EP 6.1.x Beta [RELEASED-LIVE]

[Dsy]

Forced lategame because of walls + water, or walls + japan, or walls + water + japan.
I dont say its unbeatable, i just lose interest to enjoy these type of games.
+ i think Japan with walls is quite op.
Maybe you won vs him since he didnt pick Japan.

[zoom]

I don't really understand the Zamburak change, why are we nerfing non-Sepoy Indian anti-cav? Was there concern that the Sepoy were not being used with sufficient frequency?

I also don't like the fast age nerf, xbow/pike change, brit house nerf or Pavillion nerf. But even if you were committing to that (fast age nerf and compensating changes) the nerfs being doled out to compensate for it seem a bit odd to me. I get nerfing Brit as the consensus is they are strong (though this seems like a poor way to do it), but why single out Japan? I thought that Aztec (fast age to colonial most games so not affected) and China (wonders) were considered stronger than Japan so why nerf Japs but not those? (Indeed China gets a buff instead).

I don't mind the daimyo/shogun cost increase though, making keeping them alive more important would seem to make things a bit more interesting, though as I don't think Japan is actually too strong maybe the Shogun aura nerf could be (partially) reverted to compensate.

I like the Bastion nerf, and don't have strong feelings about the other changes.

If EP is indeed starting to make substantial changes to the game to make it "better" (in some community-defined sense) one thing that would seem nice to me (if its possible- I have no idea on that) would be to make certain things that aren't hotkeyable have hotkeys, like upgrades (and units from the agra fort).

From the OP (which contains explanations for all changes):

"Completely disregarding its Colonial Age availability and improvement shipments, the Zamburak is an exceptional unit, from a statistical point of view. These changes should abate Zamburak overperformance in Colonial and Fortress Ages, while helping the unit in the late-game, in the vein of the Gurkha. As well, this change is disproportionately beneficial to team-game balance."

Other than that, the change helps nerf Indians.

According to feedback, Aztecs and Chinese are both considered weaker than Japanese. As well, the buffs to Chinese are slight. Again, currently looking into recent feedback for an upcoming beta update.

EP might start making substantial changes to the game, in future updates. For now, there are three measured exceptions to inter-civ and general balance.

[zoom]

And so was the manor build time.
Besides, do we even need fast age change when all fast age civs are nerfed and slow aging civs are already better?

We definitely do not need it. It's just highly desirable. It's bad for the game when only one option, among many, is viable.

[zoom]

350c is just way too cheap to revive a unit that strong. It's the price of 2 huss, which is very low for a unit which based on stats alone is worth like 4 and which also serves as a buff to your army, a mobile shipment arrival point, and a mobile military building. Oh and it heals itself. So the change makes perfect sense. And in 1v1 there is plenty of compensation with the fast age nerf.

Although this makes perfect sense, it should be taken into account that it changes how the unit plays; since it now is too expensive to suicide against artillery or gamble with. Now you will be paying 1k coin for the buff, whereas you previously paid 350c for the buff and the figthing capability. Not stating whether this is good or bad.

Given the immense strength of the unit, you're still paying for both. It's just that you will have to exercise judgement in determining whether a given risk is worth taking. That's going from broken to sound design, to me.

[zoom]

I feel like its mostly irrelevant, the dude shouldn’t ever die with his 2khp 220att and a fast healing rate

Exactly – which is why it should matter at all when he does.

The mere ability to revive it is a big bonus. There's no reason it should also come with a 75% discount. The train-time is already reasonable, and the cost should reflect it – same as with any other unit.

[zoom]

Yeah, from my experience so far with India/Brit it seems like these changes only make the civs feel clunky and unrewarding to play. Would like to see these reverted.

I personally don't think fast age should be reverted--not yet anyway (although maybe 45 seconds?). I would really like to see how buffing slow age from 110 seconds to 100 seconds would do in tandem with this change: I feel like it would open the door for a wider variety of strategies in a similarly wide variety of situations, and I don't think it's as hard to balance as it sounds, either.

I think it's also apparent that the Teepee change probably needs to be reverted and alternative solutions sought out: this has been changed every patch since its inception and still doesn't feel balanced nor function as originally intended.

As opposed to any other nerf to these two civilizations? In isolation, reverting them seems unacceptable to balance.

As for buffing default Fortress Age age-times, it's riskier (especially combined), and not within the current scope of EP6. It's certainly worth considering for future, releases, though. The same goes for Sioux. We're trying to keep changes to a minimum, remember?

[momuuu]

And so was the manor build time.
Besides, do we even need fast age change when all fast age civs are nerfed and slow aging civs are already better?

We definitely do not need it. It's just highly desirable. It's bad for the game when only one option, among many, is viable.

This needs citation or logic..

[ListlessSalmon]

From the OP (which contains explanations for all changes):

"Completely disregarding its Colonial Age availability and improvement shipments, the Zamburak is an exceptional unit, from a statistical point of view. These changes should abate Zamburak overperformance in Colonial and Fortress Ages, while helping the unit in the late-game, in the vein of the Gurkha. As well, this change is disproportionately beneficial to team-game balance."

Other than that, the change helps nerf Indians.

According to feedback, Aztecs and Chinese are both considered weaker than Japanese. As well, the buffs to Chinese are slight. Again, currently looking into recent feedback for an upcoming beta update.

EP might start making substantial changes to the game, in future updates. For now, there are three measured exceptions to inter-civ and general balance.

I did read the OP, my lack of understanding of why one would nerf Zamburaks like this was actually not for lack of reading your words. Just the "well I looked at the numbers completely independently of how the civ plays and any games we've seen of it and decided it seemed too good" did not aid me with understanding why this would be a good idea. Looking at India currently and thinking that a good change would be to make it so making Sepoy is relatively stronger than an alternative (in the case alternative anti-cav in the Zamburak) just seems odd to me.

The feedback point on civ strength is genuinely helpful though, I had taken the general view to be to the contrary but I guess my data for this point was out of date or otherwise unrepresentative.

[[Armag] diarouga]

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.

Yea Blackstar is a strategy god. His micro was good as well but it's not his strongest aspect.

[[Armag] diarouga]

From the OP (which contains explanations for all changes):

"Completely disregarding its Colonial Age availability and improvement shipments, the Zamburak is an exceptional unit, from a statistical point of view. These changes should abate Zamburak overperformance in Colonial and Fortress Ages, while helping the unit in the late-game, in the vein of the Gurkha. As well, this change is disproportionately beneficial to team-game balance."

Other than that, the change helps nerf Indians.

According to feedback, Aztecs and Chinese are both considered weaker than Japanese. As well, the buffs to Chinese are slight. Again, currently looking into recent feedback for an upcoming beta update.

EP might start making substantial changes to the game, in future updates. For now, there are three measured exceptions to inter-civ and general balance.

I did read the OP, my lack of understanding of why one would nerf Zamburaks like this was actually not for lack of reading your words. Just the "well I looked at the numbers completely independently of how the civ plays and any games we've seen of it and decided it seemed too good" did not aid me with understanding why this would be a good idea. Looking at India currently and thinking that a good change would be to make it so making Sepoy is relatively stronger than an alternative (in the case alternative anti-cav in the Zamburak) just seems odd to me.

The feedback point on civ strength is genuinely helpful though, I had taken the general view to be to the contrary but I guess my data for this point was out of date or otherwise unrepresentative.

Yea, it doesn't even nerf India in 1v1 since noone hardly makes zams lol.

[Garja]

It does nerf India, probably too much. 30% -> 20% is ok, but the range thing is not. It's also an exception which isn't consistent with other goons design. It is only consistent with gurkha design which is an exception itself, a forced one since it is strictly because of balance (to compensate somewhat the opness of having musk+skirm in colonial).
Considering that 8% ->10% shipment penalty is also a huge nerf, India will be perceived as a weak civ and probably in fact one of the weakest after so many nerfs.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea, India isn't even that strong.

[Hazza54321]

Kappa

[Garja]

It is strong but it is going to receive huge nerfs. I mean, 8 to 10% shipment nerf is straight up deciding that its penaly has to be the same as German one.

[Mitoe]

Yeah, from my experience so far with India/Brit it seems like these changes only make the civs feel clunky and unrewarding to play. Would like to see these reverted.

I personally don't think fast age should be reverted--not yet anyway (although maybe 45 seconds?). I would really like to see how buffing slow age from 110 seconds to 100 seconds would do in tandem with this change: I feel like it would open the door for a wider variety of strategies in a similarly wide variety of situations, and I don't think it's as hard to balance as it sounds, either.

I think it's also apparent that the Teepee change probably needs to be reverted and alternative solutions sought out: this has been changed every patch since its inception and still doesn't feel balanced nor function as originally intended.

As opposed to any other nerf to these two civilizations? In isolation, reverting them seems unacceptable to balance.

As for buffing default Fortress Age age-times, it's riskier (especially combined), and not within the current scope of EP6. It's certainly worth considering for future, releases, though. The same goes for Sioux. We're trying to keep changes to a minimum, remember?

I don't think it's unacceptable to revert those changes. Civ balance is pretty close at the moment, and we can just focus on improve the weaker civilizations instead.

As for Sioux: most people have been complaining about this design choice for a few iterations of EP already, and it's proven difficult to balance and predict. Plus it doesn't even function as originally intended: which was to emphasize Sioux's "nomadic" playstyle. Looking for an alternative seems reasonable. How long should we sit on a change that clearly isn't working balance-wise nor functioning as intended?

[zoom]

India : house + sepoy + zamb + shipment xp different.
German : Not a single age2 unit is the same, bow/pik cost, dopp and ulhan hp, and add this the different age up time to age3
And i wont speak about the infamous sioux.
Are you guys sure that stacking changes like this is good for the patch ?

I mean, how we're going to make the meta more interesting by stacking change like this ? it wont change the semi ff meta.
We'll just change the way some civ are played. The meta is more and more greedy af because of the map way more than the original civ design and change, people tend to play always more economic and its normal when you can sit in base with hunt until 15min, so ofc we have a lot of semi ff, wall and others defensive play style. You can nerf the semi ff of a civ, its going to buff the semi ff of another civ like its the case with these new changes.

There is no intention of changing the semi-ff meta, and I largely agree with your comments on the meta. For this patch, the intention is a limited inter-civ balance update with a few notable exceptions (harmless crossbowman & pikeman buffs to allow for testing; Fortress-age fast age nerfs to one of the most overpowered features in the game).

Briefly, on the general topic of change:

Although I agree, as far as EP is concerned, that no change is – by default – preferable to change, expecting any kind of balance to change without balance changes is overly optimistic, to me. At this point, some change is unquestionably a good thing, and “change is bad” isn’t an acceptable reason to abstain from improvement. What changes to make (or not), is up for debate.

[zoom]

Do you also try to explain to your maths teacher that maths don't make sense ? Because honestly you wouldn't look more stupid than you do right now.

Saying "all the changes are shit" is not a productive way to get different ones. The civil discussion about Shogun on the previous page appears to have worked quite well, on the other hand.

However, I felt that "Show some respect. It would be a shame if you ended up like the frog prince." wasn't a particularly respectful response either. The fact that basically no party in the discussion is willing to be respectful of one another is why these sorts of discussions continue to escalate to hostility. Everyone deserves a bit of respect

I can’t help being a bad person. it’s just the way garja made me – not at all in his own image.

Please excuse this disproportionate, indefensible, serious and unwarranted transgression. why won't I ever treat anyone with respect!? woe is me!

[pingiu]

I Thing that ep has a good balance but first of all ist made for the top Players and secondly the lower Level Players cant Play the strategys they see in the tourney becouse
the Patches are to different, wich Costs us viwers and ep Players.

[Imperial Noob]

As for Sioux: most people have been complaining about this design choice for a few iterations of EP already, and it's proven difficult to balance and predict. Plus it doesn't even function as originally intended: which was to emphasize Sioux's "nomadic" playstyle. Looking for an alternative seems reasonable. How long should we sit on a change that clearly isn't working balance-wise nor functioning as intended?

Maybe Sioux could have a button that dismantles a building and returns resources spent. Like the consulate "end relations".
Vills would move more freely because of a portable warhut, teepees would be worth it even back as a military buff... Sioux could raze their own buildings if threatened, at the cost of them taking x2 siege damage in the meantime... (flexible native rushes, TPs...)

Something outside the box

[Garja]

We tried that already in very first EP. It has technical issues and in hindsight is just too unorthodox.

[zoom]

Am I being super dense or is Bastion doubling wall build time not listed anywhere here? (Perhaps it is listed elsewhere or in a previous set of notes as alluded to by Garja).

It isn't in the beta, so it isn't listed as being in the beta.

[zoom]

...

How long should we sit on a change that clearly isn't working balance-wise nor functioning as intended?

At least until you, personally, stop insisting on minimizing the scope of the patch update. Outside of that, probably until EP7 or EP8.

[zoom]

From the OP (which contains explanations for all changes):

"Completely disregarding its Colonial Age availability and improvement shipments, the Zamburak is an exceptional unit, from a statistical point of view. These changes should abate Zamburak overperformance in Colonial and Fortress Ages, while helping the unit in the late-game, in the vein of the Gurkha. As well, this change is disproportionately beneficial to team-game balance."

Other than that, the change helps nerf Indians.

According to feedback, Aztecs and Chinese are both considered weaker than Japanese. As well, the buffs to Chinese are slight. Again, currently looking into recent feedback for an upcoming beta update.

EP might start making substantial changes to the game, in future updates. For now, there are three measured exceptions to inter-civ and general balance.

I did read the OP, my lack of understanding of why one would nerf Zamburaks like this was actually not for lack of reading your words. Just the "well I looked at the numbers completely independently of how the civ plays and any games we've seen of it and decided it seemed too good" did not aid me with understanding why this would be a good idea. Looking at India currently and thinking that a good change would be to make it so making Sepoy is relatively stronger than an alternative (in the case alternative anti-cav in the Zamburak) just seems odd to me.

The feedback point on civ strength is genuinely helpful though, I had taken the general view to be to the contrary but I guess my data for this point was out of date or otherwise unrepresentative.

First, that isn't the case. Second, it is a slight nerf to the civilization in 1 Vs 1 and a moderate nerf to it in team games. That's all. Third: Some of the Zamburak changes are being reverted for the imminent update.

[ListlessSalmon]

Am I being super dense or is Bastion doubling wall build time not listed anywhere here? (Perhaps it is listed elsewhere or in a previous set of notes as alluded to by Garja).

It isn't in the beta, so it isn't listed as being in the beta.

Agreed, I was responding to ede and confused as to whether I was missing something as he quoted something saying this.

Bastion doubles wall build time.

I think it's bad game design to have one upgrade also have a negative effect. An upgrade should be what the name suggests: an upgrade (and yes, I know that there are unique church "improvements" that also have negative effects)
...

[zoom]

And so was the manor build time.
Besides, do we even need fast age change when all fast age civs are nerfed and slow aging civs are already better?

We definitely do not need it. It's just highly desirable. It's bad for the game when only one option, among many, is viable.

This needs citation or logic..

It already has the latter.
#EPlogic