ESOCommunity

Ah okay didn't read that /sarcasm tag my bad

Cometk wrote:

princeofcarthage wrote:

Cometk wrote:I, too, agree that most of the games content should be unusable garbage

why, why make unusable garbage in first place then, if you dont want diversity fine but dont steal from others.

I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

The issue is that by doing that, all the civs end up being the same.

Currently China is very strong in age3 but weak in age2, that makes it a ff civ.
Buff the colonial units and it will become another semi ff civ.

Kinda sucks when an entire civilization is reduced to one strategy

from bad players vision I dont understand why change chinese

Cometk wrote:Kinda sucks when an entire civilization is reduced to one strategy

There are many variations of the FF it's not only one strategy.

As long as the FF isn't nerfed china can still pull it off consistently, even after a buff to colonial. EP shouldn't be too intrusive, i agree, but increasing options is mostly beneficial from my perspective. China should still be a FF civ but staying in colonial shouldn't mean autolose for them.

Anyway the mono-strategy civ problem is more relevant with civs like dutch than china imo.

on EP, the option "enable friend or foe colors" doesn't work anymore, at least not for me. can it be fixed? It works if i turn it on off in game, but when I start a game with the option turned on, it doesn't automatically start with friend foe colors.

Or just alt f, that's the hotkey for it anyway

Ive realised your problem with china.
Its melee + ranged cav beats the cav which makes its semi ff stronger than any other euro civ. I guess?

Cometk wrote:I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

Accusing me (of all people) of this is laughable. I am just against completely changing one card in some random direction while other cards could be made useful with just slight tweaks to their numbers or changes consistent with what other civs get from similar cards:
9 holcans => 12 holcans etc. to match the tiger claws value
Euro church techs granting a church wagon like the Asian ones do, etc.

Imperial Noob wrote:

Cometk wrote:I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

Accusing me (of all people) of this is laughable. I am just against completely changing one card in some random direction while other cards could be made useful with just slight tweaks to their numbers or changes consistent with what other civs get from similar cards:
9 holcans => 12 holcans etc. to match the tiger claws value
Euro church techs granting a church wagon like the Asian ones do, etc.

Why are you of all people impervious to critique?

Riotcoke wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:

Cometk wrote:I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

Accusing me (of all people) of this is laughable. I am just against completely changing one card in some random direction while other cards could be made useful with just slight tweaks to their numbers or changes consistent with what other civs get from similar cards:
9 holcans => 12 holcans etc. to match the tiger claws value
Euro church techs granting a church wagon like the Asian ones do, etc.

Why are you of all people impervious to critique?

Because I was one of the few returning posters in every other grenadier, nat and obscure card thread, who commented on the indifference of ESOC team members towards various change propositions for the past 3 years.

Imperial Noob wrote:

Riotcoke wrote:

Show hidden quotes

Imperial Noob wrote:

Cometk wrote:I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

Accusing me (of all people) of this is laughable. I am just against completely changing one card in some random direction while other cards could be made useful with just slight tweaks to their numbers or changes consistent with what other civs get from similar cards:
9 holcans => 12 holcans etc. to match the tiger claws value
Euro church techs granting a church wagon like the Asian ones do, etc.

Why are you of all people impervious to critique?

Because I was one of the few returning posters in every other grenadier, nat and obscure card thread, who commented on the indifference of ESOC team members towards various change propositions for the past 3 years.

What do you mean by ESOC team members?

Riotcoke wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:

Show hidden quotes

Riotcoke wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:

Cometk wrote:I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

Accusing me (of all people) of this is laughable. I am just against completely changing one card in some random direction while other cards could be made useful with just slight tweaks to their numbers or changes consistent with what other civs get from similar cards:
9 holcans => 12 holcans etc. to match the tiger claws value
Euro church techs granting a church wagon like the Asian ones do, etc.

Why are you of all people impervious to critique?

Because I was one of the few returning posters in every other grenadier, nat and obscure card thread, who commented on the indifference of ESOC team members towards various change propositions for the past 3 years.

What do you mean by ESOC team members?

That's who had the power to change something whole this time but didn't take the will to change further, into first echelon discussions. It feels weird when a violet shirt tells me that I am a reactionary.

Imperial Noob wrote:

Riotcoke wrote:

Show hidden quotes

Imperial Noob wrote:

Riotcoke wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:

Cometk wrote:I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

Accusing me (of all people) of this is laughable. I am just against completely changing one card in some random direction while other cards could be made useful with just slight tweaks to their numbers or changes consistent with what other civs get from similar cards:
9 holcans => 12 holcans etc. to match the tiger claws value
Euro church techs granting a church wagon like the Asian ones do, etc.

Why are you of all people impervious to critique?

Because I was one of the few returning posters in every other grenadier, nat and obscure card thread, who commented on the indifference of ESOC team members towards various change propositions for the past 3 years.

What do you mean by ESOC team members?

Because that's who had the power to change something whole this time. It feels weird when a violet shirt tells me that I am a reactionary.

Yes, but who, i assume you just mean the EP team, which is Zoi only and used to be GS.

Riotcoke wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:

Show hidden quotes

Riotcoke wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:

Riotcoke wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:

Cometk wrote:I was being a bit of a sarcastic dickhead to the commenter above me.

I like changes that make useless content useful in a tasteful way. Unfortunately it seems there are a lot of players who are content with 65% of cards and 30% of units being mostly unviable.

Accusing me (of all people) of this is laughable. I am just against completely changing one card in some random direction while other cards could be made useful with just slight tweaks to their numbers or changes consistent with what other civs get from similar cards:
9 holcans => 12 holcans etc. to match the tiger claws value
Euro church techs granting a church wagon like the Asian ones do, etc.

Why are you of all people impervious to critique?

Because I was one of the few returning posters in every other grenadier, nat and obscure card thread, who commented on the indifference of ESOC team members towards various change propositions for the past 3 years.

What do you mean by ESOC team members?

Because that's who had the power to change something whole this time. It feels weird when a violet shirt tells me that I am a reactionary.

Yes, but who, i assume you just mean the EP team, which is Zoi only and used to be GS.

The two rarely if ever descended to such conversations. Much less to express support. If they did, changes would have happened gradually, over the past years. It's not that it takes years to come up with the idea of adding more resource value to some cards and see what happens. It was ill will from the beginning, which only recently disappeared. Other staff members held the line by being conservative and defensive about EP minimalism. (not all, see: Edeholland, Interjection, MrBramboy(IIRC)). That's why the newest patch was such a refreshment.

P.S. If you say that no-one had power to challenge the legislative for being too conservative, then why was that topic not brought up in the staff discord, etc.?

So you're complaining about people who don't make the decisions not implementing them, nice.

Riotcoke wrote:Or just alt f, that's the hotkey for it anyway

or just read the post... i say it works if you turn it on in game, aka with alt-f. but it should automatically turn on with the option. Theres an automated button for a reason... so i dont have to press alt-f every fucking game...

Cometk wrote:Kinda sucks when an entire civilization is reduced to one strategy

But hasn't China been reduced to a one strategy civ because Old Han got nerfed? Almost no one FI's anymore with them. They were unique because of these options, instead everyone is complaining they are one dimensional and now wants to standardise them even more by giving them less age 2 weaknesses. Just seems to me, if you were a new player who loved China on RE and you heard about EP and decided to give it a try and you go to play China, you would find it looking completely different than what you knew and loved.

China is still probably one of the best civs to FI with, if not the very best civ. And the chinese FF is just as strong as on re if the meteor hammer nerf (of EP 7 Beta) gets removed (and you don't consider the livestock fattening nerf).

wardyb1 wrote:

Cometk wrote:Kinda sucks when an entire civilization is reduced to one strategy

But hasn't China been reduced to a one strategy civ because Old Han got nerfed? Almost no one FI's anymore with them. They were unique because of these options, instead everyone is complaining they are one dimensional and now wants to standardise them even more by giving them less age 2 weaknesses. Just seems to me, if you were a new player who loved China on RE and you heard about EP and decided to give it a try and you go to play China, you would find it looking completely different than what you knew and loved.

Not really. The FI is stronger on EP because the maps have more resources in base. You mostly couldn’t afford to ship old Han reforms in RE very early anyways (unless it was an insane livestock map), you rely on the power of the academy for the Skirm and crows, the rattan shields, and the infinite crow shipment.

usually you could. and the res in base were usually fine on re maps too. But in any case, you don't send old han as first card, you first ship 2x 21 bow and pike and then old hon, most of the time. Old han is more of a prolonged industrial plan, rather than ship 1 IV shipment and then timing push kinda thing. EP FI is still strong, but you could do that type of FI on RE as well, and I sometimes did in some mu's. Not having a viable old han definitely takes away from China's strategic depth. At the same time, it was definitely too strong once you stabilized and got production going. But now it's just useless. Hopefully a middle ground will be found at some point.

FI definetely more viable on EP let's be real.
As for old han it's not like now it's terrible that you can't FI for it.

Either way china FI is easily one of the strongest, regardless of old han, and we still see quite a lot of them tbh. Mitoe, umeu, lukas sometimes go FI with china, among other players.

Yep, but still, you shouldn't even have old han in your deck.