EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Update: Please see this post and this post for results.
With the Winter Championship concluding earlier this week (my congratulations and gratitude to casters, organizers and players alike – oh, and let's not forget the map makers, for they are the dreamers of dreams), I am now posting another EP balance poll, which will be essential to future patch updates, ideally including the one currently planned for March, which I hope will feature some limited balance improvements. As promised, this poll is more extensive than the last one, which opened just prior to the event.
I strongly suggest that you carefully consider your response. If you ever think that you lack an informed enough opinion, on any given question, please consider abstaining (not responding to that question).
Please note that failure to rank the respective choices on any question asking you to do so will result in your vote on that particular question being more or less non-transferable (I will be using instant-runoff voting for this kind of question), meaning that it may have less influence on the result, depending on how many choices you rank, as well as how other respondents vote. Responses to this kind of question without a first choice are void (meaning that they will be ignored for the given question).
Should you wish to edit your response after submitting it, simply visit the below link while logged into your Google Account, and select "edit your response". Understand that I take respondent confidentiality and privacy seriously, that your Google account name (including e-mail address) is never visible to anyone (myself included), and that your ESOC account name is only visible to me (and Google – and its biggest customers – and the U.S government – and its five to fourteen eyes, presumably; I suppose this would apply to your e-mail address, too. "Your ESO account is only as safe as you want it to be. If you share your account information...").
To avoid outing respondents through their ESOC name or text responses (Google Forms does not allow for the selective exclusion of questions from the visible results), I will be sharing and updating graphics of the results, in the coming weeks.
Like with EP development, in general, I have put a ton of effort into making this poll, and I'm very keen to learn what you make of balance, now that we've more experience of the current patch:
Poll
Please don't hesitate to ask (ITT or via PM) if there is anything in the poll that you don't understand. Thank you for your continued feedback and support!
P.S. Thank you to Cometk, Mutje, Perez and SirCallen for a little bit of feedback and testing!
Update: Please see this post and this post for results.
With the Winter Championship concluding earlier this week (my congratulations and gratitude to casters, organizers and players alike – oh, and let's not forget the map makers, for they are the dreamers of dreams), I am now posting another EP balance poll, which will be essential to future patch updates, ideally including the one currently planned for March, which I hope will feature some limited balance improvements. As promised, this poll is more extensive than the last one, which opened just prior to the event.
I strongly suggest that you carefully consider your response. If you ever think that you lack an informed enough opinion, on any given question, please consider abstaining (not responding to that question).
Please note that failure to rank the respective choices on any question asking you to do so will result in your vote on that particular question being more or less non-transferable (I will be using instant-runoff voting for this kind of question), meaning that it may have less influence on the result, depending on how many choices you rank, as well as how other respondents vote. Responses to this kind of question without a first choice are void (meaning that they will be ignored for the given question).
Should you wish to edit your response after submitting it, simply visit the below link while logged into your Google Account, and select "edit your response". Understand that I take respondent confidentiality and privacy seriously, that your Google account name (including e-mail address) is never visible to anyone (myself included), and that your ESOC account name is only visible to me (and Google – and its biggest customers – and the U.S government – and its five to fourteen eyes, presumably; I suppose this would apply to your e-mail address, too. "Your ESO account is only as safe as you want it to be. If you share your account information...").
To avoid outing respondents through their ESOC name or text responses (Google Forms does not allow for the selective exclusion of questions from the visible results), I will be sharing and updating graphics of the results, in the coming weeks.
Like with EP development, in general, I have put a ton of effort into making this poll, and I'm very keen to learn what you make of balance, now that we've more experience of the current patch:
Poll
Please don't hesitate to ask (ITT or via PM) if there is anything in the poll that you don't understand. Thank you for your continued feedback and support!
P.S. Thank you to Cometk, Mutje, Perez and SirCallen for a little bit of feedback and testing!
Update: Please see this post and this post for results.
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Congrats you once again made EP crafting more complicate than before.
We are basically at a point where the game is deciding EP changes rather than actually playing.
We are basically at a point where the game is deciding EP changes rather than actually playing.
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Why do cassadores Need such big changes like +1 range or 25att with slow rof?
Imo just Keep them as they were and Maybe -10f if they are too weak rn.
Imo just Keep them as they were and Maybe -10f if they are too weak rn.
> BIGS
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
These changes "keep them how they were" like resembling nilla cassadors, originally.Oliveza wrote:Why do cassadores Need such big changes like +1 range or 25att with slow rof?
Imo just Keep them as they were and Maybe -10f if they are too weak rn.
How things were is kind of arbitrary, because it isn't necessarily good balance. And similarly keeping things how they are is kind of arbitrary, because it isn't necessarily good balance. Good balance is good balance. People liked nilla cassadors, because they were a thing, and people evidently missed them, because it became a change. It's actually a really good change to get away from the sterile "standardizing" people think EP is doing, while maintaining balance, while returning to fond roots.
- chronique
- Advanced Player
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Jul 4, 2015
- ESO: poissondu44
- Location: France
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
New cassa was one of the most exiting (small) change on this patch for peaple like me (who are old).
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
I get your Point,i also aprieceate some changes in favor of new( before underpowered strats/builds) , i was just worried that this high attack& slow rof or +1 range would reward walling and sitting behind walls to much, bcs you could abuse +1range quite a bit with walls.(and i hate excessive walling )deleted_user wrote:These changes "keep them how they were" like resembling nilla cassadors, originally.Oliveza wrote:Why do cassadores Need such big changes like +1 range or 25att with slow rof?
Imo just Keep them as they were and Maybe -10f if they are too weak rn.
How things were is kind of arbitrary, because it isn't necessarily good balance. And similarly keeping things how they are is kind of arbitrary, because it isn't necessarily good balance. Good balance is good balance. People liked nilla cassadors, because they were a thing, and people evidently missed them, because it became a change. It's actually a really good change to get away from the sterile "standardizing" people think EP is doing, while maintaining balance, while returning to fond roots.
> BIGS
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
How so? I regret that you are unable to appreciate the opportunity of players to give detailed feedback and have more direct influence on the patch, spending 5-15 minutes answering some questions. Thankfully, the simple beauty of it is that you're free to abstain—and participate—to the extent of your choice. What does not interest you may interest others, surprisingly.Garja wrote:Congrats you once again made EP crafting more complicate than before.
We are basically at a point where the game is deciding EP changes rather than actually playing.
This poll is certainly complicating my job, though, with this arduous effort to improve the patch and satisfy players!
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Based on feedback, there are a few reasons why buffing the Cassador is considered desirable (beyond it being popular):Oliveza wrote:Why do cassadores Need such big changes like +1 range or 25att with slow rof?
Imo just Keep them as they were and Maybe -10f if they are too weak rn.
1. Buffing Portuguese in 1vs1 is desirable to inter-civilization balance (considering the state of the civilization without a buff to the unit).
2. The Cassador (on RE) is widely considered an underwhelming unique unit.
Please note that the point of this question is to determine whether players prefer the EP7 Cassador "vanilla revamp", or a tweaked RE unit. That is (meant to be) the significance of the question. The alternative suggestion for the latter, used in the poll, is based on past feedback. This is simply my best estimation of the desired effect, as a starting point; the balancing details are perfectly tweakable.
I don't think that +1 range (and line of sight) is large enough to be very risky, though. It should fit the design of the unit well, and allow players to put its quirks to slightly better use, in a discrete way. Like I noted above, though, this is all subject to change, based on results.
What do you make of the current Cassador, with regards to your concern?
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
I cant really give good Feedback, bcs i just picked up porto this week, never rlly played them before.zoom wrote:Based on feedback, there are a few reasons why buffing the Cassador is considered desirable (beyond it being popular):Oliveza wrote:Why do cassadores Need such big changes like +1 range or 25att with slow rof?
Imo just Keep them as they were and Maybe -10f if they are too weak rn.
1. Buffing Portuguese in 1vs1 is desirable to inter-civilization balance (considering the state of the civilization without a buff to the unit).
2. The Cassador (on RE) is widely considered an underwhelming unique unit.
Please note that the point of this question is to determine whether players prefer the EP7 Cassador "vanilla revamp", or a tweaked RE unit. That is (meant to be) the significance of the question. The alternative suggestion for the latter, used in the poll, is based on past feedback. This is simply my best estimation of the desired effect, as a starting point; the balancing details are perfectly tweakable.
I don't think that +1 range (and line of sight) is large enough to be very risky, though. It should fit the design of the unit well, and allow players to put its quirks to slightly better use, in a discrete way. Like I noted above, though, this is all subject to change, based on results.
What do you make of the current Cassador, with regards to your concern?
when i used the new cassas i had some difficulties kiting , bcs i was used to faster rof, but all in all it seemed ok.
> BIGS
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
I think that the EP is outstanding and is in a very good place right now. It's an amazing piece of work that has done a lot for the community, and I love so many of the changes.
There are few things that come to mind when it comes to EP.
- Player feedback should more strongly influence the direction of the patch, imo. I think some of the unpopular (but not necessarily bad, per se) changes get reverted and other avenues be explored. The big ones that come off the top of my head are China banner army changes, German Uhlan HP changes and finally the Sioux 5v card. The last point transitions into my next one.
- Less importance should be given to deck compatibility between EP and RE. Personally, I never play around on RE as it is. EP or bust. Secondly, I think that this aspect of changes gives more flexibility to possible changes. I also think that down the line, technical ability to implement changes that swap shipments around (e.g. in this example, Sioux 5v vs Sioux 4v) will be greatly improved. Since the Sioux 5v change is such a popular one, I think that the popularity of the change outweighs the technical aspect of it.
- I think that many other changes are wonderful. Personally, I like the different Caçadors. I enjoy Spanish Gold, I think it's a great shipment that works seamlessly with the Spanish bonus. The list of great changes that should be kept goes on and on.
There are few things that come to mind when it comes to EP.
- Player feedback should more strongly influence the direction of the patch, imo. I think some of the unpopular (but not necessarily bad, per se) changes get reverted and other avenues be explored. The big ones that come off the top of my head are China banner army changes, German Uhlan HP changes and finally the Sioux 5v card. The last point transitions into my next one.
- Less importance should be given to deck compatibility between EP and RE. Personally, I never play around on RE as it is. EP or bust. Secondly, I think that this aspect of changes gives more flexibility to possible changes. I also think that down the line, technical ability to implement changes that swap shipments around (e.g. in this example, Sioux 5v vs Sioux 4v) will be greatly improved. Since the Sioux 5v change is such a popular one, I think that the popularity of the change outweighs the technical aspect of it.
- I think that many other changes are wonderful. Personally, I like the different Caçadors. I enjoy Spanish Gold, I think it's a great shipment that works seamlessly with the Spanish bonus. The list of great changes that should be kept goes on and on.
- chronique
- Advanced Player
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Jul 4, 2015
- ESO: poissondu44
- Location: France
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Spanish gold is perfect, i remember 6 month ago when i said that this card was usless :) . I realy hope this card will be on DE cause its one of the reason why i play spain now.
- bittersalt123
- Howdah
- Posts: 1055
- Joined: Oct 28, 2017
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
It was a successful tournament and everyone was happy with the outcome so I'd say everything is great.
"It makes a lot of sense to me that you're a Floridian." fightinfrenchman
Who needs water when you've got Brawndo – The Thirst Mutilator?
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes
Who needs water when you've got Brawndo – The Thirst Mutilator?
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
I guess you could edit your response, by the start of next week, ha!Oliveza wrote:I cant really give good Feedback, bcs i just picked up porto this week, never rlly played them before.zoom wrote:Based on feedback, there are a few reasons why buffing the Cassador is considered desirable (beyond it being popular):Oliveza wrote:Why do cassadores Need such big changes like +1 range or 25att with slow rof?
Imo just Keep them as they were and Maybe -10f if they are too weak rn.
1. Buffing Portuguese in 1vs1 is desirable to inter-civilization balance (considering the state of the civilization without a buff to the unit).
2. The Cassador (on RE) is widely considered an underwhelming unique unit.
Please note that the point of this question is to determine whether players prefer the EP7 Cassador "vanilla revamp", or a tweaked RE unit. That is (meant to be) the significance of the question. The alternative suggestion for the latter, used in the poll, is based on past feedback. This is simply my best estimation of the desired effect, as a starting point; the balancing details are perfectly tweakable.
I don't think that +1 range (and line of sight) is large enough to be very risky, though. It should fit the design of the unit well, and allow players to put its quirks to slightly better use, in a discrete way. Like I noted above, though, this is all subject to change, based on results.
What do you make of the current Cassador, with regards to your concern?
when i used the new cassas i had some difficulties kiting , bcs i was used to faster rof, but all in all it seemed ok.
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Although the video I linked to does explain both systems, I just realized that I was confusing IRV with STV when I published the thread; OP updated accordingly.
- Plantinator
- Dragoon
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Feb 24, 2020
- ESO: Plantinator
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
I am not sure if that is the right thread here but wouldnt it be an option to revert a lot of the german changes (like 180 HP uhlan) and just disable 200 w start for germany?
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Based on your feedback, it makes sense that you'd be happy with recent patch developments, including this poll. Regardless, there will always be someone who opposes any one thing. Thanks!iNcog wrote:I think that the EP is outstanding and is in a very good place right now. It's an amazing piece of work that has done a lot for the community, and I love so many of the changes.
There are few things that come to mind when it comes to EP.
- Player feedback should more strongly influence the direction of the patch, imo. I think some of the unpopular (but not necessarily bad, per se) changes get reverted and other avenues be explored. The big ones that come off the top of my head are China banner army changes, German Uhlan HP changes and finally the Sioux 5v card. The last point transitions into my next one.
- Less importance should be given to deck compatibility between EP and RE. Personally, I never play around on RE as it is. EP or bust. Secondly, I think that this aspect of changes gives more flexibility to possible changes. I also think that down the line, technical ability to implement changes that swap shipments around (e.g. in this example, Sioux 5v vs Sioux 4v) will be greatly improved. Since the Sioux 5v change is such a popular one, I think that the popularity of the change outweighs the technical aspect of it.
- I think that many other changes are wonderful. Personally, I like the different Caçadors. I enjoy Spanish Gold, I think it's a great shipment that works seamlessly with the Spanish bonus. The list of great changes that should be kept goes on and on.
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
I'm glad that you were able to keep an open mind and overcome your pre-conceived opinion. It's important to give some things a chance, and test whether they have a positive impact on the game.chronique wrote:Spanish gold is perfect, i remember 6 month ago when i said that this card was usless :) . I realy hope this card will be on DE cause its one of the reason why i play spain now.
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
It would have been, if fixing crate starts weren't so controversial and such a fundamental alteration to the game, on top of having several practical problems. This very poll includes the most viable options to the Uhlan hitpoints nerf, though, to explore how players stand on testing replacing it.Plantinator wrote:I am not sure if that is the right thread here but wouldnt it be an option to revert a lot of the german changes (like 180 HP uhlan) and just disable 200 w start for germany?
- Plantinator
- Dragoon
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Feb 24, 2020
- ESO: Plantinator
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Well i am not talking about completely fixing their crate starts just making it impossible for them to get 200 w. Or is even that considered controversial by the community? And yeah I would hate fixed crate starts as well since it takes away a lot of uniqueness from the game and the necessity to adapt.zoom wrote:It would have been, if fixing crate starts weren't so controversial and such a fundamental alteration to the game, on top of having several practical problems. This very poll includes the most viable options to the Uhlan hitpoints nerf, though, to explore how players stand on testing replacing it.Plantinator wrote:I am not sure if that is the right thread here but wouldnt it be an option to revert a lot of the german changes (like 180 HP uhlan) and just disable 200 w start for germany?
PS very nice to see how much the creators of ep care about Players opinions much appreciation (;
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
This is way too long lol.
There's a 8 lines question, I'm quite sure 2 lines would have been enough. Also I don't understand why the native TP exp is kept lol, just put it to the church.
There's a 8 lines question, I'm quite sure 2 lines would have been enough. Also I don't understand why the native TP exp is kept lol, just put it to the church.
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Some changes are good and should be kept. Some changes aren't necessarily bad (I wouldn't know) but definitely not popular. They've been in for a while now and the consensus on some is that many don't like them. Keep the good, revert the less popular, given that they were given a chance.
and I think that this is the perfect thread for people to say what changes they like and dislike. a survey is one dimensional and less able to carry a discussion, imo. though it does act like a solid foundation for one
and I think that this is the perfect thread for people to say what changes they like and dislike. a survey is one dimensional and less able to carry a discussion, imo. though it does act like a solid foundation for one
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
After playing with it for a while now I actually like the native TP trickle. It gives you some more options without making natives overused or anything like that. Adding it to the church would be a bit dumb, I think, because you would just build it every single game no matter what. At least with the native TP you have to weigh the benefits of the techs or native units vs a normal trading post (or even the location of the trading post itself), or else decide whether it's worth the 200w investment on a non-TP map to get the smaller trickle.[Armag] diarouga wrote:This is way too long lol.
There's a 8 lines question, I'm quite sure 2 lines would have been enough. Also I don't understand why the native TP exp is kept lol, just put it to the church.
The church is simply too cheap to have a trickle and not be constructed by every civ every game. Not to mention this would not affect all civs equally. What would you do for TWC or TAD civs with their different religious buildings? It's just going to get more complicated.
- I_HaRRiiSoN_I
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Jan 15, 2016
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Ideas: Sort out some Age 2 combat cards,
chinese age 2 standard army HP buffed to +20%
Ger/spain age 2 hand infantry attack buffed to + 20%. (for some reason spanish inf HP buffs rods by +20% but pikis as +15%)
Ger: long range inf HP, currently an age4 card but France have this card in age 2.
7 cossacks instead of 6 for russia in age 3, 5 WW from 4 in age 4 for Ger.
maybe some change to grenadier cards like 4->5 and 5->6 or 4 grens + vet gren upgrade. purely from a spectator point of view that idea is
chinese age 2 standard army HP buffed to +20%
Ger/spain age 2 hand infantry attack buffed to + 20%. (for some reason spanish inf HP buffs rods by +20% but pikis as +15%)
Ger: long range inf HP, currently an age4 card but France have this card in age 2.
7 cossacks instead of 6 for russia in age 3, 5 WW from 4 in age 4 for Ger.
maybe some change to grenadier cards like 4->5 and 5->6 or 4 grens + vet gren upgrade. purely from a spectator point of view that idea is
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Oct 16, 2019
- ESO: LeHussardsurletoit
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Would it be interesting to replace the xp trickle by a big xp bonus on completion (like +100 or +200 xp when you build the tp) ?Mitoe wrote:After playing with it for a while now I actually like the native TP trickle. It gives you some more options without making natives overused or anything like that. Adding it to the church would be a bit dumb, I think, because you would just build it every single game no matter what. At least with the native TP you have to weigh the benefits of the techs or native units vs a normal trading post (or even the location of the trading post itself), or else decide whether it's worth the 200w investment on a non-TP map to get the smaller trickle.[Armag] diarouga wrote:This is way too long lol.
There's a 8 lines question, I'm quite sure 2 lines would have been enough. Also I don't understand why the native TP exp is kept lol, just put it to the church.
The church is simply too cheap to have a trickle and not be constructed by every civ every game. Not to mention this would not affect all civs equally. What would you do for TWC or TAD civs with their different religious buildings? It's just going to get more complicated.
ESOC : came for the game, stayed for the drama.
Re: EP7.1 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Mar 2020)
Your suggestions are good, but there are many people who will not accept any improvement for Germany, even in low performance units such as those of age 2. What strikes me is that these same people are the ones who do not want to reduce the number of Ulhans per card.I_HaRRiiSoN_I wrote:Ideas: Sort out some Age 2 combat cards,
chinese age 2 standard army HP buffed to +20%
Ger/spain age 2 hand infantry attack buffed to + 20%. (for some reason spanish inf HP buffs rods by +20% but pikis as +15%)
Ger: long range inf HP, currently an age4 card but France have this card in age 2.
7 cossacks instead of 6 for russia in age 3, 5 WW from 4 in age 4 for Ger.
maybe some change to grenadier cards like 4->5 and 5->6 or 4 grens + vet gren upgrade. purely from a spectator point of view that idea is
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests