least it is something we should test.

What if your opponent gets 150w and 95w as India?

Then wtf are you doing with your explorer

Also to be fair that rule is still true in the majority of situations. There are maps or other situations though where you do get unlucky, just because of how poorly some of the treasures are balanced compared to what they actually give you. There's just a lot of treasures that need to be adjusted or removed because they're not worth taking, e.g. 20% explorer HP for 3 bears. Same level as 150w but significantly less valuable.

I'd take 20% WC HP over 90f any day.

[Kaiserklein]

Ofc it snowballs and ofc it can make you win if the game is really close. But with that reasoning you gotta remove all treasures, fix all crates, fix all resources, and so on. Because every little thing can snowball as much as 90f does. At the end of the day you can just play chess if you want a perfectly fixed game...
10s nerf on exiled prince is just healthy for the game. Can't argue it's normal that everyone always picks that one politician. It just means that it's too strong.

With this reasoning you gotta nerf the 400w politician and 3v/2sw/Northern Refugees discovery age shipments.

Yeah we should buff some politicians like we saw in smackdown, to give alternatives to 400w.
I'd also like to see alternatives to vil shipments in age 1, but I think it's complicated because there's literally no shipment coming close to 3v for most civs. It's also not that big of a deal because 3v doesn't push players into doing 1 strat, unlike fast age.

[deleted_user0]

The thing is that normally while you're getting that 90f your opponent should be doing something equally worthwhile. Treasures cost time to take, and that's time that could otherwise be spent taking other treasures, collecting livestock, scouting the map, etc. Map design is important here too, so that the locations of different levels of treasures are fixed--so that you don't stumble into 2v guarded by 5 invincible guardians while your opponent finds 90w. Eventually at some point we should consider adjusting treasures so that the amount of time it takes to take a treasure is roughly equal to the time it would take to take any other treasure of similar value.

But yeah I really think that nerfing fast age (50s isn't necessarily the right number, either, could be 45, or 47-48 even) and buffing slow age is the right way to go in the future. It seems like it would be easier to balance the Colonial Age this way, instead of leaving lots of civs just straight up bad in the Colonial Age because they're too strong in Fortress (as is the case with Germany, for example). This way they at least have options to be competitive in more situations instead of just FFing, which makes things like scouting and player interaction more important. At the very least it is something we should test.

What if your opponent gets 150w and 95w as India?

Then wtf are you doing with your explorer

Also to be fair that rule is still true in the majority of situations. There are maps or other situations though where you do get unlucky, just because of how poorly some of the treasures are balanced compared to what they actually give you. There's just a lot of treasures that need to be adjusted or removed because they're not worth taking, e.g. 20% explorer HP for 3 bears. Same level as 150w but significantly less valuable.

well really depends on the civ. any TWC civ would like to take that tres, and can actually take it quite easily if properly done. and unless its vs another twc civ, even if the tres gets stolen, its not that big of a deal. as india i would also wanna take it, but its not a priority, considering its much harder to take for them. though, if you position your stuns carefully, you can basically kill all 3 bears in one go. and then you heal. but losing the explorers is a possibility here if the other player intervenes, so I would be much more careful with it here.

with other civs I'd agree, its not a super useful tres, but not every tres has to work for every civ equally.

[Dsy]

I like this patch since its nerfing walls. Its a good start whatever you change next to it. However i'd like to see wall cost increase, not like "you can have multiple layers since its weak, we dont care" mentality. But some improvement at least in 2 years actually happened...

In other hand people complain japan weak without walls. Just buff them other way like fixing good starting crates. People who complain about walls dont care how strong they are.
It just walls are lame and we want to see micro a thing in this game again. However i feel people who loved micro in this game are just left EP. H2O, Lordraph, Blackstar etc. Thats why i dont even care of this game anymore much. Just hoping one day it will be intresting again.

[Mitoe]

I wouldn't call BlackStar a "micro" oriented player.

Walls are rarely used except by a handful of players--seems strange to blame an absence of micro on walls.

[Dsy]

When i played this game my opponents abused it millions of times especially in teamgames.

[Mitoe]

Well I can't speak for team games but in 1v1, especially on EP, walls are not very widely used, and when they are they're arguably not even that strong already--wooden walls, at least.

[Dsy]

If walls wouldnt be strong i dont think Kynesie would have won any game vs Lordraph.
If you dont believe i'd like to see rematch with "no walls" rule. That wont happen for a reason i guess...

[Mitoe]

Raphael did not play properly against it--he tried too hard to beat Kynesie at his own game and it backfired, hard. Myself and other players have beaten Kynesie in tournaments where he's walled and gone water just fine. The strength of that playstyle is that not very many players understand how best to react to it, and end up making big blunders that end up costing them the game. Plus the distinct lack of any lategame cards in so many player's decks.