Poll: Would you play ESOC FP?

[edeholland]

For those who don't trust the decisions about the civ changes, just help out with testing. ^^

[mongobillione]

[div style="text-align:center'"][url=http://eso-community.net/thread/2402/poll-play-esoc-fp" style="font-size:12pt']Vote here[/url][/div][div style="text-align:center'"]
[/div][div style="text-align:center'"][span style="font-size:12pt'"]Hey everyone,[/span][/div]
Since the beginning of the ESOC project, a potential new Fan Patch has been on our minds. Now, we are seeing a lot of activity on this website, more than any of us expected, and solid community participation in both the tournaments and the betting event. The tournaments are not stopping any time soon, and even the numbers on ESO are barely worse (if at all) than they were in 2010 during last FP times.

But were missing 2 things: Civ balance and an acceptable map pool for people to play rated games on. A patch fixes both those problems, but an official patch is off the table so we have to do it ourselves. We are aware that changing too much would be a mistake and if we go through with this project its not a mistake we will make. ESOC patchs most important features would be:

- The possibility to play rated games on ESOC maps.
-?Minimal changes to some of the civs with the goal of making all civs equally viable to play.
- A very easy installation with auto-update functionality which means no manual updates.
- Easy to switch between patches by means of 2 separate .exe files.
- Compatible with the Steam version of the game.

The next step for us is this poll. We know we are reaching a fairly large audience on this website, but important for us to know is whether enough people show interest in the patch. After all, we do need to be sure that enough players will play it. So if you know someone who will play the patch but they dont visit this site (or not very often) please tell them to vote. Also, please spread the word about this poll on ESO itself!

Feel free to discuss the subject in this thread, I will be monitoring it and answering questions. If you voted for either of the "for a different reason" options, please do mention your reason in a reply. Thanks!

if this gona happen, i will give u 200$ for next tourney.

[_tank]

I think it would end up like the last fan patch, though now we have even less people on eso so fragmentation will make it hard to find my 3v3

[[Armag] diarouga]

For those who don''t trust the decisions about the civ changes, just help out with testing. ^^

Lol, I will test it for sure but I know that GS will totally fuck the water play. You won''t see any fishing boats anymore if he does the changes he planns to do.

[wearegood]

To nerf abus just change their attack from siege to range therefore they can be range resisted.

[deleted_user0]

For those who dont trust the decisions about the civ changes, just help out with testing. ^^

Lol, I will test it for sure but I know that GS will totally fuck the water play. You wont see any fishing boats anymore if he does the changes he planns to do.

he has said a few times they wont touch water... and besides water should be changed because its completely broken now. warships are ridiculous. idc about the schooners part, that can stay the same. but warships need a malus vs land units and what spadel said about special attack only being able to target buildings and ships is a good idea too.

people complain about iro otto, but warships are more broken on water maps than iro otto on land maps.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Lol, I will test it for sure but I know that GS will totally fuck the water play. You wont see any fishing boats anymore if he does the changes he planns to do.

people complain about iro otto, but warships are more broken on water maps than iro otto on land maps.

Thats a reason to take the sea then. Today, maybe 5% of people take the sea (I dont mean water boom but warships), in AOE II, from what Ive seen, players go for the sea almost every games.

[edeholland]

people complain about iro otto, but warships are more broken on water maps than iro otto on land maps.

Thats a reason to take the sea then. Today, maybe 5% of people take the sea (I dont mean water boom but warships), in AOE II, from what Ive seen, players go for the sea almost every games.

Thats because sea is your best way to boom in AoE II and because you dont need to spend cards.

[Goodspeed]

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.

Going by what it was like on the previous FP, above pr25 almost everyone would be playing it so above that level it shouldn''t be much harder to find games than it is now.
Below that you may notice the split.

[91]

Lol, I will test it for sure but I know that GS will totally fuck the water play. You wont see any fishing boats anymore if he does the changes he planns to do.

he has said a few times they wont touch water... and besides water should be changed because its completely broken now. warships are ridiculous. idc about the schooners part, that can stay the same. but warships need a malus vs land units and what spadel said about special attack only being able to target buildings and ships is a good idea too.

people complain about iro otto, but warships are more broken on water maps than iro otto on land maps.

Im not sure on this, but I could argue that youre not supposed to be able to guard the shore with land units if there are huge ships there, but rather have to take the sea.. Its like building a fort on someones hunts. If its already built up, you cant just take it over like that. you failed with scouting and are being punished.

[deleted_user0]

people complain about iro otto, but warships are more broken on water maps than iro otto on land maps.

Thats a reason to take the sea then. Today, maybe 5% of people take the sea (I dont mean water boom but warships), in AOE II, from what Ive seen, players go for the sea almost every games.

people dont do it for the same reason they dont iro otto, they have read the white_knights_w code of honor (names shall not be named) and they dont want to be lamers and expelled from the paradise of random 3v3s.

[deleted_user0]

he has said a few times they wont touch water... and besides water should be changed because its completely broken now. warships are ridiculous. idc about the schooners part, that can stay the same. but warships need a malus vs land units and what spadel said about special attack only being able to target buildings and ships is a good idea too.

people complain about iro otto, but warships are more broken on water maps than iro otto on land maps.

Im not sure on this, but I could argue that youre not supposed to be able to guard the shore with land units if there are huge ships there, but rather have to take the sea.. Its like building a fort on someones hunts. If its already built up, you cant just take it over like that. you failed with scouting and are being punished.

the thing is, you cant build on the shore anymore because the warships will deny any building from going up. the way you say its just basically the first on to get a mass on water just wins water and there is nothing anyone else can do about it anymore. which is pretty much how it is now since upgraded warships beat their hard counter in tcs towers and forts as well as culverins.

you arent being punished, because even if you know 1000% its coming, you cant do stuff about it. i can build 4 towers in a spot, but you can just micro your ships back, i cant micro my towers. I can FF for culverins, but that gives the fishboom enough time to get about 50 vils out, at which point the game is pretty much over because by the time i get 5 upgraded culverins in place, you are aged and have frigates with upgrades, which just demolish culverins because more speed, and more range, and more attack. its ridiculous.

when warships have a malus against land units then culverins can beat them again, because they dont get oneshotted by the special attack of frigs and monitors. normal land units cant even touch a warship, so even though the damage is reduced, they can still defend a shoreline.

[div]
you know what the most effective way to play on summer great lakes is? go IV with warships protecting your shore, then control the entire map with monitors and frigates. and there is literally no counter to it, the first to build 2 towers on the island and gets a frigate out just wins. nice games those =_=


and im even talking from a perspective of euro civs who have culverins. if you dont have culverins you might as well resign instantly. [/div]

[Goodspeed]

people complain about iro otto, but warships are more broken on water maps than iro otto on land maps.

Thats a reason to take the sea then. Today, maybe 5% of people take the sea (I dont mean water boom but warships), in AOE II, from what Ive seen, players go for the sea almost every games.

Yes thats because water is not broken in AoE2.
In the big water thread I think I used the comparison between AoC water and AoE3 water, to show how AoC is doing it right and AoE3 is doing it wrong and not just from a balance perspective. Water in AoE3 is flawed in its design and therefore impossible to balance without design changes. Those changes would not be in this patchs first release.

Please note though that I dont hate water at all, I just recognize that its broken and want to fix it. A lot of people think that means I want to see water disappear forever, but the opposite is true. I want to see it more often, but I dont want to see it replace land eco entirely.

Because yes, water is broken. Mind you by "broken" I dont mean too strong, I mean flawed in its design. Yes it is too strong in some match ups on some maps, and too weak in most. What it should be is a viable way to supplement your land economy if you get in a situation where you can afford it, instead of a replacement for your land economy. Water replacing land is a design flaw in that it literally seperates the players and promotes non-interactive play. Any RTS designer would immediately see the red flag in this.

One reason is whales. Whales allow you to gather all the resources you need for military production as well as age ups just from water. Red flag.
Whales need to be either removed or there should be at max 2 or 3 whales per water map. That way water becomes a supplement to your land economy instead of a replacement. The next step is buffing it so that it actually becomes a viable way to play, note that we can do that only after nerfing whales because otherwise water would become way too strong.

Another reason is schooners. You have to spend a card to go water, which means its only viable to really commit to it. You cant build a dock and a couple of fishing boats just because you can afford it and want to play an eco style, you have to actually commit to water for schooners to be worth it. Forcing players to commit to it forces them to abandon land and this, along with whales, promotes non-interactive play where the players economies are physically separated and unreachable.

I also think warships and their random fire rate are poorly designed. They need to be smaller and fire at a fixed rate (yes I know it averages out in the long run but as is they are not microable).

Keep in mind Im not the only person in the FP team and we take the opinion of the community seriously. If we are to change water in the future (again, definitely not in the first release) I would start at removing schooners, making fishing boats 50w or 60w for all civs and max 2 whales per water map. But if the rest of the team or the community disagrees (which they do), that change is not happening ever.

[91]

Well, you're giving examples of getting land units again. I mean you should build ships. And if you fail to build enough ships, build an outpost near your dock and you will be fine..??

I mean you shouldn't be able to take over sea by spamming stuff on the shore, because nobody would go sea anymore

[[Armag] diarouga]

[quote="calmyourtits"][/quote]
That''s a nice idea.
Today, if you want to take the water, you just should go full water or it isn''t viable

[deleted_user0]

Well, you''re giving examples of getting land units again. I mean you should build ships. And if you fail to build enough ships, build an outpost near your dock and you will be fine..??

I mean you shouldn''t be able to take over sea by spamming stuff on the shore, because nobody would go sea anymore

did you not read my post? outposts don''t counter ships. if building ships is the ONLY way to beat water, it just means that the one who is fastest out on the water can deny the other player from getting up water and thus ever being able to counter his water presence, thats completely possible now, and thats one of the reasons why water is broken...

outposts as is are fine i think, they are a shortterm counter to warships, untill warships get upgrades and siegeships that can deal with shore fortifications or are avaialbe in such numbers that they can be microed back and forth to quickly take out towers and such. frigates should be a counter to warships in that case, so that when you are driven from the water somehow, you still have a means to get it back. if the waterplayer wants to defend vs that he should simply make some land units, because its equally unfair that water can totally dominate land as it is now, as it would be that land could totally dominate water, as nobody is saying it should be. your argument is just turning a blind eye to the brokenness of water and if you would reverse your argument you would see that what you say would be bad, is whats actually applicable to water RIGHT NOW. Just having towers and culverins on shore doesnt even counter water really, it just counters that water can dominate land, if you want to kill his water eco, the fishing ships, you still have to build warships and move out on water.

aka you are right, you shouldnt be able to take over sea by spamming stuff on shore (which you cant because you can just run from shore) and you shouldnt be able to take over shore by just spamming stuff on sea, which you can right now...

[Asato4]

Rhoo, I just did a missed-click...

[n0el]

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.

Going by what it was like on the previous FP, above pr25 almost everyone would be playing it so above that level it shouldnt be much harder to find games than it is now.
Below that you may notice the split.

That would be nice if it was the case.

Also, could the rates map pool be continuously updated similar to the ladder seasons of sc2? That might encourage more community map making and keep the meta evolving and game fresh.

[Goodspeed]

Yes, those types of changes can be easily done on the fly since we have an auto-updating patch. It means people never have to manually install a new version which makes relatively frequent changes in the map pool viable.

[edeholland]

Grats on 2000 posts Goodspeed. Keep it up!

[n0el]

Yes, those types of changes can be easily done on the fly since we have an auto-updating patch. It means people never have to manually install a new version which makes relatively frequent changes in the map pool viable.

That''d be awesome!

[r4go]

I appreciate very much your idea, but I'll be honest, as you claim to do a patch with an adequate budget civ here when no one understood the power of the Jap, many pros say that China sucks and that the Russians are too strong ?? I think that only H20 is really Enlarged to create a Civil decent budget, with all due respect to those who are working on this idea, I do not want to be totally offensive, but the posts and comments seen so far, I see here that there are pros They believe the best of Iamgrunt and others. Pro that they are very childish and rather than admit they use the Civil stronger shoot stupid absurd, many pros now would not have to rank that age if she stayed active and played by players with enormous talent. I than many I have been fortunate to play at age since 2006, following many dynamics that even garja, which I think is a very good player, has been able to follow because it was not yet logged in the community of ESO, I was lucky enough to play and lose vs good players and exchange views with them, and to be honest, the first major difference I find between the active aging and the current age, and no one has really understood 100% the power of each civ. I do not say that I have understood, I have never been a pro team in 1v1 and only maybe I can say I played at a good level, but I think that to make a balanced FP is very difficult seeing the dynamics of today's thinking on the Civil Code, as well as the new maps ESO resourceful favor Turtle and strategies are disadvantageous as the off the map. Anyway thanks for the work they are doing however, is admirable passion that you put, I have expressed my opinion that obviously can like as not, and if I could give advice on the budget civ I would be delighted. Sincerely R4go

[_DB_]

I don't want the civs to change a lot honestly.

In balances, I would only like to see nilla Spain, nilla Dutch,otto from fp 1.2 and a little buff to Russia. Don't want any more changes.

It's probably best to make esoc maps rated + random qs maps to be as good as esoc maps in terms of balance than the game is something playable.

Everyone today knows how to play a single match up with a civ vs every civ.

When player A knows how to play against player B and player B knows how to play vs player A, the match up is already fair despite the civ options.

[edeholland]

Everyone today knows how to play a single match up with a civ vs every civ.

Then why did you start ~20 threads about matchups?

I don''t think it would be fun to play against original otto/iro in quick search.

[bart331]

Also the auto update thinh sounds nice in theory , but i dont want crying kids here 247 about nerfing x or y. I also dont want a civ of the week sysytem with every week new balance patches