Poll: Would you play ESOC FP?

briowl · Post by **briowl** » 01 Sep 2015, 21:14

but could we make teepees buff villager hitpoints please? I can't see why they currently don't. It would be a simple way tp give sioux some defensive options

chronique · Post by **chronique** » 01 Sep 2015, 21:35

How you can said that 2 last tournament prove the balence? 90% are mirror?

zoom · Post by **zoom** » 01 Sep 2015, 21:35

bart331 wrote:i think before thinking about a new fanpatch first some lessons learned need to be drawn from FP1.2:

[span] [/span]1)-alienating large part of communitty from patch due to too many changes
[span] [/span]2)-splittting up community
[span] [/span]3)-balancing aint easy (20 maps + 14 civs means with multiple strategies means countless possibilities)
[span] 4)[/span]-balancing purely based on AS new GP is rubbish
[span] 5)[/span]-some civs are not made to be balanced (Sioux , otto, all small changes to make em less lame make em also kinda unplayable unless u do a million other changes)
[span] 6)[/span]-all changes are with an "intended playstyle" while the beauty of the game is the numerours possible playstyles. FP therefore often resulted in boring age 2 musk huss mirrors since that was the intended playstyle of their [span] [/span]founding father.

Since i have no confidence a new patch will adress these issues i am not in favour of a new patch , tbh last 2 tourneys showed to me that current patch without iro/otto is more balanced than assumed.

Why are some civilizations "not made to be balanced", according to you?

In what way did FP 1.0 through 1.2 result in boring Colonial Age games? How is this any different from RE patch other than French and British being relatively weaker?

What do you base the claim that "all changes are with an intended playstyle" on? The entire point 6 is just preposterous. It''s particularly ridiculous considering we are comparing FP1.2 to RE patch, after all...

zoom · Post by **zoom** » 01 Sep 2015, 21:37

diarouga wrote:
musketeer925 wrote:The idea is that changes would be minimal so that Ottomans and Iro could be played, but the current meta and balance would not be upset greatly.
I want to be able to play on fair maps but I dont trust people who will do the fp.
We all know that gs hates water, so water boom wouldnt be viable anymore since it almost isnt currently.
We also know that he wants china to have colonial options and imo china should just ff.
So just put esoc maps and dont change civs.

Why do you have no trust in them? What makes you say Goodspeed hates water?

Also, more interestingly, why do you think Chinese should be a broken one-trick pony which is great in some match-ups and chanceless in others??

bart331 · Post by **bart331** » 01 Sep 2015, 21:51

zoom wrote:
bart331 wrote:i think before thinking about a new fanpatch first some lessons learned need to be drawn from FP1.2:

[span][/span]1)-alienating large part of communitty from patch due to too many changes
[span][/span]2)-splittting up community
[span][/span]3)-balancing aint easy (20 maps + 14 civs means with multiple strategies means countless possibilities)
[span]4)[/span]-balancing purely based on AS new GP is rubbish
[span]5)[/span]-some civs are not made to be balanced (Sioux , otto, all small changes to make em less lame make em also kinda unplayable unless u do a million other changes)
[span]6)[/span]-all changes are with an "intended playstyle" while the beauty of the game is the numerours possible playstyles. FP therefore often resulted in boring age 2 musk huss mirrors since that was the intended playstyle of their [span][/span]founding father.

Since i have no confidence a new patch will adress these issues i am not in favour of a new patch , tbh last 2 tourneys showed to me that current patch without iro/otto is more balanced than assumed.
Why are some civilizations "not made to be balanced", according to you?

In what way did FP 1.0 through 1.2 result in boring Colonial Age games? How is this any different from RE patch other than French and British being relatively weaker?

What do you base the claim that "all changes are with an intended playstyle" on? The entire point 6 is just preposterous. Its particularly ridiculous considering we are comparing FP1.2 to RE patch, after all...

If i look back at fp i remember 100 musk vs 100 musk battles, spain/french/port/brits basically all spammed musks and were mostly played.

The intended playstyle is what happens if u put the mancls and highspeeds and garjas together and let em talk about Strategy. They will play some balance games and try their own style in order to see if its balanced. So all changes will be in line with their playstyle. Variety will be non-existent

What i am trying to say is that the meta is constantly shifting and therefore the view of balance. Look at china, there was a period where china was considered strong (2011?) than ppl said it was shit (2014) and now ppl think its strong again

Garja · Post by **Garja** » 01 Sep 2015, 22:02

Eh....
That's very very poor argument about balance and balance team lol

chronique · Post by **chronique** » 01 Sep 2015, 22:05

Generaly the opinion is bullshit. This is the reason why some peaple use...statistic, one base of science

.

godzillaking · Post by **godzillaking** » 01 Sep 2015, 22:07

A beta patch thing would be cool. Release something, get input on what people think and make changes if necessary and do a tournament on that.

momuuu · Post by **momuuu** » 01 Sep 2015, 22:15

bart331 wrote:
zoom wrote:Why are some civilizations "not made to be balanced", according to you?

In what way did FP 1.0 through 1.2 result in boring Colonial Age games? How is this any different from RE patch other than French and British being relatively weaker?

What do you base the claim that "all changes are with an intended playstyle" on? The entire point 6 is just preposterous. Its particularly ridiculous considering we are comparing FP1.2 to RE patch, after all...

If i look back at fp i remember 100 musk vs 100 musk battles, spain/french/port/brits basically all spammed musks and were mostly played.

The intended playstyle is what happens if u put the mancls and highspeeds and garjas together and let em talk about Strategy. They will play some balance games and try their own style in order to see if its balanced. So all changes will be in line with their playstyle. Variety will be non-existent

What i am trying to say is that the meta is constantly shifting and therefore the view of balance. Look at china, there was a period where china was considered strong (2011?) than ppl said it was shit (2014) and now ppl think its strong again

isnt that why they intend to make a small patch first that fixes otto and iro dutch ports and sioux? Then you can see how it goes from there.

Goodspeed · Post by **Goodspeed** » 01 Sep 2015, 22:48

bart331 wrote:i think before thinking about a new fanpatch first some lessons learned need to be drawn from FP1.2:

[span] [/span]1)-alienating large part of communitty from patch due to too many changes
[span] [/span]2)-splittting up community
[span] [/span]3)-balancing aint easy (20 maps + 14 civs means with multiple strategies means countless possibilities)
[span] 4)[/span]-balancing purely based on AS new GP is rubbish
[span] 5)[/span]-some civs are not made to be balanced (Sioux , otto, all small changes to make em less lame make em also kinda unplayable unless u do a million other changes)
[span] 6)[/span]-all changes are with an "intended playstyle" while the beauty of the game is the numerours possible playstyles. FP therefore often resulted in boring age 2 musk huss mirrors since that was the intended playstyle of their [span] [/span]founding father.

Since i have no confidence a new patch will adress these issues i am not in favour of a new patch , tbh last 2 tourneys showed to me that current patch without iro/otto is more balanced than assumed.

I did mention we would not make the same mistake last FP did... All of your points have been discussed at length already within the team. There''s a reason we would be starting off with minimal changes.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 01 Sep 2015, 23:00

bramboy wrote:I''d definitely play on a fan patch for the rated esoc maps. Civ balance doesn''t really bother me that much tbh' please don''t change the civs too much since it''d take people a while to figure out how civs work.

Also, Russia needs a nerf.

No. It''s Hazza that needs a nerf.

zoom · Post by **zoom** » 01 Sep 2015, 23:00

bart331 wrote:
zoom wrote:Why are some civilizations "not made to be balanced", according to you?

In what way did FP 1.0 through 1.2 result in boring Colonial Age games? How is this any different from RE patch other than French and British being relatively weaker?

What do you base the claim that "all changes are with an intended playstyle" on? The entire point 6 is just preposterous. Its particularly ridiculous considering we are comparing FP1.2 to RE patch, after all...

If i look back at fp i remember 100 musk vs 100 musk battles, spain/french/port/brits basically all spammed musks and were mostly played.

The intended playstyle is what happens if u put the mancls and highspeeds and garjas together and let em talk about Strategy. They will play some balance games and try their own style in order to see if its balanced. So all changes will be in line with their playstyle. Variety will be non-existent

What i am trying to say is that the meta is constantly shifting and therefore the view of balance. Look at china, there was a period where china was considered strong (2011?) than ppl said it was shit (2014) and now ppl think its strong again

Your last paragraph makes for a good point. I agree. I cannot say the same for the nonsense about the FP or its team, nor claim to see the relevance between them.

Regardless, in the end variety is far more promoted by FP1.2 than it is by RE patch.

PhalluS · Post by **PhalluS** » 01 Sep 2015, 23:33

i have voted for fp, but the biggest problem could be the split of the community. after the first fp, the community was splitted and there was too many changes. too many changes was also a problem by ensemble studios. after new patches, we had often a other new op civ...

my suggestion for fp1.0: 1. balanced maps (great plains, ....), 2. rated games on esoc maps (would be very nice), 3. iro nerv (warchief? units?) , 4. otto nerv (make abu's more expensive?) 5. sioux nerv (bowrider slightly)

cohenski · Post by **cohenski** » 02 Sep 2015, 00:42

I think the community is mature enough and capable enough to make this fan patch transition much smoother than fan patches of the past. Knowing the problems it encountered last time, this seems like a fresh chance to do it right, and make the game into something larger (more competitive civs/matchups).

I am sure people will not enjoy the changes people make and propose. That is just the nature of patches. I think we need to just agree that things are not always what they seem with balance, we need to give any changes time (many months possibly) before we can really say how 'gamebreaking' it is. As it currently, aside from Ports, Dutch, Spain, Russia, Ottoman, and Iroquois, I do not think we fully know as a community whether civs are equal in strength or not, so it makes sense to only focus on those. As for Sioux, whether or not matchups with them are 50:50, they are still completely broken in design, so a Sioux change might be the lonely exception to that rule.

With all of this being said, I am ridiculously in support of this fan patch! If this is something we decide to do, I would like to be a part of it. Please sign me up. I am willing to put in the work!

Mimsy for President · Post by **Mimsy for President** » 02 Sep 2015, 01:00

A fan patch made by the Establishment ? :-X

Post by **n0el** » 02 Sep 2015, 01:14

Its a good idea but I can't find a game at night on ESO as is, definitely won't be able to with a split community.

cohenski · Post by **cohenski** » 02 Sep 2015, 01:25

mmcnoel wrote:Its a good idea but I can''t find a game at night on ESO as is, definitely won''t be able to with a split community.

Yeah, its really important we gameplan for preventing community splitup if we do the fp.

godzillaking · Post by **godzillaking** » 02 Sep 2015, 01:50

I would like to see a lot of play testing to make sure it is a good fan patch

briowl · Post by **briowl** » 02 Sep 2015, 03:46

cohenski wrote:I think the community is mature enough and capable enough to make this fan patch transition much smoother than fan patches of the past. Knowing the problems it encountered last time, this seems like a fresh chance to do it right, and make the game into something larger (more competitive civs/matchups).

I am sure people will not enjoy the changes people make and propose. That is just the nature of patches. I think we need to just agree that things are not always what they seem with balance, we need to give any changes time (many months possibly) before we can really say how ''gamebreaking'' it is. As it currently, aside from Ports, Dutch, Spain, Russia, Ottoman, and Iroquois, I do not think we fully know as a community whether civs are equal in strength or not, so it makes sense to only focus on those. As for Sioux, whether or not matchups with them are 50:50, they are still completely broken in design, so a Sioux change might be the lonely exception to that rule.

With all of this being said, I am ridiculously in support of this fan patch! If this is something we decide to do, I would like to be a part of it. Please sign me up. I am willing to put in the work!

Hi. I agree with almost everything here but I''m not totally comfortable with the sioux being characterised as completely broken. I think they dropped a bollock when they seemingly forgot to make teepees buff villager HP and the minutemen dance is completely useless. Fix those two things (the second could just be turned into a big button on a teepee) and I don''t think you make sioux OP.

fitosone · Post by **fitosone** » 02 Sep 2015, 04:03

cohenski wrote:
mmcnoel wrote:Its a good idea but I cant find a game at night on ESO as is, definitely wont be able to with a split community.
Yeah, its really important we gameplan for preventing community splitup if we do the fp.

The issue is that because it cant be done as an official patch (or as far as i understood) if people cant simply download it as an update from steam or similar its going to be pretty hard to make it happen without spliting the community some people just wont install "a mod" cause its too "dificult"

cohenski · Post by **cohenski** » 02 Sep 2015, 04:35

When I said broken, I didn't really mean too strong. Sioux has some obvious flaws of course. I just think they can get very lucky and win/lose games because of it. Stumbling on good treasures and guardians early can kill the opponents explorer and black out his entire scouting pattern. Opponents have to guess what Sioux is doing from this lack of scouting often. They can guess right or wrong and determine the outcome of the game. This is what I mean by broken. It just makes the game stupid sometimes.

pyrgos · Post by **pyrgos** » 02 Sep 2015, 05:12

I'm all in favour of a FP. I'd like to see Ports viable on land maps, and to get some joy playing Dutch. I don't play Otto because they're considered OP - you get kicked if you join a 1v1 room as Otto and don't change it fast enough. But I'd love to play with them 1v1 in a balanced way.

Like someone said above, a beta patch for testing any changes would be of essence. It is important to release the right final product.

I had stopped playing AoE III when the first FP was released (annoyed with civ imbalances). I never knew about it, but I would probably have come back if I had known about it. So I'd say a new FP could potentially bring a few players back in the game, although I'm not sure if this would be sufficient to compensate from players who would stick with the official patch. In this, the community must be united in getting the message that the new FP is the one to use.

Good ol Ivan · Post by **Good ol Ivan** » 02 Sep 2015, 07:37

drumal wrote:9K.. wow.. wish I was on eso with this numbers, fuck me

Server bugs. I don''t recall ESO population legitimately ever exceeding 5k

[Armag] diarouga · Post by **[Armag] diarouga** » 02 Sep 2015, 07:57

ivan wrote:
drumal wrote:9K.. wow.. wish I was on eso with this numbers, fuck me
Server bugs. I dont recall ESO population legitimately ever exceeding 5k

Nope, thats true.

iNcog · Post by **iNcog** » 02 Sep 2015, 08:25

I think it's important to underline that if at one point the balance team makes a mistake, un-doing changes is a simple thing.

The principle of caring for the game rather than leaving it alone is the most important one here, imo. The game actually isn't that bad in its current state, however if it's 75% good right now, then the FP could push it to 90%+.

Maps are super important, need to be fair, need to be good. Civ balance is also important but this can be addressed in the same way LoL does it, small patches with dedicated attention to a single civilization (this is something I just came up with, hasn't been discussed in the team before).

ESOC

Top Live Streams

Legacy AoE3