ESOCommunity

gibson wrote:

KINGofOsmane wrote:

gibson wrote:It's fine lol. It's a large investment that takes times to pay off and is pretty easy to counter imo

?

?

Just explain how to counter it.

gibson wrote:It's fine lol. It's a large investment that takes times to pay off and is pretty easy to counter imo

nice post

its ok on maps with 3 tp's and even 4. Its pretty broken on high plains tho

KINGofOsmane wrote:

gibson wrote:

Show hidden quotes

KINGofOsmane wrote:

gibson wrote:It's fine lol. It's a large investment that takes times to pay off and is pretty easy to counter imo

?

?

?!

?!?

gibson wrote:

KINGofOsmane wrote:

Show hidden quotes

gibson wrote:

KINGofOsmane wrote:

gibson wrote:It's fine lol. It's a large investment that takes times to pay off and is pretty easy to counter imo

?

?

?!

?!?

?!?!

Akechi_Mitsuhide wrote:

gibson wrote:

Show hidden quotes

KINGofOsmane wrote:

gibson wrote:It's fine lol. It's a large investment that takes times to pay off and is pretty easy to counter imo

?

?

Just explain how to counter it.

You can deny him the tp line with your explorer, although this is gonna be mu dependent as well as dependent on treasures, who gets a native, who gets low hp etc. You can take 2 tps yourself in transition. You can take advantage of the fact that hes invested a card as well as at least 760 res( 3 tps plus stage coach, more if he gets more tps) into something thats going to take several minutes to return said resources by pressuring either his tc or the tp line.

Yeah you cant compete with a TP line unless you are a all in rush at 6-7 mins
If you seige down his TP then he has time to build up and react, if you attack his base then he out macros you and you lose.
I have used boom decks but gotten 3-4 TP line in FFA to beat 1st lts with rush decks hitting me before I even have an army or barracks due to a late age time. I just run my vills to different hunts, butild a FB and use the TP line for coin and macro all to food and houses while he spends time seiging down my base. then I come back with bigger army and kill. but I have also lost to a good rush after picking up too many TP early too. The game i remember for that I had a late age time on deccan and a german player was raiding me before I go to collonial. With my Tps though i was still able to survive until industrial.

in a 1v1 I would think you have to match the TP play style or do all in rush.

Akechi_Mitsuhide wrote:

Mitoe wrote:My point is that we shouldn't be moving away from map diversity because people are too damn lazy to learn new ways to play the game.

But wouldn't it still be cool to have maps with only one or two TPs. This would demand the players to contest them more.

We have lots of them, and no one plays anything except those maps, and they all play out virtually the exact same way.

People are saying we shouldn't even include maps like Klondike or Cascade Range in tournaments, even though that's exactly where those maps should be featured. In situations where players actually have time to plan for them.

I think one of the things that makes Aoe 3 s ogreat and advanced is the natives and TPs creating strategic map control points. So for that I see high TP maps offering a different stratedgy of being the one who fights for and controls them until the tipping point is reached and the game is won. Its good to have maps like this and water maps like indonesia.

Also to add a question, doesn't the revenue of the TP depend on the length of route and number of post? so fewer post have more res per trip. So isnt having more TP a nerf since it cost more to get less from the trade line?

howlingwolfpaw wrote:Also to add a question, doesn't the revenue of the TP depend on the length of route and number of post? so fewer post have more res per trip. So isnt having more TP a nerf since it cost more to get less from the trade line?

It only depends on the length

Do you talk about this ? http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/for ... 0,1980,all

What I am mostly concerned about with Atp is the amount of map control it can give you. If they could be killed more easily, I wouldnt have a problem with ATP's. However, they are very hard to kill, so their economic strength is indirectly increased.

maybe the card just needs to be moved to age 2. it seems more valuable than 300 res, and would make people think twice about removing another important age 2 card.

I think it would be useless as a Colonial card and would never see play.

howlingwolfpaw wrote:maybe the card just needs to be moved to age 2. it seems more valuable than 300 res, and would make people think twice about removing another important age 2 card.

'Why would you change a thing available on RE? that should be the question

ATP is fine, too many esoc maps having 4-5tps maps is a problem.

lemmings121 wrote:ATP is fine, too many esoc maps having 4-5tps maps is a problem.

Do you think ATP is a problem on 4-5 TP maps?

The card is only viable on those maps, and maybe a few 3 TP maps, and if you consider it a problem on those maps then it's a problem with the card not the maps.

It's questionable as to how good ATP is if the opponent makes two tps in transition. Then whoever sent ATP used a card to get a one tp advantage

Darwin_ wrote:What I am mostly concerned about with Atp is the amount of map control it can give you. If they could be killed more easily, I wouldnt have a problem with ATP's. However, they are very hard to kill, so their economic strength is indirectly increased.

if all you were concerned about was map control you'd be complaining that team cheap outposts was an op card, as it's much better for gaining map control and a team card to boot

Hazza54321 wrote:

Mitoe wrote:I think ATP provides a healthy option (for the civs that can afford to use it) to boost their early economies and adds a lot more depth to those civs and the game. I think the main problem with ATP is that it gives TPs just a bit too much hp, making it really hard to enact any sort of adequate counterplay.

ATP works because it often forces the opponent into a suboptimal counter-build. The opponent ends up spending way more trying to deny control of the TP line than the opponent does by sending ATP and investing all the extra wood into it and stagecoach. If they were easier to kill safely, it would be a differently story.

Unfortunately others don't think the same.

its op as fuck lol

basically, what Darwin is trying to say, is that ATP isn't something you should be able to make easily and then scratch your balls for the next 10 minutes and win

howlingwolfpaw wrote:
Also to add a question, doesn't the revenue of the TP depend on the length of route and number of post? so fewer post have more res per trip. So isnt having more TP a nerf since it cost more to get less from the trade line?

Only depends on length, plus TPs (with some variation) will have similar resource incomes regardless of the route length because shorter route = more trips around to each TP. It always works out to roughly the same resources/min.

@sirmusket

sirmusket wrote:notification

yeah purty much.

I like high TP maps. Disclaimer: I am bad at this game. The presence of multiple TPs on a map like High Plains or Arizona gives multiple important points of contention on the map, which encourages players to be careful about where they're placing their units (and occasionally spread their units out more) and provides meaningful minor objectives. Something that I think many RTS games struggle with are the presence of low-risk, low-reward objectives. For example, taking a big 50-50 battle in mid Fortress and hoping you win the engagement is high-risk, high reward: 50% chance of success and often decides the game outright. StarCraft II (not Brood War) has the same problem and has been trying to solve this to questionable success for years. I find this undesirable, and find that large TP lines partially offset this problem. Hence, if anything, I'd prefer more high-TP maps, and if necessary, ATP is nerfed to compensate.

Tbh I think it's a problem with civ balance, despite what everyone argues, esoc maps aren't that different then re maps in terms of tps, the difference is that port, Spain and Russia were all buffed quite a bit on EP compared to RE. The fact that port can boom from 2tcs and 5tps and the entire investment has paid off before like 7min and they have zero food problems because they have the whole map is just lame.