ESOCommunity

Title says it all. ATP is currently super lame, and with the new tactic of building the TP's with villagers, it is super hard to deny. Just nerf the HP buff or the Ranged attack or something like that. ATP's are effectively 120w outposts with twice as much HP and it gives you resources. How is that not lame?

Agreed. TPs should supplement your eco. Not be the basis of it.

I think ATP is cool and brings variety to the game. Unlike outposts, ATP costs a card, the range of the TPs is short, and stagecoach has a cost and takes time to be researched

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.

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

Another reason why ATP is so strong are ESOC Maps. I don't want to start a whole new map discussion as I know that there are other threads for that and that the topic has been extensively discussed.
Still, I'd like to point out that ESOC Maps seem to contain more TPs than standard original maps. I haven't counted it but I think that there are quite some ESOC Maps which contain long routes with 4+ TPs (e.g. High Plains, Arizona) and I think that there are not many original maps with routes with 4+ TPs. Only the high number of TPs makes ATP truly that strong.

A think a good way to balance this would to be to introduce some more maps with 0-3 TP's. Of course, this is totally dependent on the map makers. Maybe I should learn to make maps.

ATP is fine. If it is nerfed it will only be viable on 5 TP maps like Klondike and High Plains, noone agrees to play those anyway. Just don't put such maps in tournaments.

site wrote:A think a good way to balance this would to be to introduce some more maps with 0-3 TP's. Of course, this is totally dependent on the map makers. Maybe I should learn to make maps.

It would be super cool to have some Insight Studios Maps for Fight Night!

Yeah atp is fine, just maps shouldnt come with more than 3 tps...
3 tp is also close to an upgraded factory gather rate on wood.

And these three TPs should all be accessable. Not like on GP where you can only get two TPS.

yurashic wrote:ATP is fine. If it is nerfed it will only be viable on 5 TP maps like Klondike and High Plains, noone agrees to play those anyway. Just don't put such maps in tournaments.

just like iro and otto are bad civs on re?

There's nothing wrong with maps that have lots of TPs. You're calling the maps broken when it's clearly the card that's the issue. You would never send ATP on a map where you're only likely to be able to build 2 TPs. Just because the card turns out to be good on those maps with lots of TPs doesn't make the maps broken. The card needs some work, that's all there is to it.

The way everyone acts like maps should all be the exact same is very disappointing.

For the record, there are just as many RE maps that have plenty of TPs: Great Lakes, Patagonia (3 TPs each, can grab 4 with ATP), Saguenay (Sometimes has 5 TPs), Mongolia, New England, Araucania, Sonora, Deccan

And that might not even be all of them.

All of these maps have plenty to offer to diversify play, and the TPs are part of that. If these maps had consistent resource spawns they could even be fantastic maps. To suddenly say that these sorts of maps should NEVER be included in competitive play is closed-minded and sad. And sure, these maps may favour certain civs over others, may favour ATP civs over other civs, but there's no such thing as a map that does not favour a certain civ or group of civs.

I, for one, enjoy games where people have to change the way they play because of the map. I think it would be pretty damn boring to include only maps with 3 TP lines where 1 TP is safely under one player's TC, each player has 2 safe gold mines and 3 safe hunts, and every game turns into bland 5 huss semi-FFs because there's simply no need to explore anything else this game has to offer.

The number of TPs on these maps is simply not the problem here.

Hazza54321 wrote:

yurashic wrote:ATP is fine. If it is nerfed it will only be viable on 5 TP maps like Klondike and High Plains, noone agrees to play those anyway. Just don't put such maps in tournaments.

just like iro and otto are bad civs on re?

If you disagree with something, then please explain.

The ATP offers a healthy growth strategy.

However, this can at times, be an unhealthy growth strategy.

I like ATP. Why nerf anything that is good? Why is it that its wrong for some civs to be favored on some maps, and other not so much? Diversity bois n girls, thats what makes the game fun!

@mitoe

mitoe wrote:notification

said :

The way everyone acts like maps should all be the exact same is very disappointing.

And I totally agree with him

Mitoe wrote:There's nothing wrong with maps that have lots of TPs. You're calling the maps broken when it's clearly the card that's the issue. You would never send ATP on a map where you're only likely to be able to build 2 TPs. Just because the card turns out to be good on those maps with lots of TPs doesn't make the maps broken. The card needs some work, that's all there is to it.

The way everyone acts like maps should all be the exact same is very disappointing.

For the record, there are just as many RE maps that have plenty of TPs: Great Lakes, Patagonia (3 TPs each, can grab 4 with ATP), Saguenay (Sometimes has 5 TPs), Mongolia, New England, Araucania, Sonora, Deccan

And that might not even be all of them.

All of these maps have plenty to offer to diversify play, and the TPs are part of that. If these maps had consistent resource spawns they could even be fantastic maps. To suddenly say that these sorts of maps should NEVER be included in competitive play is closed-minded and sad. And sure, these maps may favour certain civs over others, may favour ATP civs over other civs, but there's no such thing as a map that does not favour a certain civ or group of civs.

I, for one, enjoy games where people have to change the way they play because of the map. I think it would be pretty damn boring to include only maps with 3 TP lines where 1 TP is safely under one player's TC, each player has 2 safe gold mines and 3 safe hunts, and every game turns into bland 5 huss semi-FFs because there's simply no need to explore anything else this game has to offer.

The number of TPs on these maps is simply not the problem here.

I see your point and you certainly have way more game knowledge than me, but isn't it still the case that there are more high TP Maps in ESOC Maps that there are on RE relative to the amount of total maps. And I also think that the RE Maps with many TPs often contain water (Sag, Great Lakes, Patagonia, NE, Araucania) which offers another counter to ATP whereas many high TP ESOC Maps do not contain water (HP, Arizona, Mendocino, Colorado).
I want to note that this doesn't mean that I do not like ESOC Maps. I like them a lot and think that they improve many things, but the high number of TPs is what I think might be improvable. I am interested what other pros think about this.

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.

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

If it is op as fuck, why civs which can send ATP like France, germany, brit, dutch and ottomans chose to send 3 vills (or 2sw in case of germany) ?
It shows that still 3 vills or 2sw > ATP

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.

they get so much value, buy so much time if you try to seige them if u dont seige them and go for the base then they have 16 vills gathering for them uncontested
if you use pikes they can kill 2/3 before they go down
already getting their worth
dispite the xp
just seems retarded
not how ports and spain should be played at all

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

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

?

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:

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

?

?

?!