EP 7.0.x Beta [RELEASED-LIVE]

[zoom]

I cant understand how any of this is standardizing.

It is by definition standardizing since your aim, as you repeatedly said, is alleviating weaknesses (not eliminating them!) which by definition lessens the differences between civs, i.e. china has a very bad colonial now. By buffing their colonial units, that weakness will be less pronounced and China will have less deviation from other Civs Colonial, which in the end results in the Civs being closer together in terms of Colonial Strength. Same with buffing Coyote shipment for example. By buffing 5 Coyote you make Aztecs more like other Civs, in the regard that its weakness ("bad colonial cav shipment") is less pronounced and more in line with the standard 3 Hussar shipment.

1. Motivation – while very important, in general – is irrelevant to whether something is standardizing, in particular.

2. The motivation is neither to buff the civilization, nor eliminate weaknesses of it. The motivation is only to remove the most severe cases of primary game content marginalization. Unless this has inherent balance issues (again, ones which cannot be solved by buffs or nerfs), it is indefensible and unacceptable to tolerate such a sad state of the game.

3. Although it is true that removing weaknesses might be considered standardizing, it's arguable whether these changes remove any weaknesses, other than that to heavy cavalry, in the late-game, to begin with. Also arguably, that were a standardization worth making. In a strategy game, not being able to counter something, on such a fundamental level, is problematic, to say the least. The point is that such weaknesses are bad for the game, both in terms of balance, content, and game-play – regardless of whether they're standardization. Ultimately, I'm more interested in practicalities than technicalities and absolutist principles, to the point of significant detriment.

4. Improving the variety of meaningful options, is the opposite of standardizing, and much more significant than the above. So there's that!

5. Entirely for the record, the "5 Coyote Runners" shipment was reverted in the recent update, to the beta. The reason for this, is that it might be going too far, combined with the other, related changes.

[zoom]

Just generally speaking without any judgement by me: People in the beta forums have made points as for why they think those changes are not good. The problem in the communication seems to be, that you are expecting arguments as to why they are bad changes balance-wise, while the players are arguing against the thesis above that in the logical hierarchy: That more intra-civ-balance is desirable in the first place, which you seemingly are assuming from the get-go, while some of the posters in that forum disagree. This leads to both parties being frustrated by the lack of understanding of ones position, since you aren't really discussing the same common thesis.

I apologize if i misinterpreted anyones intentions or arguments, just wanted to share my perception of why the discussion regarding the beta seems a bit fruitless.

I do hold that having fundamental and inherent parts of the game effectively removed from the game is undesirable. It would be irresponsible of me, not to! If I ever see a valid argument against it, I might reconsider. Indeed: Where I see a compelling and convincing case in favor of something, I expect to see the same against it, in order to change my mind. What would you ask of me – willful suspension of disbelief?


Based largely on assumption and emotion, it seems, some players are exaggerating, in general, the significance of the changes to inter-civilization balance. The speculation and testing are both off the charts; in however opposite and unfortunate ways. Certain players are louder and more negative than most. It serves to create a biased representation of reception. Overall, the changes aren't unpopular, so much as they're controversial; they're unpopular with some players. Between a few loudmouths, in particular, they may seem more unpopular than they are. I'm interested in everyone's opinion, and will continue to take it into account, throughout the beta.

I recognize that some players are generally opposed to change, and their opinion is important to me, as any other. Yet, they will have to accept a relative compromise, on their end. It's unfortunate that some players fail to accept (or understand) that only the most serious improvements are being included in the EP7 beta, which is a great compromise; the result of a highly limited prioritization. It's always important to keep things in perspective, and it's hard to do so, with a biased attitude.

Generally speaking, it will take more than assumption of fact, to change my mind. Particularly where there is an attitude of entitlement, such that the instant I don't automatically adopt someone's unsubstantiated opinion, and implement changes to satisfy it, I'm not listening to them – nevermind the fact that the beta was only recently released. By no means is that to say, that I think all players adhere to this attitude, though. That is far from the truth!

Despite current incentive to playtest, with accessibility and significance both at literal peaks, even the numerous top players who are positive, appear unwilling to playtest. It's been the case for years, now. Although mildly disappointing – after all, disappointment prerequisites expectation – and a pity, it remains a surmountable problem, to which I will adapt, if required. For the most part, it's problematic for the players who are negative, in the first place, since it isn't helping their case, more than anything else. Incidentally, those players have the greatest incentive to play-test. Thankfully, these changes are measured—especially after the recent update, and I will continue to minimize any risks relating to them, prior to EP7's release.

Please understand that I am open to changing or even reverting almost any change. I am simply not willing to do so, immediately, based on a few poorly argued opinions. I've no interest in making any rushed decisions, and currently, the assuming of speculation as fact, seems disproportionate to the open-mindedness and testing. I don't think it's any more reasonable to assume knowledge of the exact implications of a change, without testing it, than it is to act as though the initial beta is the same as the final release.

Disclaimer: Please understand that I've yet to catch up with the beta forum, as of the publishing of this post, and view the above as general remarks.

[kami_ryu]

I don't play the game anymore so what I have to say is not important. However, I do not quite fully agree with the approach of this patch.

The changes for China are huge for example. If changes like that are going to take place, then they should be implemented in almost their own patch iteration. I feel like this patch changes too much for a single iteration. I would have thought that fewer changes, just addressing some key issues (what they are, I don't even know) would be a bit better than revamping so many civilizations in one go.

That's just my 2 cents of a layman.

I don't like some changes. Like Yeomen, infinite 8 Mace shipment, 3 Settler Wagon shipments, etc.

That said, this should all be tested honestly and neutrally.

I do really like the Caçadore change.

I don't need a response to my post since I shouldn't really be investing myself in the discussion more.

[zoom]

I don't play the game anymore so what I have to say is not important. However, I do not quite fully agree with the approach of this patch.

The changes for China are huge for example. If changes like that are going to take place, then they should be implemented in almost their own patch iteration. I feel like this patch changes too much for a single iteration. I would have thought that fewer changes, just addressing some key issues (what they are, I don't even know) would be a bit better than revamping so many civilizations in one go.

That's just my 2 cents of a layman.

I don't like some changes. Like Yeomen, infinite 8 Mace shipment, 3 Settler Wagon shipments, etc.

That said, this should all be tested honestly and neutrally.

I do really like the Caçadore change.

I don't need a response to my post since I shouldn't really be investing myself in the discussion more.

I don't agree that they are huge, so much as they are numerous. I do think that they are more or less significant, though. The thing you should consider, is that the vast majority of intra-balance changes, in the current beta, aren't very impactful to inter-civilization balance. Effectively, a small number of changes are being considered, in almost their own patch iteration. Or, at least a lot more so than some seem to think.

Again, the beta is far from final, as of yet.

[[Armag] diarouga]

@zoom
Well again, this is a design patch, not a balance patch tbh.

The balance issues (India, Russia, Iro) weren't really considered and the UP civs (Spain/Port) didn't get the buff they deserved (Port even got nerfed).

There are some nice balance changes ofc (France, Aztec, Japan...) but 70℅ of the changes change the design and thus can't be tested.

[zoom]

It's kinda sad in recent weekend tournaments how Brit has been absent just because they can be hard counter-picked by India or Russia doing the same shit every single game.

The Grenadier might come to have a role to play in that – to a desirable extent, that is.

Cannot wait to start nuking blockhouses with them

They will still break even vs Musketeer-type units, and be countered by ranged infantry (on account of their animation and range), but I do expect the buff to be particularly relevant vs Russians, primarily because of the Strelet's 14 range. An option to consider, in the future, is to buff Grenadier attack, or give the unit a small multiplier vs (heavy or all) infantry, if it proves still underpowered.

[scarm]

I do hold that having fundamental and inherent parts of the game effectively removed from the game is undesirable. It would be irresponsible of me, not to! If I ever see a valid argument against it, I might reconsider. Indeed: Where I see a compelling and convincing case in favor of something, I expect to see the same against it, in order to change my mind. What would you ask of me – willful suspension of disbelief?

Maybe you should make clear why you hold that opinion in the first place then. The way you present it is just like an axiom that is self-evident, while it in reality is just an idelogical question that can't be answered by a clear yes or no, yet you expect people do make counter-arguments to a completely subjective opinion you hold. Yes you make arguments as to why certain changes achieve this goal of making stuff less unviable, but i honestly don't see you making points why that is desireable in the first place. Again, no common ground for discussion.

1. Motivation – while very important, in general – is irrelevant to whether something is standardizing, in particular.

2. The motivation is neither to buff the civilization, nor eliminate weaknesses of it. The motivation is only to remove the most severe cases of primary game content marginalization. Unless this has inherent balance issues (again, ones which cannot be solved by buffs or nerfs), it is indefensible and unacceptable to tolerate such a sad state of the game.

3. Although it is true that removing weaknesses might be considered standardizing, it's arguable whether these changes remove any weaknesses, other than that to heavy cavalry, in the late-game, to begin with. Also arguably, that were a standardization worth making. In a strategy game, not being able to counter something, on such a fundamental level, is problematic, to say the least. The point is that such weaknesses are bad for the game, both in terms of balance, content, and game-play – regardless of whether they're standardization. Ultimately, I'm more interested in practicalities than technicalities and absolutist principles, to the point of significant detriment.

4. Improving the variety of meaningful options, is the opposite of standardizing, and much more significant than the above. So there's that!

5. Entirely for the record, the "5 Coyote Runners" shipment was reverted in the recent update, to the beta. The reason for this, is that it might be going too far, combined with the other, related changes.

1. Generally yes, but not if the aim or motivation ("making Chinas colonial units suck less") is actually achieved or pursued with all matters necessary to be achieved, and if that causes standardization, because that then begs the question of the initial aim being desirable.

2. I know, thats what i said. I said alleviating the weakness and explicitely mentioned that i know you don't intend to eliminate it.
Why is it indefensible? This is no logical reason, just an opinion. Again, it would maybe help your case if you actually explained why you hold this opinion and would not just propose it as a non-falsified hypotheses which is upon its opponents to falsif.

4. Improving the variety of meaningful options within a civ, resulting in all civs being more similar, doesn't in effect have only a positive effect on variety, since the variety inter civs is lessened by this. Hard to measure which effect is greater. And again "much more significant than the above" - who is saying that and why is that. You just assume that you are right about this from the get-go.

edit: Also just to make that clear: I appreciate the time and effort you put into this, and i think you generally speaking have a good sense of which balance changes are too intrusive and which are good.

[Kawapasaka]

Also agree with Garja on the China composition thing. I always thought the banner army mechanic was supposed to be somewhat of a double-edged sword, ultimately giving China a bit of a weakness to hand cav if they throw their anti-cav mass away and don't have any shipments left to re-mass it. And even then they can potentially get creative with mercs or nats.
I never thought that was a particularly big issue in normal sup though, because the game will generally be decided within the duration of China's fortress shipment spam, and beyond that China gets the TAD civ edge once natural res runs out. Removing it is kinda just removing China's composition weakness altogether. Considering the other two TAD civ's respective composition weaknesses (Japan to artillery, India to RI stronger than their own inf) it almost seems tantamount to giving Japan culvs and India falcs (in principle, that is - obviously not quite so extreme in practice).

(this is purely in regards to the black flag thing, I have no opinion on the colonial stuff)

[gamevideo113]

Considering the other two TAD civ's respective composition weaknesses (India to RI stronger than their own inf)

You clearly haven't seen the famous clip of garja's forest prowlers getting molested by somppu's sepoys

[charlemango]

Despite current incentive to playtest, with accessibility and significance both at literal peaks, even the numerous top players who are positive, appear unwilling to playtest. It's been the case for years, now. Although mildly disappointing – after all, disappointment prerequisites expectation – and a pity, it remains a surmountable problem, to which I will adapt, if required. For the most part, it's problematic for the players who are negative, in the first place, since it isn't helping their case, more than anything else. Incidentally, those players have the greatest incentive to play-test. Thankfully, these changes are measured—especially after the recent update, and I will continue to minimize any risks relating to them, prior to EP7's release.

You hit the nail on the head. Nobody is testing the beta (which I'm quite sad about, I was hoping to watch streamers take it up). The reality of the situation is, given that nobody is testing, you simply cannot make all these changes without breaking the game. It took, what, 5 iterations of EP for people to realize Iro was a strong civ, and they were barely even touched. Now imagine 10x the number and impact of changes, it's gonna be a mess.

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

If we're considering wonders a tech, why aren't we considering European and TWC age up politicians/chiefs as technologies?

We are; the tech has always affected Euro/TWC age-ups, which is why it was considered a bug that only TAD wonder age-ups are unaffected on RE.

I understand that the negative costs thing was a bug, but overall I think this should be more of a balance change because it does make the German consulate better to the point that it may be used more frequently.

On this one I agree it is technically both a bugfix and a balance change, since we have altered the effects to something different than originally intended, in order to fix the bug. Same thing with the Old Ways fix or disciple aura fix for example. I dislike the idea of duplicating a change note in both sections, but these types of changes could really fit in either. Right now they're in bugfixes just because the primary reason of changing those effects was fixing the bug, rather than affecting balance (which isn't a super strong argument).

it's not a bug. politicians are techs, wonders are buildings. politicians aren't affected by building discounts, so why would wonders be affected by tech discounts? this seems really unfair.

Because wonders are both buildings and technologies, being age-ups.

eh, no. you research technologies... you build buildings. you don't build politicians, you research them. you build wonders. they're buildings, not technologies. You can't just arbitrarily decide they're technologies because both advance you to the next age.

I cannot decide that, and I do not. AoE3's developers did! In addition to being buildings, wonders – like councils and politicians – are technologies. Disagreeing with that may or may not be reasonable, but a bug-fix it remains, without significant impact on balance.

what is this based on? does it say in the files that they are techs?

can you answer the question?

thanks...

also, please fix sioux bison cards, so they don't wander in front off the TC all the time. idk why they always go in front, but i rarely see them go toward the back of the base lol... just make them herdable, or if thats not possible, make them totally stationary like it was on Nilla.

[Kaiserklein]

Thing is we're busy enough coaching/practicing on the regular ep for the EPL, not really willing to also playtest the beta tbh. I was kinda motivated and did play a few games on beta until my launcher bugged and I couldn't go there anymore

[deleted_user0]

There are too many changes anyway. It would probably better to implement a limited amount of changes to the normal patch and gather feedback from all players, rather than just a few beta testers on a patch that has so many changes its too hard to tell whats going on and give each specific change the attention it deserves.

Also, it's also hard to be motivated to try it out when you often ignore the collective imput of top players, even if evidence is presented in form of recs and other data to show that a change is or isnt required. As is the case with china, for example, where you push changes to fix a problem china doesnt even have. Same with spain and colonial spanish gold...

if you actually want to do something about china for example, remove the siege trooper tag from stepper riders so they dont get completely rekt by mm.

[Cometk]

the thing is is that no evidence is actually being put forward, like diarouga outright refused to provide recs lol

[deleted_user0]

https://clips.twitch.tv/ColdRenownedHawkWOOP

can we do something about this bug...? it's so random, sometimes the guardian attacks the closest thing, sometimes the one which shoots or attacks, sometimes some of the guardians split, one attacking the closest and the other the attacker =_=

[[Armag] diarouga]

the thing is is that no evidence is actually being put forward, like diarouga outright refused to provide recs lol

What?
I provided recs that show (imo) why Iro is Op.
Spain/Port being UP on no ATP/water map is common knowledge.
Same with Russia on no TP, not sure I need evidence for that lol.

Still, nothing was done to fix these balance issues, so tell me, what can I do?

The other changes are design changes (most likely won't affect balance) I heavily dislike.
How am I supposed to provide recs showing why I don't like a design change...

Umeu has a fair point honestly, some of us feel like we're being ignored so I'm not too motivated to play on a beta where half of the changes don't make sense imo.

For half of the top players, China is one of the best designed civ, why change it?
Same with Spanish gold, it's being changed until it becomes a viable option. That shipment is not even in the game, what's the point?

[gamevideo113]

I kinda agree with dia. Despite the fact that i am really happy about increasing options/internal civ balance and i hope to see more of this in the next EP releases, it feels like the target of EP has been shifted perhaps a bit too much.
EP7 beta at the current state feels like 70% is design changes and 30% balance changes, while i think it should be the other way around, granted that some design changes were probably aimed at fixing balance issues.

I think the most evident balance issues at this stage should be tackled before proceeding with further changes to underused content. In no specific order:
-Small nerf to Iro (wc aura and musket rider resist)
-Small nerf to India (house cost)
-Small nerf to Russia (imo 285f vils in 45 seconds and revert rusket)
-Buff to Ports (cassa isn't really a buff and the new crate start is maybe ok but definitely not enough, gunpowder cards to colonial are also ok, imo)
-Buff to Spain (not involving spanish gold)
-(Different nerf to Germany?)
-Buff to Aztecs (in a more traditional way, i guess)

Addressing these issues should also make the players more inclined to playtest the beta.

[Dsy]

This tp notp map differences should be negated first.
I dont believe that map selection reducing civ choices is a good thing.

[gamevideo113]

Just give the XP trickle to the church of every civ and it's ok honestly. Achieving equal balance between all civs on every map is utopic anyway, might as well accept the fact that some civs are weaker than other on some maps, as long as the weakness is reasonable.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I think that the Aztec balance changes are fine. It's probably the only civ with France that was balanced in the patch.
I don't like the design changes however.

[Cometk]

the thing is is that no evidence is actually being put forward, like diarouga outright refused to provide recs lol

What?

referring to this https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... 75#p384175

There's nothing to play test honestly.
You only made small changes so it's not like I can play a game and prove that I won thanks to +1 coyote or +2 attack. I'm complaining about the design.

but you seem to have addressed that here

I think that the Aztec balance changes are fine. It's probably the only civ with France that was balanced in the patch.
I don't like the design changes however.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea but as I said, the balance changes are almost irrelevant and there's nothing to test, the overall balance won't change.
Just Port is unplayable and Aztec not UP anymore.

The point I want to make is that it is impossible to playtest design changes, it's always going to be subjective, which is why they shouldn't be made imo.

[helln00]

I remember in the Napolean era mod, Chinese army shipments would unlock the army at the barracks/war academy. This might be the way to go for the new chinese armies, make it more of a build order choice and not a thing from the start.

There is already a kelisk and steepe rider army, the Beiyang army card. But its a fotress card that cost food and is pretty weak by then. So then move it to colonial, make it unlock the army at the barracks and possibly make it buff them instead of the current Dynasty reform arrangements. This way you don't have to put it into summer palace.

It makes more sense to ensure that the armies are available and balanced, rather than unavailable and unbalanced. I see no reason why the banner armies (especially not the Mongolian one) would be inherently unbalanced (I.E could not be balanced). If that should change, I would consider limiting their availability by technology. Speaking of inherently unbalanced, another reason for the banner-army revamps, that I don't know whether I've mentioned, already, is that artillery—non-artillery banner armies are inherently unbalanced. It also isn't helping that they happen to be featuring Arquebusiers and Keshiks, respectively.

On a related note, I did consider leaving the armies at the Castle (like ASFP did), but apart from limiting their viability, needlessly, it were inconsistent with the Castle training artillery units, which is undesirable, from a development perspective. Once again, I'd only consider such a change, if it proves inherently impossible to have them at the academy, in the first place. The more viable they are, the better (provided they don't cause any balance issues).

While the Keshik/Steppe army is not inherently unbalanced, they change the chinese playstyle in colonial enough that I think they should be a matter of build order, in the same way that old han reforms present a build order choice between skirms and cnk.

If Keshik/Steppe army is to be available from the start, then it should be replacing the the current Ming army, which has always felt like an odd duck to me out of the army compositions, which is always roughly balanced with pike/bow cav/skirm and Cav/goon(cause meteor hammer has goon like effect when fighting with iron flails). The Ming army is the only one that has an explicitly anti cav composition and it makes it a completely unviable choice. Then instead of the Keshik buff, make the beiyang army into a colonial army card that also provides a buff as well.

[edeholland]

the thing is is that no evidence is actually being put forward, like diarouga outright refused to provide recs lol

Perhaps we should require pro's to provide recordings to prove that a change is good instead of proving that a change is bad. I feel like more than half of all discussions are pro's trying to convince people certain changes are not good, instead of convincing people what changes are good.

In most cases, it feels like it's zoom against the world, which is obviously not how it should be. I would like to see those that agree with his changes uploading recordings proving that and those that don't agree suggesting relevant changes (which, I feel like, diarouga is doing).

[Garja]

Well it would be useful to point out at least a couple games where China supposedly need these changes. Because right now the strongest argument for the new banner armies is basically that "China is weak against cav" which is questionable at least.