On EP – Past, Present and Future

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

More strategic options. At the moment for many civs getting a tp is so much better than 0 tp it's not really a choice.

No TP makes it unviable to go age 3 in most cases.

[RefluxSemantic]

More strategic options. At the moment for many civs getting a tp is so much better than 0 tp it's not really a choice.

The same can be said for the market. Should we nerf the market?

[lordraphael]

Show hidden quotes

What if, if you decrease the per-shipment experience points required for every civ ? k that would fuck up spain civ bonus but other than that basically it would make every civ balance and decent on no tp map cause then tp wouldnt have that much influence on your shipment progression since it would be smooth for everyone anyway if its a tp map or not. then you can buff the stagecoach upgrade effect to make tp still an interessant option to go for.

This would actually increase the effect TPs have.

Well because the amount of xp provide by tp's is made for the current design, ofc you would need to reduce xp provide by a tp if you change that.
But if you can have 3shipment back to back on a no tp map, having tp on a tp map wouldnt change anything anyway ?

I get the idea, but it's too hard to balance honestly. For instance, Spain, Aztec and Otto would suck if every civ can have 3 shipments back to back even on no TP maps because getting more shipments is their civ advantage.

fun fact : ottos civ advantage is not xp, but rather the free vills. coincidentally they are able to get xp because devs decided it would not be fair to have them up at 1 min mark with a normal crate start. Their civ bonus is infact the free vills and id love to see some spirit of the law type video on when exactly that civ bonuss becomes a malus. id estimate its around the 7 to 8 min mark.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

What if, if you decrease the per-shipment experience points required for every civ ? k that would fuck up spain civ bonus but other than that basically it would make every civ balance and decent on no tp map cause then tp wouldnt have that much influence on your shipment progression since it would be smooth for everyone anyway if its a tp map or not. then you can buff the stagecoach upgrade effect to make tp still an interessant option to go for.

This would actually increase the effect TPs have.

Well because the amount of xp provide by tp's is made for the current design, ofc you would need to reduce xp provide by a tp if you change that.
But if you can have 3shipment back to back on a no tp map, having tp on a tp map wouldnt change anything anyway ?

I get the idea, but it's too hard to balance honestly. For instance, Spain, Aztec and Otto would suck if every civ can have 3 shipments back to back even on no TP maps because getting more shipments is their civ advantage.

fun fact : ottos civ advantage is not xp, but rather the free vills. coincidentally they are able to get xp because devs decided it would not be fair to have them up at 1 min mark with a normal crate start. Their civ bonus is infact the free vills and id love to see some spirit of the law type video on when exactly that civ bonuss becomes a malus. id estimate its around the 7 to 8 min mark.

I'd estimate it's more like the 10 minute mark. Or rather, you'd have been better off constantly producing vills normally at the 10 minute mark. It might be true that at the 7/8 minute mark the Otto TC starts being slightly worse, but the normal production still needs to catch up. A TC producing vills for free is like a minifactory.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

What if, if you decrease the per-shipment experience points required for every civ ? k that would fuck up spain civ bonus but other than that basically it would make every civ balance and decent on no tp map cause then tp wouldnt have that much influence on your shipment progression since it would be smooth for everyone anyway if its a tp map or not. then you can buff the stagecoach upgrade effect to make tp still an interessant option to go for.

This would actually increase the effect TPs have.

Well because the amount of xp provide by tp's is made for the current design, ofc you would need to reduce xp provide by a tp if you change that.
But if you can have 3shipment back to back on a no tp map, having tp on a tp map wouldnt change anything anyway ?

I get the idea, but it's too hard to balance honestly. For instance, Spain, Aztec and Otto would suck if every civ can have 3 shipments back to back even on no TP maps because getting more shipments is their civ advantage.

fun fact : ottos civ advantage is not xp, but rather the free vills. coincidentally they are able to get xp because devs decided it would not be fair to have them up at 1 min mark with a normal crate start. Their civ bonus is infact the free vills and id love to see some spirit of the law type video on when exactly that civ bonuss becomes a malus. id estimate its around the 7 to 8 min mark.

Ye but you got the point, with the mosque and TPs, it's fair to say that exp is part of otto's civ bonus.

[Sargsyan]

#nerf tps, either 250w or income from tps

[chronique]

Ye but you got the point, with the mosque and TPs, it's fair to say that exp is part of otto's civ bonus.

I have always thinking that the mosque xp was done to offset the absence of xp generate by vili production ^^.

[Rikikipu]

Balancing is not a point that you need to reach, it's a continuous metric that you want to maximize in every iteration.
In that regards, it's obviously possible to balance the civs around the context on tp maps, no tp maps as well as in water maps. Dia, you are saying it's not possible because it's not possible. You are trying to make it an axiom of balance. It's not. Same as there are some changes that would be bad for both tp and no tp maps, there are some changes that are are good for both.

Typically the crossbow buff from the great Garja's patch, improve the balance on no tp maps => it makes germany less trash when they need to play age 2 on no tp maps. I don't see how it results in a terrible change in the context of tp maps.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Basically anything that buff colonial units (crossbows, pikes, doppels) helps making FF and semi-FF civs more viable on no-TP maps while changing almost nothing on TP maps.

[RefluxSemantic]

It's not actually possible to balance around both forms of map without severe standardization.

[iNcog]

Perfect balance no, but you can normalize it enough that most civilizations are playable on no-TP maps.

I doubt you could make every match-up good, but this is AOE not starcraft. it's part of the game

[RefluxSemantic]

I think you can't actually make no-TP maps balanced without hurting normal map balance. It's not even about match up imbalances.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Honestly there are like 6 civs that are completely viable on no-TP maps as long as there are enough resources (Russia, India, Aztecs, Japan, Brits and Dutch), and maybe four or five more that are somewhat viable even if weaker (France, Spain, Port, Iro, Sioux). If there is water and lots of resources it's even closer.
Now some MUs might be hopeless among those civs but the same can be said on TP maps.

Basically there are only three civs that are completely screwed on a no-TP map : Germany, China and Otto. This sounds good enough to me.

[RefluxSemantic]

It's acceptable. No TP maps are apperantly a fun gimmick to some people that enjoy civs not being viable. But it shouldn't ever be a focus of balancing. It's far more effective to just balance the standard maps. That way we can have a map pool where any civ is actually viable. The other gimmick maps are then for tournament stuff or people that somehow enjoy having less civs that are viable. Once you start trying to balance what are effectively two different gamemodes, you'll just get in a messy situation.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Balancing is not a point that you need to reach, it's a continuous metric that you want to maximize in every iteration.
In that regards, it's obviously possible to balance the civs around the context on tp maps, no tp maps as well as in water maps. Dia, you are saying it's not possible because it's not possible. You are trying to make it an axiom of balance. It's not. Same as there are some changes that would be bad for both tp and no tp maps, there are some changes that are are good for both.

Typically the crossbow buff from the great Garja's patch, improve the balance on no tp maps => it makes germany less trash when they need to play age 2 on no tp maps. I don't see how it results in a terrible change in the context of tp maps.

Some changes can improve the balance on both TP and no TP maps, that's true. And balance is obviously not a point, it's indeed something we want to maximize. My point, is that you're never going to reach an acceptable balance on both TP and no TP maps without changing drastically the strengh of TPs.
"Acceptable" is not well defined, and I guess it's subjective, but to me it's something like "all the civs are, on average, equal on the map you consider".

TP maps will always have TPs (and TPs change the "game balance"), so unless you make TPs irrelevant, you're never going to reach an acceptable balance on no TP maps.

If I take your example about Germany, Germany is always going to be much better on TP maps, regardless of how much you buff crossbowmen, while some civs (Dutch, Brit, Russia, Japan) don't really care about TPs. Thus it's impossible to have balance Germany in an acceptably balanced way on both TP and no TP maps.

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

Middle ground suggestion; players dont request changes from zoi, including from people like diarouga and aqwer (both starting to get kinda annoying). Zoi drafts up a list of 10 ideas and then holds an open forum where people then comment if they approve yes or no to the idea. Each idea gets voted in/out separately so that we can move away from dictatorship process currently in place. {Note im bashing the process not the person before you angrily react}.This surely has to be an improvement to what is currently in place.

I remember partaking in a balance poll where i said do not change the Mahout unit but then it appeared that change was pushed through (before being later reverted after testing actually occured).

The opening statement of this thread does not give me total confidence that each change suggested/implemented by Zoi is going to benefit the game/balance/community due to lack of scrutiny, collaboration and testing. Some people have ran out of patience. Im in the middle ground and I hope that both sides can work towards a middle ground otherwise something needs to change.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Basically anything that buff colonial units (crossbows, pikes, doppels) helps making FF and semi-FF civs more viable on no-TP maps while changing almost nothing on TP maps.

Basically anything that buff colonial units (crossbows, pikes, doppels) that are only available for semi and ff civs helps making FF and semi-FF civs more viable on no-TP maps while changing almost nothing on TP maps.

xbow/dopps are only avaible for Port/Fre/Spain/Ger, so you can buff them slightly, and it won't affect the TP map balance too much, while giving them colonial options on no TP maps (you still need to be careful because if you overbuff these colonial units, it will become too hard to punish semi ff builds on TP maps).
However, if you start buffing units like tomas/aennas to improve Iro on no TP maps, you'll ruin the TP balance because Iro can also be a colonial civ.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Perfect balance no, but you can normalize it enough that most civilizations are playable on no-TP maps.

I doubt you could make every match-up good, but this is AOE not starcraft. it's part of the game

It's not about making every match-up good, you can't do that even on TP maps, it's about making every civ viable.

You're simply never going to make Otto, Germany, Iro, France, Port as good on no TP maps as the civs that don't need a TP, because not getting a TP hurts a lot.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Honestly there are like 6 civs that are completely viable on no-TP maps as long as there are enough resources (Russia, India, Aztecs, Japan, Brits and Dutch), and maybe four or five more that are somewhat viable even if weaker (France, Spain, Port, Iro, Sioux). If there is water and lots of resources it's even closer.
Now some MUs might be hopeless among those civs but the same can be said on TP maps.

Basically there are only three civs that are completely screwed on a no-TP map : Germany, China and Otto. This sounds good enough to me.

The issue is that the tier 2 (the civs that are somewhat viable) can't compete with the tier 1. So you're never going to pick a tier 2 civ in a tournament. Furthermore, Japan and Brits have bad MUs, so there are only 4 viable civs at tournament level kinda. 4/14 isn't what I would call a great civ diversity.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Middle ground suggestion; players dont request changes from zoi, including from people like diarouga and aqwer (both starting to get kinda annoying). Zoi drafts up a list of 10 ideas and then holds an open forum where people then comment if they approve yes or no to the idea. Each idea gets voted in/out separately so that we can move away from dictatorship process currently in place. {Note im bashing the process not the person before you angrily react}.This surely has to be an improvement to what is currently in place.

I remember partaking in a balance poll where i said do not change the Mahout unit but then it appeared that change was pushed through (before being later reverted after testing actually occured).

The opening statement of this thread does not give me total confidence that each change suggested/implemented by Zoi is going to benefit the game/balance/community due to lack of scrutiny, collaboration and testing. Some people have ran out of patience. Im in the middle ground and I hope that both sides can work towards a middle ground otherwise something needs to change.

This would be an improvement for sure, as the community would decide.
However "Zoi drafts up a list of 10 ideas" is still an issue. Why would Zoi be the only person that has the right to make suggestions ?

The other issue is that you don't just make on random change here and there in a patch, it's a whole. Each change is going to impact the game balance (in a more or less significant way), and if you make many small changes, without considering the bigger picture, then you end up with balance and design issues, like ATP being dominant with the native TP exp trickle.

I guess the best example is how Otto went from an averagish civs to a top civ :
- Goon RR got nerfed to 20% (and this makes sense, because goons are too strong)
- Fast age up time got nerfed by 5 sec (again, this makes sense, because fast age up is too dominant)
- Slow age up time got buffed by 5 sec (same here)
- TC cost got buffed to 500w (because TCs were too expensive in 1v1 games)
- Mosque got buffed (because else Otto is trash on no TP maps)
- Spahi RR got buffed to 20% (because Spahi were considered to be bad)
- art foundry cost changed to 250w (this one doesn't make sense imo but well...)
- abus ranged increased to 19 with the vet upgrade (because apparantly, abus were too weak in fortress)

See, individually all these changes make sense, and I guess many people would vote for these changes, but it created a balance issue because Otto got buffed each patch. The "make this small change to improve the game design" resulted in a balance issue, and this will happen again if we have to vote each change.

[iNcog]

Middle ground suggestion; players dont request changes from zoi, including from people like diarouga and aqwer (both starting to get kinda annoying). Zoi drafts up a list of 10 ideas and then holds an open forum where people then comment if they approve yes or no to the idea. Each idea gets voted in/out separately so that we can move away from dictatorship process currently in place. {Note im bashing the process not the person before you angrily react}.This surely has to be an improvement to what is currently in place.

I remember partaking in a balance poll where i said do not change the Mahout unit but then it appeared that change was pushed through (before being later reverted after testing actually occured).

The opening statement of this thread does not give me total confidence that each change suggested/implemented by Zoi is going to benefit the game/balance/community due to lack of scrutiny, collaboration and testing. Some people have ran out of patience. Im in the middle ground and I hope that both sides can work towards a middle ground otherwise something needs to change.

afaik they are reworking the EP process to make it better. sort of on the backburner until EPL is done but it should be addressed

[chronique]

Honestly there are like 6 civs that are completely viable on no-TP maps as long as there are enough resources (Russia, India, Aztecs, Japan, Brits and Dutch), and maybe four or five more that are somewhat viable even if weaker (France, Spain, Port, Iro, Sioux). If there is water and lots of resources it's even closer.
Now some MUs might be hopeless among those civs but the same can be said on TP maps.

Basically there are only three civs that are completely screwed on a no-TP map : Germany, China and Otto. This sounds good enough to me.

China is better than fr on no tp map, and prob better than sioux and spain.

Also the gap between "completly" viable and "somewhat" viable is huge. Dutch vs fr on no tp map is one sided, and will never happe in tourney.
The gap between top / bottom civ on tp is clearly not as huge as no tp map (i mean otto vs dutch/brit no tp map, big lol).

[RefluxSemantic]

Honestly there are like 6 civs that are completely viable on no-TP maps as long as there are enough resources (Russia, India, Aztecs, Japan, Brits and Dutch), and maybe four or five more that are somewhat viable even if weaker (France, Spain, Port, Iro, Sioux). If there is water and lots of resources it's even closer.
Now some MUs might be hopeless among those civs but the same can be said on TP maps.

Basically there are only three civs that are completely screwed on a no-TP map : Germany, China and Otto. This sounds good enough to me.

China is better than fr on no tp map, and prob better than sioux and spain.

Also the gap between "completly" viable and "somewhat" viable is huge. Dutch vs fr on no tp map is one sided, and will never happe in tourney.
The gap between top / bottom civ on tp is clearly not as huge as no tp map (i mean otto vs dutch/brit no tp map, big lol).

on TP maps basically all civs are viable. On no TP maps there are 4-6 civs that are viable, and the rest can't really touch them.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye, China is in the "somewhat viable" tier, but that's just nickpicking honestly. The idea is that the 6 civs that don't need a TP every game are as strong on both TP and no TP maps, while the TP civs are significantly weaker.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Honestly there are like 6 civs that are completely viable on no-TP maps as long as there are enough resources (Russia, India, Aztecs, Japan, Brits and Dutch), and maybe four or five more that are somewhat viable even if weaker (France, Spain, Port, Iro, Sioux). If there is water and lots of resources it's even closer.
Now some MUs might be hopeless among those civs but the same can be said on TP maps.

Basically there are only three civs that are completely screwed on a no-TP map : Germany, China and Otto. This sounds good enough to me.

The issue is that the tier 2 (the civs that are somewhat viable) can't compete with the tier 1. So you're never going to pick a tier 2 civ in a tournament. Furthermore, Japan and Brits have bad MUs, so there are only 4 viable civs at tournament level kinda. 4/14 isn't what I would call a great civ diversity.

Ah but that's why you actually want to use Game-theory-approved ways of deciding tournaments MUs instead of the dumb first pick-counter pick that is the current standard.

(Also what are the bad MUs for Brits or Japan that would not be bad also on a TP map since those civs often don't go TP early ?)