Trickle Standardization

[aqwer]

Trickles are a very nice things introduced on TAD (or TWC). But we only see use of wood trickle for russia and india, it is good but also these civs don't have vil shipments.
I suggest that we should standardize them as average between min and max vil shipments (not cdb or sw or something else)for that age gathering that particular resource without a single upgrade. i.e.

Age 1:
min vil shipment = 2 (e.g. jap)
max vil shipment = 3 (e.g. most civs with vil shipments)

this would give us 2.5 vils at a res
with a base gather rate of 0.5w, 0.6c, 0.8f, we will get

Wood Trickle: 2.5 x 0.5 = 1.25 w/s Distributivism
Coin Trickle: 2.5 x 0.6 = 1.5 c/s Capitalism
Food Trickle: 2.5 x 0.8 = 2.0 f/s Colbertism

Age 2

min vil shipment = 4 (e.g. dutch, otto, jap, sioux, and civs which also has 5 vil shipmet)
max vil shipment = 5 (e.g. brit, spain, aztec, iro)

this would give us 4.5 vils at a res
with a base gather rate of 0.5w, 0.6c, 0.8f, we will get

Wood Trickle: 4.5 x 0.5 = 2.25 w/s Foreign Logging
Coin Trickle: 4.5 x 0.6 = 2.7 c/s Doesn't exist
Food Trickle: 4.5 x 0.8 = 3.6 f/s Doesn't exist

P.S. by looking at the wood and coin trickle in age 1, it seems the right idea. Idk why they messed up food trickle. Similarly, wood trickle for india in age 2 is almost same as calculated one.

[richard]

P.S. by looking at the wood and coin trickle in age 1, it seems the right idea. Idk why they messed up food trickle. Similarly, wood trickle for india in age 2 is almost same as calculated one.

That is similar to the Stagecoach-TPs and also to the crate-shipments: Stagecoach TPs are most efficient when you put them on wood, and less efficient when you put them on food. If you ship wood crates it is more efficient in terms of vs, than if you send food crates. Maybe a similar argument was made by the developers when they decided that a wood trickle shall be more efficient than a food trickle.

[[Armag] diarouga]

No.

[Mr_Bramboy]

1 spahi per 3 min

[Mitoe]

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

[aqwer]

P.S. by looking at the wood and coin trickle in age 1, it seems the right idea. Idk why they messed up food trickle. Similarly, wood trickle for india in age 2 is almost same as calculated one.

That is similar to the Stagecoach-TPs and also to the crate-shipments: Stagecoach TPs are most efficient when you put them on wood, and less efficient when you put them on food. If you ship wood crates it is more efficient in terms of vs, than if you send food crates. Maybe a similar argument was made by the developers when they decided that a wood trickle shall be more efficient than a food trickle.

Its different. SC just gives set amount of res you desire, but a trickle is like some fixed no. of vils gathering. There is no such thing at efficient between res, just slow and fast gathering. A vil at a particular res will gather as it could according to rate.

[[Armag] diarouga]

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

[aqwer]

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

So every person that plays RE remembers that "food trickle" ( Colbertism if he knows) is 1.5 f/s.
Even it is important to remember that?

Cut thas list of changes logic nonsense.

[n0el]

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

[richard]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

That is right, the change list already is so fucked up and full of garbage, that you shouldnt read it anymore. Also there are mistakes in it.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

[richard]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

The game should keep changing -- Goodspeed 2020

[aqwer]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

This gives an amazing idea. What about tricle we give them 2.5v worth of trickle. You send an age 1 trickle card and a toggle appears inside tc or on ui, where you can change the trickle res by 2.5v standard. What do you say diarouga?

[n0el]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

[harcha]

i don't like big change lists, they make it way too hard for people like me to get into EP. 2.5v shipment could be useful on low hunt maps like tuparro on a TP start

[richard]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

If the goal is to finally achieve some good balance, it is better to not further increase the number of useful cards, i think.

The more things you make viable, the more things you have to balance out vs. each other.

The less complex you keep the system, the easier it should be to balance it.

The system already is complex enough. It is so complex, that even after more than 15 years at no point balance could be achieved.

[Mitoe]

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

This is why I don't think they should be included in the primary list of balance changes. There should be a separate list of "quality of life" changes that are not expected to have any significant effect on balance.

[gibson]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

If the goal is to finally achieve some good balance, it is better to not further increase the number of useful cards, i think.

The more things you make viable, the more things you have to balance out vs. each other.

The less complex you keep the system, the easier it should be to balance it.

The system already is complex enough. It is so complex, that even after more than 15 years at no point balance could be achieved.

This is not incorrect, but the assumption made is that the only goal is balance. If that were the case we would have 1 civ, set maps, no treasures etc.

[Mitoe]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

If the goal is to finally achieve some good balance, it is better to not further increase the number of useful cards, i think.

The more things you make viable, the more things you have to balance out vs. each other.

The less complex you keep the system, the easier it should be to balance it.

The system already is complex enough. It is so complex, that even after more than 15 years at no point balance could be achieved.

This is not incorrect, but the assumption made is that the only goal is balance. If that were the case we would have 1 civ, set maps, no treasures etc.

Yeah. A good game is balanced, and maybe lacking in terms of diversity and other things.

A great game is reasonably balanced, and also gives you access to all sorts of different ways to play the game and approach different situations.

Which game would you rather play? I'd rather play the game where it feels like the world is at my fingertips, rather than the one where my half my fingers are crippled.

[vividlyplain]

i don't like big change lists, they make it way too hard for people like me to get into EP. 2.5v shipment could be useful on low hunt maps like tuparro on a TP start

Tuparro has more food (from hunts) than any other EP map. at 80k food it's 16k higher than both fraser river and high plains.

[gamevideo113]

I think the main reasoning behind the "Don't make the change list longer" argument was that it made the game harder for players to get into the patch. Assuming that the DE is going to be heavily influenced by EP, this isn't really a problem anymore. The players who will switch to the DE will be attracted by new graphics, new civs (?), new campaigns (?), remastered soundtrack and QoL features, and they won't care that much if the balance changelog is long and/or difficult. Some players haven't played in 10 years so they won't even remember how was the balance back then.
For example, this is the changelog from the original AoE2 up to patch 5.8 of AoE2 HD. As you can see, it's quite long, but frankly, hardly anybody actually knows these changes anymore. Players adapt quite fast to this sort of stuff, and after a short while take the novelty as a given.
https://www.forgottenempires.net/aoe2/changelog

Having said this, i don't think it's a good idea to go on a "killing spree" and make as many changes as possible. On the contrary, it is a terrible idea. But we still have room to increase the variety this game can offer and make it more appealing in a well organized way (that must not be chaotic).

Whether or not the trickles need to be changed, i think comes down to personal opinion (i don't have one on the matter).

I think i would mostly be ok with some shipments being useless, that's the case for probably 60-70% of all the existing shipment, so i don't think we should focus too much on those. But at least i'd expect a game not to have completely useless units and politicians, which is an aspect that i think can be improved a lot.

[n0el]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

If the goal is to finally achieve some good balance, it is better to not further increase the number of useful cards, i think.

The more things you make viable, the more things you have to balance out vs. each other.

The less complex you keep the system, the easier it should be to balance it.

The system already is complex enough. It is so complex, that even after more than 15 years at no point balance could be achieved.

Well basically like Mitoe said. There's a way to make it not useless and also not affect balance.

[richard]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

If the goal is to finally achieve some good balance, it is better to not further increase the number of useful cards, i think.

The more things you make viable, the more things you have to balance out vs. each other.

The less complex you keep the system, the easier it should be to balance it.

The system already is complex enough. It is so complex, that even after more than 15 years at no point balance could be achieved.

This is not incorrect, but the assumption made is that the only goal is balance. If that were the case we would have 1 civ, set maps, no treasures etc.

Yeah. A good game is balanced, and maybe lacking in terms of diversity and other things.

A great game is reasonably balanced, and also gives you access to all sorts of different ways to play the game and approach different situations.

Which game would you rather play? I'd rather play the game where it feels like the world is at my fingertips, rather than the one where my half my fingers are crippled.

If you watch people trying to balance a game since 15 years and never succeed, you can think there must be something they do wrong. And it might be that this "something" is, that they dont focus on dividing necessary things from unnecessary things. There are so many things in this game which are like a very beautiful environment, like a "world" in which the important parts of the game are embedded. E.g. useless units, useless buttons, useless cards, treasures etc. This is very nice but it does not matter to change these because they re not relevant. If, of course, your goal is "having fun gaming and changing/developing the game", it obviously is fun to occupy yourself with these things and inventing some new cool options. But, at least what i understood, there is also this "esports-like balancing" aspect of the patch. And if you have this goal it seems to be relatively smart to keep the system of viable things to consider simple enough to be tractable properly. Unnecessary things are bad things with regard to that goal, because they make the system more complex. In my opinion it is always bad if you realise you made things unnessecarly complicated.

[richard]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

If the goal is to finally achieve some good balance, it is better to not further increase the number of useful cards, i think.

The more things you make viable, the more things you have to balance out vs. each other.

The less complex you keep the system, the easier it should be to balance it.

The system already is complex enough. It is so complex, that even after more than 15 years at no point balance could be achieved.

Well basically like Mitoe said. There's a way to make it not useless and also not affect balance.

Yes i understand that, but the problem then is that it is an unnecessary change (because it does not change a thing from being unviable to begin viable). Unnecessary changes are bad though, if you want to achieve certain goals. Focus on important stuff and realize if something is "unnecessary bullshit" and then dont consider it again, i d say.

[n0el]

Show hidden quotes

No.

Well, I mean, why not? What difference is it going to make?

It's not going to affect your games. It just makes crappy shipments less crap.

It makes the change list longer for no reasons.

That's such a bad reason nowadays to resist changes.

It is a good reason to resist useless changes.
2.5v trickle is not worth it so why would you change that ?

It's better to have a completely useless card?

If the goal is to finally achieve some good balance, it is better to not further increase the number of useful cards, i think.

The more things you make viable, the more things you have to balance out vs. each other.

The less complex you keep the system, the easier it should be to balance it.

The system already is complex enough. It is so complex, that even after more than 15 years at no point balance could be achieved.

Well basically like Mitoe said. There's a way to make it not useless and also not affect balance.

Yes i understand that, but the problem then is that it is an unnecessary change (because it does not change a thing from being unviable to begin viable). Unnecessary changes are bad though, if you want to achieve certain goals. Focus on important stuff and realize if something is "unnecessary bullshit" and then dont consider it again, i d say.

It does make it viable though, that is the point. Otherwise I agree.