On EP – Past, Present and Future

[RefluxSemantic]

TPs are a core part of the game, you should always balance around them. Not balancing around TPs is like not balancing around the fact that the market exists.

[princeofcarthage]

Huh, comparison makes no sense. Stop throwing any nonsense around to make your point lol

[[Armag] diarouga]

Why not balance civ arround no tp?
Why not balance the natives individually?

1) Eh, because then you'd have to remove TPs from the game ? Just imagine Otto or Germany being balanced around no TP, they'd be far better than RE Iro on TP maps lol.

Perfect live example of why top players or rather players in general shouldn't be game designers or in process of balance. You fail to understand basic game design. Tp is an additional map feature and as such should be treated same. (I have been saying this start of EP, and now many agree).

This is bit of a balance discussion but to throw some light, lot of today's build orders are reliant on xp. xp is a tricky resource. It is very easy to lose control of it and create deadly snowballs and pretty fast.

Back to design perspective, it's pretty clear that game revolves around Civ and map diversity, and uniqueness. That means some civs are going to be super good on tp maps, some are going to be super good on non-stop maps, some on water maps, while most remaining will be somewhere in between. Balance issue is when those civs are not within reasonable variance where each player has an chance to outplay.
It doesn't mean every civ should be equally good on every map every situation. That practically means one civ, re-skins.

I'm sorry but if you believe that the civs should be balanced around no TP maps, after I explained why it would be a disaster, then you have no clue . We've been working hard to make all the civs viable, and you want to make the balance even worse than on the RE.

Nerfing TPs and balancing civs around that is an option, but if you balance the civs around no TP maps, you won't ever see Dutch/Russia/India/Brit being played in competitive games, and Otto/Germany will be played every series.
I know you like to claim that top players don't understand the game design, but deleting 4 civs, and creating a clear top 3-4 is the worst design decision you can make.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Huh, comparison makes no sense. Stop throwing any nonsense around to make your point lol

His comparison is weird but it does make sense. By balancing the game around no TP, you assume that TPs either don't exist, or that they have no impact on the balance (which is a wrong statement).
So ye, assuming that TPs don't affect the balance is like assuming that the market doesn't affect it (and I do believe that TPs affect the balance way more than the market).

[chronique]

1) Eh, because then you'd have to remove TPs from the game ? Just imagine Otto or Germany being balanced around no TP, they'd be far better than RE Iro on TP maps lol.

Why remove tp from the game lol, water was nerf from RE, not remove from the game.

[[Armag] diarouga]

1) Eh, because then you'd have to remove TPs from the game ? Just imagine Otto or Germany being balanced around no TP, they'd be far better than RE Iro on TP maps lol.

Why remove tp from the game lol, water was nerf from RE, not remove from the game.

Ok, so you want to nerf the TPs, not "balance the game around no TP" ? These are two very different things.

[chronique]

Ok, so you want to nerf the TPs, not "balance the game around no TP" ? These are two very different things.

Looks the same, to me tp need to be an option or later in the game, but not the only and best choice.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ok, so you want to nerf the TPs, not "balance the game around no TP" ? These are two very different things.

Looks the same, to me tp need to be an option or later in the game, but not the only and best choice.

It's not the same at all.
a) If you "balance the game around no TP maps", then you totally ignore the TPs in the balancing process and the balance is a disaster on TP maps.
b) If you nerf TPs, you still balance the game around TP maps, but with weaker TPs, and you still get a balanced game.

[Sargsyan]

can we pls buff blunderbuss to 50f, 75f is kinda too much

[chronique]

It's not the same at all.
a) If you "balance the game around no TP maps", then you totally ignore the TPs in the balancing process and the balance is a disaster on TP maps.
b) If you nerf TPs, you still balance the game around TP maps, but with weaker TPs, and you still get a balanced game.

You miss one option here :
c) If you nerf tp and balance the game arround no tp, you still get a balanced game on tp and no tp map, and tp become usfull later in the game.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It's not the same at all.
a) If you "balance the game around no TP maps", then you totally ignore the TPs in the balancing process and the balance is a disaster on TP maps.
b) If you nerf TPs, you still balance the game around TP maps, but with weaker TPs, and you still get a balanced game.

You miss one option here :
c) If you nerf tp and balance the game arround no tp, you still get a balanced game on tp and no tp map, and tp become usfull later in the game.

c) If you nerf tp to the ground and balance the game arround no tp, you still get a balanced game on tp and no tp map, and tp become usfull later in the game.

Fixed it for you. Because I'm still taking 250w or even 300w TPs honestly, so you would need to make TPs cost at least 350w (or reduce the xp generation by 40-50% idk) if you want the game to be balanced on TP maps while you balance it around no TP maps. It's like removing TPs from the game at this point (and TPs are better in early game than in late game because you need less exp to get a shipment in early game, so you wouldn't see TPs at all).
Furthermore, we would need to totally rebalance the game, and we don't have time to do that before DE.

[chronique]

c) If you nerf tp to the ground and balance the game arround no tp, you still get a balanced game on tp and no tp map, and tp become usfull later in the game.

Why "to the ground"? Why not find a middle ground? I am agree with reducing xp generation (because making them more expensive is a big nat nerf)

Furthermore, we would need to totally rebalance the game, and we don't have time to do that before DE.

To be 100% honest with you, at this point, i realy don't care about DE. I have zero info about the release date, it could be the next year. I prefere act with info i have ^^.

[RefluxSemantic]

Tbh, it doesnt even matter if ep is doing well right now ir if its popular. On a moral level it is unacceptable that one guy, who doesnt even play the game, gets to make all of the calls. Where is the voice of the community here? This isnt just a balance patch anymore, this has become about gameplay. Good gameplay is subjective. The community needs to have a voice in this. Right now Zoi is the only person that has a real voice in determining the entire future of aoe3, not just the short term future but also the future of the definitive edition of aoe3. The community should decide about the future of this game. It shouldnt be one guy who got the lead because hes the friend if some other guy.

#givethecommunityavoice

[Scroogie]

From my limited point of view, ottoman is quite prevalent, Aztecs map control style is a bit oppressive, France struggle in the shadow of Iroqouis and i dont see a lot of Ports, India, Brit and Sioux.

[[Armag] diarouga]

c) If you nerf tp to the ground and balance the game arround no tp, you still get a balanced game on tp and no tp map, and tp become usfull later in the game.

Why "to the ground"? Why not find a middle ground? I am agree with reducing xp generation (because making them more expensive is a big nat nerf)

Furthermore, we would need to totally rebalance the game, and we don't have time to do that before DE.

To be 100% honest with you, at this point, i realy don't care about DE. I have zero info about the release date, it could be the next year. I prefere act with info i have ^^.

1) Why to the ground ? Because if they're nerfed to a middle ground (let's say 250w TPs or -20% exp), then TP maps are super unbalanced. Keep in mind that RE Iro would probably be balanced on no TP maps, and that RE Germany is weak on no TP maps. Thus, if you balance the game around no TP maps and nerf the TPs, you'd have to revert Iro to the RE, and buff Germany from the RE. Would 250w TPs (or -20% experience) compensate that ? Definitely not, and I'm sure you can understand that.

I think that nerfing TPs slightly is reasonable at this point (especially stagecoach, it's a bigger issue than exp imo), but balancing the game around no TP maps would be a disaster.

2) You don't have these info, but some people do. According to rumours, DE should be released rather soon, and it will probably copy EP, so it's not the right time to mess with the balance.

[deleted_user]

On things I'd categorize as a moral issue, age of empires 3 balance doesn't really make the cut.

[Qosashvili93]

To be fair there is not variety of civs on this tournay, allmoat all games with same civs

Allmost all games there is at least one spain and after spain botto so often too

India russ dutch allmost never

And if on past tournays india were picked often and spain very rarely and that was balance problem, now is oposite spain is picked such often and india allmost never so I guess there is balance problem again

And yea I know on this tournay all maps are with tp but india was picked ontp maps too in past

[iNcog]

On things I'd categorize as a moral issue, age of empires 3 balance doesn't really make the cut.

zoi literally murders

[chronique]

1) Why to the ground ? Because if they're nerfed to a middle ground (let's say 250w TPs or -20% exp), then TP maps are super unbalanced. Keep in mind that RE Iro would probably be balanced on no TP maps, and that RE Germany is weak on no TP maps. Thus, if you balance the game around no TP maps and nerf the TPs, you'd have to revert Iro to the RE, and buff Germany from the RE. Would 250w TPs (or -20% experience) compensate that ? Definitely not, and I'm sure you can understand that.

100% theory here, what the difference between tp and water? why EP succes with water nerf and should fail with tp?

I know it can take some time to do that but like i said, at this point i don't care about DE and "rumours", i have no info about that so i just can't take it into account.

[flontier]

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.

[iNcog]

I agree with poisson, nerfing TPs so that there is a little bit of normalization between TPs and non-TPs would be a good thing. It sucks that we don't have nonTP maps in the map pool anymore.

[[Armag] diarouga]

1) Why to the ground ? Because if they're nerfed to a middle ground (let's say 250w TPs or -20% exp), then TP maps are super unbalanced. Keep in mind that RE Iro would probably be balanced on no TP maps, and that RE Germany is weak on no TP maps. Thus, if you balance the game around no TP maps and nerf the TPs, you'd have to revert Iro to the RE, and buff Germany from the RE. Would 250w TPs (or -20% experience) compensate that ? Definitely not, and I'm sure you can understand that.

100% theory here, what the difference between tp and water? why EP succes with water nerf and should fail with tp?

EP maps (more than EP changes actually) kinda nerfed water to the ground. I haven't seen a single sea boom at slot1/slot2 level this EPL.
If you want to do the same with TPs (ie, only make them viable in late game or niche situations), you would have to nerf them to the ground (probably -50% exp generation or cost 350w).

If I sum up your idea :
poisson: "The game should be balanced around no TP maps. That is to say : all the civs should be equally strong and viable on no TP maps."

a) It's obvious that if we don't nerf TPs, then the TP civs will be way too strong on TP maps. I guess we agree on this.
b) If we nerf TPs, but just a bit (like 250, or even 300w TPs), then still, the TP civs will be too strong on TP maps. I took the example of RE Iro, which is still better than EP Iro with 300w TPs, and same goes for buffed Germany
c) You nerf TPs to the ground, and make them viable one game out of ten (like 350w TPs). Then, it's almost as if you removed TPs from the game, which sucks.

In my opinion, the game has to be balanced around TP maps (and no TP maps shouldn't be a thing tbh, TP are part of the game, just like hunts and mines), but TP should be nerfed slightly (250w or -10%).

[[Armag] diarouga]

I agree with poisson, nerfing TPs so that there is a little bit of normalization between TPs and non-TPs would be a good thing. It sucks that we don't have nonTP maps in the map pool anymore.

That's not what poisson is arguing for though. Poisson wants to balance the game around no TP maps and then nerf TPs.
You want to nerf TPs (with the game being balanced around TP maps) to reduce the imbalance on no TP maps.

[[Armag] diarouga]

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 wouldn't really work imo. TPs would still be as important as they'd give you more shipments. In fact, Spain is as TP dependant as the other nilla civs.

[iNcog]

@madrouga I've pested you on the forums until you learn to calm your shit and stop with the personal vendettas. your drama whoring has done enough harm to the community as it is.