EP 7.1.x Beta [RELEASED-LIVE]

[WickedCossack]

Not that it is a big deal but not having stagecoach LOS is surely preferable to having it? Random RNG that the wagon comes along and scouts your raid since you can't see the wagon is a bit dumb. Its not like the guy with 4/5 tps on any cross tp map like high plains and arizona etc needs extra LOS anyways.

If anything the LOS benefits the person playing against the stagecoach boom. As long as they have 1 TP they get a lot of information, whereas the person who has the whole line doesn't really get much additional information. Isn't that healthy counterplay?

Overall though I just feel this change is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, as Kaiser said. I don't really see any big balance implications, which is the reason I would prefer to scrap the change rather than keep it.

Not nitpicking for the sake of it btw, it's the only thing I had an opinion on and posted for EP7 outside of promoting nerfing brit cons. I brought it up here last year as the first post: viewtopic.php?f=724&t=18244&p=392301#p392301.

With tournies moving to all TP maps and there are some MU's where you can't hold a TP as the defensive civ I really am not a fan of the RNG LOS train. Different things are important to different people, not nitpicking ...

[Mr_Bramboy]

Why doesn’t that fix cease fire? It seems like the best solution possible. Doesn’t affect the defensive aspect from saving vils but limits Offensive use.

Probably because it nerfs ceasefire into the ground. Why would you ever use ceasefire now if your opponent is guaranteed to run away? The defensive aspect is still there, but the defensive aspect of the Taj Majal is severely outclassed by Charminar and ToV. The old ceasefire obviously had its flaws and I believe nerfing the duration would be a logical point to start.

[n0el]

Well, weren’t most people arguing before 7 that it should be nerfed such that it wasn’t an offensive ability? I agree, if it’s still meant to have an offensive usage then 15% is too much.

[EAGLEMUT]

Let's just try reducing the duration of the ceasefire instead and see what happens.

The old ceasefire obviously had its flaws and I believe nerfing the duration would be a logical point to start.

The duration has already been nerfed, so I find these statements quite confusing
Are you suggesting to keep the current duration nerf, and revert all speed debuffs? Or you want duration nerfed even further?

[Mitoe]

Ah wait I thought it was the same as it is now where it decreases the speed of both player’s militaries. If it’s only India’s then I guess that makes sense.

[EAGLEMUT]

This is an update to an ongoing Beta version of the ESOC Patch. You can find combined changelog of current Beta here.




EP 7.1.0.0 Beta2 [2019-12-30]
changelog since EP 7.1.0.0 Beta1
unless specified otherwise, game changes apply to all of ESOC Patch / ESOC Treaty Patch

Bug fixes
- Planned (unstarted) building foundations are now immune to damage.

ESOC Patch balance changes
Comments by @zoom, in italic.

General
– Stagecoach (unit) line of sight decreased from 15 to 5
"In some cases, Stagecoach scouting causes significant disruption to balance and gameplay, alike; whether or not an improved Trade Route is fully controlled by a single team, it exceedingly and variably punishes or rewards map control. For instance, a central Trade Route perpendicular to game flow (Garja bless the ghost of H2O) – such as that on High Plains – probably shouldn't render scouting obsolete, revealing any enemy army movement to whomever has a Trading Post. Likewise, a Trade Route with an in-base Trading Post probably shouldn't reveal all army movement of the player with the incentive to research Stagecoach (I.E map control). Beyond limiting these risks, placing greater emphasis on awareness and positioning to deny or gain scouting information, this change also adds value to the underwhelming at best "Iron Horse" ('train') improvement, which now provides greater benefit."

Chinese
– Village cost reduced from 200w to 190w; bounties adjusted accordingly
"This change will help ease the civilization's transition to dynamic ("random") starting crates, which some players have expressed concern about. It seems especially sensible, in the context of other changes (such as the banner army tweaks and British Allies nerf). The neat thing about a Village cost buff (as long as it isn't excessive), is that it is less beneficial to TP opening builds, which many players consider stronger, nowadays, thus helping the civilization out more on its weaker starts, than its stronger ones. I am confident that this change will have no significant adverse effects on balance"

– Imperial Army train-time decreased from 33s to 29s
"This change is buffing Imperial Army (3 Arquebusiers and 2 Iron Flails) train-time, simply to the point where it is no longer disproportionately and punitively long, compared to the other Fortress Age armies."

– Mongolian Army moved from War Academy to Castle; removed from Summer Palace [revert]
– Black Flag Army moved from War Academy to Castle; removed from Summer Palace [revert]
"There is some concern, among players, that Mongolian Army (2 Keshiks and 2 Steppe Riders) and Brooken Flag Army (4 Changdao and 2 Meteor Hammers) are problematic. Although I'm so far unconvinced that either army is inherently unbalanced, even at the War Academy—and would personally favor nerfing their cost and train-time, before opting for these more drastic and limiting options—based on continued evaluation of feedback, we'll be making a great leap forward in the five-year-plan for testing them—moving both back to the Castle, preemptively. While I do think that this makes for a reasonable compromise between the objectives of the changes (especially as it helps, indirectly, the viability of training artillery units), and risk mitigation, it also presents a good opportunity to reiterate that, in order to arrive at the right conclusion, we must properly test whether our assumptions are correct, before deciding that they are. Please try to keep that general sentiment in mind, as we look forward to the Winter event, with excitement!"

Portuguese
– Organ Gun packing time decreased from 2s to 1.5s; unpacking time increased from 1s to 1.5s
"This tweak is intended to avoid undesirable risk, related to the triple-buff to the unit."


Credits

- @Kevsoft for his work on UHC2 (prevent damage to planned building foundations)

[chris1089]

"great leap forward in the five-year-plan." Is this a deliberate, ironic reference to Communist China and soviet economic reforms of the 1920s?

painfully deliberate as you just had to ask

Sorry, I underestimated you.

[n0el]

I really still don’t see the point of the 190 w village. It doesn’t do anything to help the coin start and just make it’s a messy number in general.

[zoom]

Also, can we stop making arguments using an equivalent wood per coin? That is so irrelevant as a way of looking at things in practice. This kind of theory crafting only serves to back people's arguments without actually examining the practical implications.

I mean, we could, if we want to arrive at conclusions that are more inaccurate (in practice). If you get 100f instead of 100w, you are effectively ~40w's worth of vill-seconds worse off. What about that fact, do you find practically irrelevant – what practical implications are being missed?

I said coin. Food and wood equivalency are different, because in age 1 for China (as an example) coin is meaningless. In theory, 100c = some amount of wood, yes. In practice they aren’t equal, because in order for them to be equal you must trade them at the market. If I trade them at the market, it means I have to make a market which costs 100w. So if I have a 200w start, I spend 100w on a market, now I trend 125 c for wood I’m at a break even point. For European or TWC civs this is fine, because it’s now a relatively easy transition to get to an upgrade they prefer in age 1, hunting dogs. For Japan or China, that isn’t the case. It means you are giving up a TP or a villager or a shrine for 5% gathering.

I see. My bad! I completely agree with you; the coin start is worth less for Chinese, for example, than most other civilizations.

Where did you see such an argument, though?

[zoom]

Not that it is a big deal but not having stagecoach LOS is surely preferable to having it? Random RNG that the wagon comes along and scouts your raid since you can't see the wagon is a bit dumb. Its not like the guy with 4/5 tps on any cross tp map like high plains and arizona etc needs extra LOS anyways.

Exactly; that's why I think this change will be good.

[zoom]

For me at this point it's just part of the game... I've become used to avoiding having vils/buildings stuff/bringing units too close to the tp line. You can basically always dodge the wagon lol. I think you guys are nitpicking honestly.

Pretty much this. Removing it seems drastic and excessive. We should only remove it if there is no acceptable alternative.

[zoom]

190w village is the most ugliest thing since sandals over socks

A building in AoE3 doesn't cost whole hundreds of resources, anymore – beauty is dead to me, now! Thank Garja it's not something atrocious, like 125w ; that would be the end of the world, as we know it!

I'd love to revert it, if players consider it undesirable, in the future.

[Hazza54321]

190w village is the most ugliest thing since sandals over socks

A building in AoE3 doesn't cost whole hundreds of resources, anymore – beauty is dead to me, now! Thank Garja it's not something atrocious, like 125w ; that would be the end of the world, as we know it!

I'd love to revert it

then why change it in the first place

[n0el]

I just don't understand what it accomplishes? If it is meant to buff the coin start, it just leaves you 10 w in your bank. Great buff.

[zoom]

Not that it is a big deal but not having stagecoach LOS is surely preferable to having it? Random RNG that the wagon comes along and scouts your raid since you can't see the wagon is a bit dumb. Its not like the guy with 4/5 tps on any cross tp map like high plains and arizona etc needs extra LOS anyways.

If anything the LOS benefits the person playing against the stagecoach boom. As long as they have 1 TP they get a lot of information, whereas the person who has the whole line doesn't really get much additional information. Isn't that healthy counterplay?

Overall though I just feel this change is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, as Kaiser said. I don't really see any big balance implications, which is the reason I would prefer to scrap the change rather than keep it.


On other changes, I think that villages should not be changed. That's just asking for trouble and feels very unnatural.

– Taj Mahal "Cease Fire" ability no longer halves all military unit speed; instead decreases user's military unit speed by 15% for its duration

This doesn't really fix anything from the previous patch or the current change. Let's just try reducing the duration of the ceasefire instead and see what happens.

It's not that simple; it's situational. However, in any situation, I would argue it's currently problematic. I don't have an opinion on whether the one situation you focus on is healthy counter-play – you could just as well argue that it isn't (why should map control and upgrading Stagecoach be penalized any more than giving the player without map control the same benefit per TP?) – I just think that the current line of sight is detrimentally excessive, and further serves to undesirably marginalize the Iron Horse (train) improvement.

After considering and discussing it, with a few players, I rather think that the Cease Fire change has potential. Certainly, it does fix several things, compared to the current change:

"Also addressing concerns about walling exploitation and the risk of sieging shipment points, this change goes even further in addressing the offensive usage of the ability, while being far less intrusive (particularly to non-users). In addition, it makes triggering the ability more of a consideration, and rewards a correct, early response."

Undoubtedly, you can agree with one or more of those points.

Villages costing 190w won't cause any "trouble", as far as civilization performance goes. Feelings are highly subjective, but I can't say I share yours, in this case.

Ultimately, let's see whether players find these changes worthwhile, then reconsider. Until then, there shouldn't be any significant issues with them.

[n0el]

I agree they won't cause any trouble. But why change it for the sake of opinion? Seems like a change to make a change, rather than one that has meaningful outcomes.

[zoom]

I just don't understand what it accomplishes? If it is meant to buff the coin start, it just leaves you 10 w in your bank. Great buff.

I think you still misunderstand the implications of this change, and dynamic ("random") starting crates. Let me try again:

On a "coin start" (100f, 100c, since 100c has been removed; and ignoring the coin crate itself, as we clearly both agree that you should, when considering Discovery Age), you are currently down approximately 40w, compared to a wood start (since that's the equivalent of Villager work that you lose out on, when replacing a wood crate with a food crate). If Villages cost 190w, and you build two of them, you will be down approximately 20w, compared to a wood start. Incidentally, note how the same logic applies to the 100f start.

Thus, it should make the civilization half as negatively impacted by these starts, as it currently is. Wood starts, on the other hand, will save half the amount, on TP maps, provided that players will still build a TP, which I am confident will remain the option of choice.

[n0el]

Please show me replays where you age up with 17 vils and build two villages on a coin start, without getting significant treasures.

[Garja]

On 100f 100g you're actually netting some extra resources compared to the fixed 300w. This at the moment you click for fortress age.
However in age1 you are down about 40w (the difference between 100w and 100f) so you age up slightly slower, in case you chop for village/TP.
Alternatively you can decide to skip the TP and build it in transition. This way you age up sooner to colo but you net less XP.

[n0el]

you cant build a TP in age 1 without a massive wood treasure. you can build two villages, but you are up 1 vil slower which is a massive disadvantage.

[zoom]

I agree they won't cause any trouble. But why change it for the sake of opinion? Seems like a change to make a change, rather than one that has meaningful outcomes.

At this point, I'll assume that this no longer applies to the Village cost buff, that it has never applied to the Taj Mahal change, and that it applies only to the Stagecoach change, in which case I would ask you to read the comments I wrote, in the OP (please correct me if any of these assumptions are mistaken).

Quite literally, the only changes in this update, whose primary concern is popular opinion, are moving Mongolian Army and Black Flag Army back to the Castle.

[zoom]

190w village is the most ugliest thing since sandals over socks

A building in AoE3 doesn't cost whole hundreds of resources, anymore – beauty is dead to me, now! Thank Garja it's not something atrocious, like 125w ; that would be the end of the world, as we know it!

I'd love to revert it

then why change it in the first place

Because I think it's good, for the reasons I've explained in some detail, both elsewhere and ITT. Reverting changes is good, by default, so like with any other change that proves unwarranted, I'm happy to revert it, at that time.

[Garja]

you cant build a TP in age 1 without a massive wood treasure. you can build two villages, but you are up 1 vil slower which is a massive disadvantage.

You can build the TP (after one village) bit it's barely better than waiting for transition.
As for the extra village I doubt you age one whole vill later. It should be roughly 10-15 secs slower. In any case aging later is not a big deal in many MUs.

[Cometk]

190w villages or 180w or however you have it is not a negligible buff, it's actually really nice. just consider the difference small changes like 140w manors and 125f cdb had to brits and french

i agree however that 190w in particular is super ugly

[n0el]

you cant build a TP in age 1 without a massive wood treasure. you can build two villages, but you are up 1 vil slower which is a massive disadvantage.

You can build the TP (after one village) bit it's barely better than waiting for transition.
As for the extra village I doubt you age one whole vill later. It should be roughly 10-15 secs slower. In any case aging later is not a big deal in many MUs.

it is because your 3 vil shipment is later (treasure dependent of course). and ya, i guess you could build a TP in late age 1, but you are right, its just bad.