On EP – Past, Present and Future

[[Armag] diarouga]

@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.

It's a bit sad honestly.
You ask me to be constructive and claim that I can't take criticism, but when I try to explain in a constructive way why I think that balancing the game around TP maps AND nerfing TP is better than balancing the game around no TP maps you get mad.

I guess you're the one who can't accept disagreement

[chronique]

@[Armag] diarouga I am not realy againt your opinion, i am ok if the game is balance arround tp and if all standar map have tps, but its not how the game was design at the origine. I would have preferred if all civ had been playable on map without tp (maybe just with a new building which genere xp like the mosquey).

[[Armag] diarouga]

@[Armag] diarouga I am not realy againt your opinion, i am ok if the game is balance arround tp and if all standar map have tps, but its not how the game was design at the origine. I would have preferred if all civ had been playable on map without tp (maybe just with a new building which genere xp like the mosquey).

I get your point.
We've had this discussion many times in the early days of the EP, but you weren't around back then (unfortunately ), so I guess you couldn't follow the debate.
The big thing you have to understand (and from what I read, you got it), is that it is impossible to balance all the civs on both TP and no TP maps. We can try to reduce the balance gap between TPs and no TP maps (with a building like the mosque as you suggest), but we won't reach a good balance on both the TP and the no TP maps. Otto is a good example of that : despite all the mosque buff (which impact the TP maps by the way, and create new balance issues), Otto gets trashed by no TP civs on no TP maps.

After we made that point, we had to determine whether to balance the game around TP maps and make no TP maps less competitive (which is what EP decided to do), or balance the game around no TP maps.
Back then, there was a consensus that balancing the game around TPs was the best choice (and I think that this consensus still exists), because it simply gives more option. On no TP maps, unless you're Dutch or China, you have to mass units in colonial (musk/huss most of the time), and the game is decided by who has more musketeers in the big fight. This is what the ASFP decided to do, and it was a failure from what I've heard.

Thus, the community (and it really wasn't just GS) decided that the semi ff meta was more interesting as it gives more option. You can make units in colonial (and even go for colonial timings), and age at some point. That means that the game is played in 3 ages, instead of 2, and naturally, it is deeper strategically.

That being said, nerfing the TPs (by increasing their cost, reducing the amount of exp they give, or nerfing stagecoach) is still a good idea imo, because TPs are too dominant atm, but TP maps should remain standard for the reasons I stated above.

[chris1089]

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.

[Scroogie]

Agree with Qosashvili, we dont see much Russia and Dutch either

[Scroogie]

So basically 6 civs out of 14 are underused and/or kinda weak
(India, Russia, Dutch, Brits, Sioux, Ports) and 2 are overshadowed by Iro (France, Germany).
I think Russia Dutch and Brits are mostly underused because of the tp-heavy (+stagecoach-friendly) tournament map-pool, which also extremely favors Spain and Otto (which we are seeing a lot).

[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.

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 ?

[[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 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.

[chronique]

So basically 6 civs out of 14 are underused and/or kinda weak
(India, Russia, Dutch, Brits, Sioux, Ports) and 2 are overshadowed by Iro (France, Germany).

Porto are not realy "underused".

[chronique]

The big thing you have to understand (and from what I read, you got it), is that it is impossible to balance all the civs on both TP and no TP maps. We can try to reduce the balance gap between TPs and no TP maps (with a building like the mosque as you suggest), but we won't reach a good balance on both the TP and the no TP maps. Otto is a good example of that : despite all the mosque buff (which impact the TP maps by the way, and create new balance issues), Otto gets trashed by no TP civs on no TP maps.

Fun fact it was my first statement (which we can't balance tp and no tp map) but when i said that, everybody wasn't agree (and a few of them are more than decent player).

[[Armag] diarouga]

The big thing you have to understand (and from what I read, you got it), is that it is impossible to balance all the civs on both TP and no TP maps. We can try to reduce the balance gap between TPs and no TP maps (with a building like the mosque as you suggest), but we won't reach a good balance on both the TP and the no TP maps. Otto is a good example of that : despite all the mosque buff (which impact the TP maps by the way, and create new balance issues), Otto gets trashed by no TP civs on no TP maps.

Fun fact it was my first statement (which we can't balance tp and no tp map) but when i said that, everybody wasn't agree (and a few of them are more than decent player).

What statement ? We can't balance TP and no TP maps without nerfing TPs to the ground, not sure any decent player disagrees with this at this point.

[chronique]

What statement ? We can't balance TP and no TP maps without nerfing TPs to the ground, not sure any decent player disagrees with this at this point.

No, we need to chose between tp or no tp map but we can't balance both.

[Jotunir]

"The Trading Post is an economic/military building in Age of Empires III that replaces the old-fashioned trade system of carts, boats, and caravans in the previous games" That is an Age Of Empires Fandom Wiki description that can I agree with.
Trading is a valid strategy, it should not be nerfed to the ground. People should not seek to remove strategical diversity, is a really bad thing for a strategy game.

[[Armag] diarouga]

What statement ? We can't balance TP and no TP maps without nerfing TPs to the ground, not sure any decent player disagrees with this at this point.

No, we need to chose between tp or no tp map but we can't balance both.

Who disagrees with this ?

[Jotunir]

What statement ? We can't balance TP and no TP maps without nerfing TPs to the ground, not sure any decent player disagrees with this at this point.

No, we need to chose between tp or no tp map but we can't balance both.

Who disagrees with this ?

I prefer having both maps with and without Tps rather than nerfing them to the ground. It seems like the logical choice. Different maps, different strategical options, which is good for AOE3.

[Squamiger]

i like everything in the new EP so far except i want my guaranteed 300 wood start with China back

[RefluxSemantic]

It would be so great if the community could actually decide the future of the game.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It would be so great if the community could actually decide the future of the game.

You're an asshole to think that.
In all my years in this community, this is the most vile statement I've read.

[Sirchillchill]

On EP – Past, Present and Future = Dictatorship.

[Goodspeed]

Oh, ESOC..

[RefluxSemantic]

So silly man. People that care about a game they've played for more than half of their life, that want the community to have an actual voice in the future of that game. We shouldnt whine. Lets just have one random pr25 guy that doesnt actually play the game make all the calls.

[RefluxSemantic]

Diarouga and Reflux are just a bunch of haters that want all the power for themselves and cant stand the fact that zoi is such a chad. That must be it. Surely they are trying to become dictators. Its not like they are arguing for more community input and democracy for a patch that will forever change what aoe3 will look like.

[Sargsyan]

i don't get why y'all hate on zoi so much. He literally made the most important change in the game.

spoiler

75f vill attack upgrade

[RefluxSemantic]

Cant the community be more communitylike? So that means shutting up and letting a dictator determine the future of the community without letting the community decide. This community patch should be all about the community, which apperantly means nobody should ever complain and that we should have one person make all the decisions. Anyone who disagrees with this is part of a high level clique who want to make the game boring!!!

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

What statement ? We can't balance TP and no TP maps without nerfing TPs to the ground, not sure any decent player disagrees with this at this point.

No, we need to chose between tp or no tp map but we can't balance both.

Who disagrees with this ?

I prefer having both maps with and without Tps rather than nerfing them to the ground. It seems like the logical choice. Different maps, different strategical options, which is good for AOE3.

Its naive to think you can balance for both no TP and TP maps. If you try, you just end up having unbalanced games for both map modes. The team (dictator) should balance around standard maps. The standard map should probably include TPs, because they are and have been a big part of the game.

Nobody is saying that no TP maps shouldnt exist. But honestly, if you actually know how to play the game you realize that no TP makes dont actually have different strategical options. You just have a list of civs that are now not viable anymore.