Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. (*from my experience, some don't even care about TAD) I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Wol and Nera arent looking promising for me personally since they are changing the whole game. Personally i'd like balance the current one. Totally usless units - buff them, totally useless cards - buff them, qol changes, bug fixes. It would be completely like RE but you could use all units (nothing is totally useless). Kinda thats all. It wouldnt even change meta.
Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Wol and Nera arent looking promising for me personally since they are changing the whole game. Personally i'd like balance the current one. Totally usless units - buff them, totally useless cards - buff them, qol changes, bug fixes. It would be completely like RE but you could use all units (nothing is totally useless). Kinda thats all. It wouldnt even change meta.
Well, that's changing the game and it would change the meta lol.
Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Wol and Nera arent looking promising for me personally since they are changing the whole game. Personally i'd like balance the current one. Totally usless units - buff them, totally useless cards - buff them, qol changes, bug fixes. It would be completely like RE but you could use all units (nothing is totally useless). Kinda thats all. It wouldnt even change meta.
Well, that's changing the game and it would change the meta lol.
Not much, just a bit. You would see some times other units. But it would be the same mechanics like skirmishers good vs musks and cav good vs skirms etc. Its just there would be more type of heavy inf, ranged inf, cav, ranged cav etc.
Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Wol and Nera arent looking promising for me personally since they are changing the whole game. Personally i'd like balance the current one. Totally usless units - buff them, totally useless cards - buff them, qol changes, bug fixes. It would be completely like RE but you could use all units (nothing is totally useless). Kinda thats all. It wouldnt even change meta.
Well, that's changing the game and it would change the meta lol.
Not much, just a bit. You would see some times other units. But it would be the same mechanics like skirmishers good vs musks and cav good vs skirms etc. Its just there would be more type of heavy inf, ranged inf, cav, ranged cav etc.
Yes, so by making new units viable you're changing the meta.
Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Wol and Nera arent looking promising for me personally since they are changing the whole game. Personally i'd like balance the current one. Totally usless units - buff them, totally useless cards - buff them, qol changes, bug fixes. It would be completely like RE but you could use all units (nothing is totally useless). Kinda thats all. It wouldnt even change meta.
Well, that's changing the game and it would change the meta lol.
Not much, just a bit. You would see some times other units. But it would be the same mechanics like skirmishers good vs musks and cav good vs skirms etc. Its just there would be more type of heavy inf, ranged inf, cav, ranged cav etc.
Yes, so by making new units viable you're changing the meta.
Not really. I would do it clever way. Calculate cost effectivity and set all useless units under the original units a bit at start. All this means they would be aviable but still weaker than originals. I would call them optional. And slowly push them viable if its necessary. However zero risk on making caos this way.
Dsy wrote:Not really. I would do it clever way. Calculate cost effectivity and set all useless units under the original units a bit at start. All this means they would be aviable but still weaker than originals. I would call them optional. And slowly push them viable if its necessary. However zero risk on making caos this way.
That's why i asked the question: Do we need another patch? indirectly. Everyone would make a different version. Then you have a Dsypatch. If you want to make it, i don't want to disencourage you.
Dsy wrote:Not really. I would do it clever way. Calculate cost effectivity and set all useless units under the original units a bit at start. All this means they would be aviable but still weaker than originals. I would call them optional. And slowly push them viable if its necessary. However zero risk on making caos this way.
Dsy wrote:Not really. I would do it clever way. Calculate cost effectivity and set all useless units under the original units a bit at start. All this means they would be aviable but still weaker than originals. I would call them optional. And slowly push them viable if its necessary. However zero risk on making caos this way.
You are free to make a thread and propose changes
I did it plenty times.
For example: Vet Musket in melee with 15 dmg - cost effectivity 196,8 Vet Halberdier in melee with 25 dmg -cost effectivity 178,96
All this means if you put musket in melee its killing halbs cost effectively. Meanwhile they can shoot + they also do much better vs cav. There is a whole discussion on this. Still nothing happens but its totally obvious thats its totally unfair thats why you never see this unit in this game. And its just an example. There are plenty cases which are even worse i guess.
Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Wol and Nera arent looking promising for me personally since they are changing the whole game. Personally i'd like balance the current one. Totally usless units - buff them, totally useless cards - buff them, qol changes, bug fixes. It would be completely like RE but you could use all units (nothing is totally useless). Kinda thats all. It wouldnt even change meta.
Well, that's changing the game and it would change the meta lol.
Not much, just a bit. You would see some times other units. But it would be the same mechanics like skirmishers good vs musks and cav good vs skirms etc. Its just there would be more type of heavy inf, ranged inf, cav, ranged cav etc.
Yes, so by making new units viable you're changing the meta.
Not really. I would do it clever way. Calculate cost effectivity and set all useless units under the original units a bit at start. All this means they would be aviable but still weaker than originals. I would call them optional. And slowly push them viable if its necessary. However zero risk on making caos this way.
Well, a unit is an option or it is not, you can't be in between. If you buff the unit so that it is still weaker, people won't use it, and if you buff it too much it will change the meta. I'd say that natives and grens are good enough to be "optional" but not good enough to be viable, buff them and it will change the meta.
Dsy wrote:But still there is a reason why not to accept only top players in EP team. You need to make a game for everyone not only for tournament players.
The small playerbase is already quite fragmented, idk who would play the new patch for everyone. (with different meta, cardchanges and gamechanges) A lot of people only want to play the officially supported patch. I talked with a few people about the EP, that's why i think the demand for a new patch would be really low. It probably would become something like Nera and WoL - no games.
Wol and Nera arent looking promising for me personally since they are changing the whole game. Personally i'd like balance the current one. Totally usless units - buff them, totally useless cards - buff them, qol changes, bug fixes. It would be completely like RE but you could use all units (nothing is totally useless). Kinda thats all. It wouldnt even change meta.
Well, that's changing the game and it would change the meta lol.
Not much, just a bit. You would see some times other units. But it would be the same mechanics like skirmishers good vs musks and cav good vs skirms etc. Its just there would be more type of heavy inf, ranged inf, cav, ranged cav etc.
Yes, so by making new units viable you're changing the meta.
Not really. I would do it clever way. Calculate cost effectivity and set all useless units under the original units a bit at start. All this means they would be aviable but still weaker than originals. I would call them optional. And slowly push them viable if its necessary. However zero risk on making caos this way.
Well, a unit is an option or it is not, you can't be in between. If you buff the unit so that it is still weaker, people won't use it, and if you buff it too much it will change the meta. I'd say that natives and grens are good enough to be "optional" but not good enough to be viable, buff them and it will change the meta.
Its not true since there is a counter system. For example the halb could be better than musks fighting vs other infantry, however still worse vs cav and cant shoot. Id say musk is still better however in statistically at least halb would be viable. And in some tactics we could have seen some some times.
EP operates in collaboration with, yet independently of, ESOC. It always has. It's one person's relatively informal initiative. At no point in history has there been any secrecy about this fact. At Goodspeed's request, I am now carrying that initiative forward, to the best of my ability. Community feedback remains indispensible, to this end. Fortunately, the level of communication and inclusion has seen a rise with EP6 – a trend I intend to maintain, moving forward. Speaking of the future, please look forward to underpowered units being buffed this year.
zoom wrote:EP operates in collaboration with, yet independently of, ESOC. It always has. It's one person's relatively informal initiative. At no point in history has there been any secrecy about this fact. At Goodspeed's request, I am now carrying that initiative forward, to the best of my ability. Community feedback remains indispensible, to this end. Fortunately, the level of communication and inclusion has seen a rise with EP6 – a trend I intend to maintain, moving forward. Speaking of the future, please look forward to underpowered units being buffed this year.
A reasonable question. Thank you for asking it!
Mature answer. Thank you!
And i hope you will use the calculators for it. Since numbers dont lie. Even if its critizised by a lot not taking unit drop effect into account (which is true) not calculating overkill either so they compensete each other. And its still much more accurate than guessing. Plus it allows objective decision making instead of subjective. Which is a key in these subjects.
@Dsy people are not guessing but basing their ideas off of 1000s of games of experience which I would consider to be more useful than a calculator which disregards unit speed, range, attack animation and availability
aligator92 wrote:@Dsy people are not guessing but basing their ideas off of 1000s of games of experience which I would consider to be more useful than a calculator which disregards unit speed, range, attack animation and availability
The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Ive a lot of experience also. Started the game in 2013. Still know its usefull and much more accurate than my guessing.
Dsy wrote:The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Dsy wrote:The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Isn't that what they are already doing?
I dont think. I mean just use it to compare: (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack on heavy inf units score 83 vs 83 (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack without multi on units score 83 vs 27
I dont even think people realized that rifle riders actually useless. Since its aimed to counter heavy inf, but doing 100% the same as bow rider just dont get the high damage vs anything else. Probably on this comment they will write "its not accurate and stuffs". Meanwhile if you test it in scenario editor you get these results back. Sure it isnt 100% correct, but very accurate.
Dsy wrote:The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Isn't that what they are already doing?
I dont think. I mean just use it to compare: (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack on heavy inf units score 83 vs 83 (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack without multi on units score 83 vs 27
I dont even think people realized that rifle riders actually useless. Since its aimed to counter heavy inf, but doing 100% the same as bow rider just dont get the high damage vs anything else. Probably on this comment they will write "its not accurate and stuffs". Meanwhile if you test it in scenario editor you get these results back. Sure it isnt 100% correct, but very accurate.
ROFL, Rifle riders aren't even bad units lol. First of all, RR can kite, while brs need to stand and weaker against melee units. In addition, RR are automatically upgraded which makes a big difference when you want to hold a timing. Finally, you're taking the RE stats, and the issue isn't that RR are weak (the unit isn't great but still useful), the issue is that brs are too strong, which is why they got nerfed.
This shows why we don't want to have "calculators", but players who can micro and know how the timing meta works.
Dsy wrote:The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Isn't that what they are already doing?
I dont think. I mean just use it to compare: (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack on heavy inf units score 83 vs 83 (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack without multi on units score 83 vs 27
I dont even think people realized that rifle riders actually useless. Since its aimed to counter heavy inf, but doing 100% the same as bow rider just dont get the high damage vs anything else. Probably on this comment they will write "its not accurate and stuffs". Meanwhile if you test it in scenario editor you get these results back. Sure it isnt 100% correct, but very accurate.
ROFL, Rifle riders aren't even bad units lol. First of all, RR can kite, while brs need to stand and weaker against melee units. In addition, RR are automatically upgraded which makes a big difference when you want to hold a timing. Finally, you're taking the RE stats, and the issue isn't that RR are weak (the unit isn't great but still useful), the issue is that brs are too strong, which is why they got nerfed.
This shows why we don't want to have "calculators", but players who can micro and know how the timing meta works.
I knew all side effects you wrote. But still it means rifle rider is very weak compared to bow rider (on re), and its kinda pointless to make except from initial boost (maybe even then since its better only vs heavy inf) from auto upgrade. It shows everything you need to know. And still have game knowledge dont exclude the using of the calculator. My advise wasnt replace people with robots. It was that players who are balancing units should use it. Its two different things.
Dsy wrote:The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Isn't that what they are already doing?
I dont think. I mean just use it to compare: (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack on heavy inf units score 83 vs 83 (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack without multi on units score 83 vs 27
I dont even think people realized that rifle riders actually useless. Since its aimed to counter heavy inf, but doing 100% the same as bow rider just dont get the high damage vs anything else. Probably on this comment they will write "its not accurate and stuffs". Meanwhile if you test it in scenario editor you get these results back. Sure it isnt 100% correct, but very accurate.
ROFL, Rifle riders aren't even bad units lol. First of all, RR can kite, while brs need to stand and weaker against melee units. In addition, RR are automatically upgraded which makes a big difference when you want to hold a timing. Finally, you're taking the RE stats, and the issue isn't that RR are weak (the unit isn't great but still useful), the issue is that brs are too strong, which is why they got nerfed.
This shows why we don't want to have "calculators", but players who can micro and know how the timing meta works.
I knew all side effects you wrote.
And you deliberately decided to hide them? You're just trying to get the numbers on your side, that's not how you balance a game.
But still it means rifle rider is very weak compared to bow rider (on re), and its kinda pointless to make except from initial boost (maybe even then since its better only vs heavy inf) from auto upgrade.
It might sound obvious, but since we are balancing the EP, we don't care about the RE stats that got changed in the EP. We do know that brs were too good, which is why they got nerfed. Rifle riders aren't an under-used unit at all, you usually want to send the 5 and 4 RR shipments. I even remember games where people went full RR (I think it was prince vs kaiser from the TWC tourney).
It shows everything you need to know.
It does show everything you need to know, but you can't analyse it. For example, how do you value speed or range? Wakinas are weaker than skirmishers but when they got buffed in the EP 5 (something like +1 speed), they became op because it was impossible to catch them with cav lol. Likewise, WW used to be op in nilla because they had 2 more range. The unit animation is also huge. If longbowmen didn't miss and had a nice animation they would be far better than yumis and probably one of the best units in the game, and the unit animation is something you can't just put in a calculator.
And still have game knowledge dont exclude the using of the calculator.
Game knowledge is indeed far more important, but the point is that we don't need a calculator. Thousands of game have shown us how strong the units really are.
My advise wasnt replace people with robots. It was that players who are balancing units should use it. Its two different things.
Your "calculator" isn't accurate at all. It doesn't take the drop off into account iirc. The only way to estimate units strength is to simulate a fight between them.
Anyway, rifle riders just don't have the same use as br, you can't compare them. Rrs are just insane against musk/huss or against melee inf, and good at sniping cannons, but horrible vs everything else (typically you'd never make them vs skirm/goon). And the shipment of 5 rrs is really good. So it's a good unit in early fortress in some mus. Brs are stronger overall but not as good in the cases I mentioned.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Dsy wrote:The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Isn't that what they are already doing?
I dont think. I mean just use it to compare: (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack on heavy inf units score 83 vs 83 (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack without multi on units score 83 vs 27
I dont even think people realized that rifle riders actually useless. Since its aimed to counter heavy inf, but doing 100% the same as bow rider just dont get the high damage vs anything else. Probably on this comment they will write "its not accurate and stuffs". Meanwhile if you test it in scenario editor you get these results back. Sure it isnt 100% correct, but very accurate.
I'm pretty sure RR have higher dps against heavy inf than BR. Did you take ROF into account?
Dsy wrote:The two not excluding each other. You cant base your opinion based on "experience". Sure you can use calculator more useful if you have game experience. There are factors like speed, range, animations which should be also considered. Thats why you give this tool to an experienced player not a beginner who started the game yesterday.
Isn't that what they are already doing?
I dont think. I mean just use it to compare: (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack on heavy inf units score 83 vs 83 (Bow rider vs Rifle rider) attack without multi on units score 83 vs 27
I dont even think people realized that rifle riders actually useless. Since its aimed to counter heavy inf, but doing 100% the same as bow rider just dont get the high damage vs anything else. Probably on this comment they will write "its not accurate and stuffs". Meanwhile if you test it in scenario editor you get these results back. Sure it isnt 100% correct, but very accurate.
You must have made some mistake, I'm pretty sure RR have higher dps against heavy inf than BR. Did you take ROF into account?
And if its 83 and 83 (on RE) im completely up to a scenario test where two units (in villsec cost the same) fighting vs same amoun of musks. They will perform the same.
If you want to make it, i don't want to disencourage you.
I'm pretty sure RR have higher dps against heavy inf than BR. Did you take ROF into account?
)