ESOC Patch suggestions, comments and discussion

[Podawe]

Hi I'm new to the community. How do I install the latest ESOC Patch? The page for installation doesn't seem to exist... (see attached picture)

[Challenger_Marco]

esoc-patch.php @Podawe nvm it's showing same thing for me as well

[_Lcy]

Hi! I've been an AOE3 player since primary school, and have graduated from college now. There are several units that I think need to be nerf in AOE3, such as Cuirassier, Lancer, WarWagon and Halberdier. The reason is that the initialized data of these units is set in Fortress Age but not Colonial Age, so they will get more promotion from the cards and technique. For example, if player send a card that increases cavalry's hit points by 20% , it will increase Lancer's hit points by 70 and Iron Flail's hit points by 58 while Lancer and Iron Flail have the same hit points（350）in Fortress Age. Not only that, the upgrade technique for these units is more powerful than other units' too, it's unfair. Here are my suggestions: set initialized data of these units in Colonial Age, and design shadow upgrade technique for them that will be activated automatically after reaching the Fortress Age, just like Iron Flail, Changdao, Mahout Lancer etc.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Nerf lancers, WW and halbs please !

[chronique]

Good thing that my lancer have something than china cav doesn't.

[EAGLEMUT]

Hi I'm new to the community. How do I install the latest ESOC Patch? The page for installation doesn't seem to exist... (see attached picture)

Fixed.

[gamevideo113]

Hi! I've been an AOE3 player since primary school, and have graduated from college now. There are several units that I think need to be nerf in AOE3, such as Cuirassier, Lancer, WarWagon and Halberdier. The reason is that the initialized data of these units is set in Fortress Age but not Colonial Age, so they will get more promotion from the cards and technique. For example, if player send a card that increases cavalry's hit points by 20% , it will increase Lancer's hit points by 70 and Iron Flail's hit points by 58 while Lancer and Iron Flail have the same hit points（350）in Fortress Age. Not only that, the upgrade technique for these units is more powerful than other units' too, it's unfair. Here are my suggestions: set initialized data of these units in Colonial Age, and design shadow upgrade technique for them that will be activated automatically after reaching the Fortress Age, just like Iron Flail, Changdao, Mahout Lancer etc.

It's true that these "fortress age units" scale better than others because they are upgraded from their fortress age stats, but except for cuirassiers, they really aren't anything special. There is no reason to nerf them
Arguably nerfing them would be even undesirable, since halbs, ww and lancers are far from being too strong.

[Podawe]

Hi I'm new to the community. How do I install the latest ESOC Patch? The page for installation doesn't seem to exist... (see attached picture)

Fixed.

Still seeing the same error.

[EAGLEMUT]

Might be cached or something. Try to open the link in incognito window download/file.php?type=exe&patch=latest

[bwinner]

when you play on random variant, which is default settings, you might get the 1st april of last year random event stuff on ep8...
I am not even sure if it can be disabled, can we get a fix? @Development Team
EDIT: You get random events in any case, I didn't find a way to disable it

[EAGLEMUT]

@bwinner you'll just have to wait for the full release, later tonight.

[iNcog]

Might be cached or something. Try to open the link in incognito window download/file.php?type=exe&patch=latest

hmm?

[ypUnitDiscipleAura]

Hi! I've been an AOE3 player since primary school, and have graduated from college now. There are several units that I think need to be nerf in AOE3, such as Cuirassier, Lancer, WarWagon and Halberdier. The reason is that the initialized data of these units is set in Fortress Age but not Colonial Age, so they will get more promotion from the cards and technique. For example, if player send a card that increases cavalry's hit points by 20% , it will increase Lancer's hit points by 70 and Iron Flail's hit points by 58 while Lancer and Iron Flail have the same hit points（350）in Fortress Age. Not only that, the upgrade technique for these units is more powerful than other units' too, it's unfair. Here are my suggestions: set initialized data of these units in Colonial Age, and design shadow upgrade technique for them that will be activated automatically after reaching the Fortress Age, just like Iron Flail, Changdao, Mahout Lancer etc.

It's true that these "fortress age units" scale better than others because they are upgraded from their fortress age stats, but except for cuirassiers, they really aren't anything special. There is no reason to nerf them
Arguably nerfing them would be even undesirable, since halbs, ww and lancers are far from being too strong.

think fortress age units should be normalized.If the units cannot appear in the colonial era, all arms should be set to fort data.Due to the existence of two advance CARDS HCEarlyDragoonsTeam and HCEarlySkirmishersTeam, all infantry and cavalry arms are combined.So there are only 4 units that should restore fort data, the Indian two elephant and the Chinese meteorhammer ironflail .Combined with the weakening of the British consulate, there are reasons to do so.

[Scroogie]

What do people think about reducing the arsenal cost to 200w? That would make it a lot smoother to integrate into builds, because most of the time you would ship wood (like 1000w) and could get an extra house out of it. Right now the arsenal cost is essentially 300w since you cant really get anything out of the 50w left over, except if you chop more which isnt ideal.

[harcha]

What do people think about reducing the arsenal cost to 200w? That would make it a lot smoother to integrate into builds, because most of the time you would ship wood (like 1000w) and could get an extra house out of it. Right now the arsenal cost is essentially 300w since you cant really get anything out of the 50w left over, except if you chop more which isnt ideal.

dislike

[Scroogie]

What do people think about reducing the arsenal cost to 200w? That would make it a lot smoother to integrate into builds, because most of the time you would ship wood (like 1000w) and could get an extra house out of it. Right now the arsenal cost is essentially 300w since you cant really get anything out of the 50w left over, except if you chop more which isnt ideal.

dislike

i dislike ur dislike

[Qosashvili93]

So starting crates is usually big problem like german 200 wood start india wood start and so on

What if every civ will start with crate which is not best for civ, dutch never with coin, brit never with wood, russ never with food, japs never with wood and so on. Is it possible to make?

[chronique]

So starting crates is usually big problem like german 200 wood start india wood start and so on

What if every civ will start with crate which is not best for civ, dutch never with coin, brit never with wood, russ never with food, japs never with wood and so on. Is it possible to make?

At this point, just remove rdm crate.

[vividlyplain]

So starting crates is usually big problem like german 200 wood start india wood start and so on

What if every civ will start with crate which is not best for civ, dutch never with coin, brit never with wood, russ never with food, japs never with wood and so on. Is it possible to make?

it's possible, but imo it would be better for every civ to have fixed crates so they ALWAYS get their best start

[Qosashvili93]

So starting crates is usually big problem like german 200 wood start india wood start and so on

What if every civ will start with crate which is not best for civ, dutch never with coin, brit never with wood, russ never with food, japs never with wood and so on. Is it possible to make?

it's possible, but imo it would be better for every civ to have fixed crates so they ALWAYS get their best start

Yea thats almost same what I said

Would be much fair if for example in dutch/india mu dutch starts with coin crates and india with wood crates

Or dutch with wood and india with coin and I prefer this because game more hard and interesting


Was this already written here and comunity refuses? Whats reason

[vividlyplain]

So starting crates is usually big problem like german 200 wood start india wood start and so on

What if every civ will start with crate which is not best for civ, dutch never with coin, brit never with wood, russ never with food, japs never with wood and so on. Is it possible to make?

it's possible, but imo it would be better for every civ to have fixed crates so they ALWAYS get their best start

Yea thats almost same what I said

we said the opposite but i agree with your main point

[Darwin_]

What if ranged infantry multipliers were changed to 1.75x light cavalry and 0.6x heavy cavalry (they are currently 2x light cav, 0.75x all cav), and all of the light cav range-resistance nerfs were undone. This change would make ranged infantry do ~17% more damage vs. light cavalry (currently the range resistance nerfs equal about a 9% damage increase for skirms against light cav), and 20% less damage vs. hand cavalry. It seems like I hear all the time that skirms are not necessarily a good unit, they are just really hard to counter. This change would make skirmishers less of a main unit, as they would be more easily countered by hand cavalry, and more of a counter-unit, as they would counter light cavalry slightly harder. What do people think?

[dansil92]

What if ranged infantry multipliers were changed to 1.75x light cavalry and 0.6x heavy cavalry (they are currently 2x light cav, 0.75x all cav), and all of the light cav range-resistance nerfs were undone. This change would make ranged infantry do ~17% more damage vs. light cavalry (currently the range resistance nerfs equal about a 9% damage increase for skirms against light cav), and 20% less damage vs. hand cavalry. It seems like I hear all the time that skirms are not necessarily a good unit, they are just really hard to counter. This change would make skirmishers less of a main unit, as they would be more easily countered by hand cavalry, and more of a counter-unit, as they would counter light cavalry slightly harder. What do people think?

There's a lot to digest here:
1. Abus currently do 0.75 vs all ranged cav. Would they be receiving over a 100% buff?
2. Siege elephants. That is all.
3. Eagle runners, coyote runners, rattans. Etc.

I think its too late to get into reworking all of these interactions tbh

[Darwin_]

What if ranged infantry multipliers were changed to 1.75x light cavalry and 0.6x heavy cavalry (they are currently 2x light cav, 0.75x all cav), and all of the light cav range-resistance nerfs were undone. This change would make ranged infantry do ~17% more damage vs. light cavalry (currently the range resistance nerfs equal about a 9% damage increase for skirms against light cav), and 20% less damage vs. hand cavalry. It seems like I hear all the time that skirms are not necessarily a good unit, they are just really hard to counter. This change would make skirmishers less of a main unit, as they would be more easily countered by hand cavalry, and more of a counter-unit, as they would counter light cavalry slightly harder. What do people think?

There's a lot to digest here:
1. Abus currently do 0.75 vs all ranged cav. Would they be receiving over a 100% buff?
2. Siege elephants. That is all.
3. Eagle runners, coyote runners, rattans. Etc.

I think its too late to get into reworking all of these interactions tbh

1. abus are not traditional ranged infantry, so I wasn't really talking about them
2. Siege elephants deserve a buff anyway (more range resistance like in Garja Patch is a good idea imo)
3. These multipliers can be changed very easily as well to reflect the other changes. Currently, iirc, skirms do 2x vs. ERK and full damage vs. coyotes, so you could change those multipliers to 2.3 (15% increase) and 0.8 (20% decrease), respectively.

I mean, I don't really think it is too late at all, especially considering we've been reworking the skirm/goon interaction since EP2.

[helln00]

Isnt the problems with skirms more to do with the fact that they so heavily out range other units and how easy they are to mass that they can kill most units before they can reach them?

I think we should standardise all skirm-type unit range to 18, anything other should be due to civ bonuses (lacrose and that weird thing with Ghurkha)