EP9: PORTUGUESE

[Riotcoke]

Hey,

unnerf goons

Actual god

[VictorXV]

"what don't you like about playing Portuguese, and what would it take to make the civilization more fun?"

so.... I hope my case might give you some feedback.... I've been playing AoE3 again after years. Currently I'm playing with some friends online and my fav civ are Ports. I discovered this community a month ago and I wanted to use the patch to play with them, but I haven't introduce them to this patch so far because the only balance point that I dislike (of all the changes) is Cassador having a ROF of 4.5 xD I don't even want to try to play with a unit like that =/

how can I judge without even trying the unit? well that might give you a sense about how discouraging will be for a new player that likes Ports to find out that Cass fires super slow -it makes me want to play Japaneses which are my 2nd fav. I know you have to be good at micro to play Ports, ... and I do that with the unpatched version of the game... but sometimes is just so consuming. Most games with my friends just end up pumping out lots of units until the worst economy weakens. To put an example: one FFA game ended up with me against the Ottos, he had just Janis in his base and it ended up like this: lots of imperial Jans vs lots of musk+cass+ some dragoons. When you have that many units (at least for me) microing is hard. And if he stays in his base not afraid to prolong the game as long as he wants ... what good is hit and run? - I used artillery and the fight was not only mus vs musk, but .. you get the point...

I will try the patch this week, but I wanted to give a possible explanation why some people (like me) would not bother to try Ports just because the new Cass. In a couple of weeks I could say something regarding the Cassador, but who knows ... maybe18/19 Attack will make people want to play Ports more?

Anyway, what would make the Civ more fun I dunno ... I read that 80 food vills didn't work ... but why?
- maybe you star with cheap Vills and they get a more normal price each age: 80f in Discovery, 85f in Colonial, 90f in Fortress and so on
- each new TC also gives you new vills: 2/3 in Col, 3/4/5 in Fort,5/6 in Industrial ...
- each new TC could also give you food crates?
I will have to do the math for the last two, but it could be an option.

I'm ok with all the other changes ... but
* TC: 500w gives any Civ the opportunity to build 2 TC with the 1000w card .... so the Ports bonus in Fortress equals just one card now ? What if you change the price to 700/800w? the TC card will make more sense for other civs
* 5% gather rate to compensate seems odd

PS: I never use Xbow because imo they sucks, so I think is not an alternative to Cass.
PS2: I didn't know that such a large community existed ... so congratulations for the work guys, I hope to stay around this year

[Peachrocks]

PS: I never use Xbow because imo they sucks, so I think is not an alternative to Cass.

Of course they suck 'now' but the bestiero card/church tech could be improved to be an alternative, that's the whole argument which you might have missed because understandably this conversation went nowhere for ages. They are a 16 range unit compared to the 20 alternative where range is one of it's most important stats. I mean sure in colonial and whatever they are a deliberate design weakness of certain civs but beyond that it doesn't have to be that way with modification if people should so choose.

Also in general I find that micro and fire rate difference in late game doesn't matter as much because overkilling is something every unit does if you focus fire. Whereas earlier and in the mid game, Ports are way more vulnerable to it. At least for people with errrr micro difficulties like myself . If anything Port doing extra damage can be an advantage late because you can snipe or 'one shot' artillery with enough Cass. Much harder to do with Skirmishers. Just a nubs perspective *shrug*.

[VictorXV]

I did read about the Xbows alternative, but yeah there's a lot of post regarding Ports being weak in early game, so maybe I am not seeing the big picture ... but I dunno, the fact that they suck got stuck on my mind after losing against Janis rush a couple of times, this no longer happens because I learned how to actually play better .... but I don't see myself using them anytime even if they get super buffed. Besides if you give Crossbow Rank to new members .... that says a lot

Anyway .... I thought about something, what if the TC from ageII comes with 200f but the crates spawn after you build the TC, that way you won't get the food immediately and you could use the food to either get some units to defend, or villies for eco or straight-up save resources to age up. The TC from ageIII will come with 400f and the same dynamic goes with 600f for ageIV and 800f for ageV. 200f is nowhere near 5vills card and 400f is not 7 or 8vills ... but it's something that -I think- it won't break the Ports and will help them in ageII. Maybe for Industrial and Imperial there's no need for crates but I like consistency ...

BTW, the 5% increase gather rate means that the base rates are 0.882 and 0.7035 now or is just 0.84+5% and 0.67+5%?

[Peachrocks]

Obviously as I said, base crossbows are deliberately bad. Especially at vanilla launch, I mean geez, pretty friggin obvious those units were meant to be awful.

That doesn't mean that all variants have to stay that way. Besides the unit technically gets a name change . Also it's got nothing to do with Port being weak early game since it's an age 3 tech with a card and resource cost. It's to do with giving them a 'Skirmisher' type unit that fires at the standard 3.0 rate if people want it with other buffs to make the church card version more competitive. But whatever, seems not particularly liked.

[deleted_user]

Organ guns don't work vs good players at all, enemy can easily snipe organ guns with microing falconets. I think it's time to stop being conservative and think about reverting goon nerfs (try for %25? RR) not the range but RR nerf should be reverted imo. I don't see why we are still trying to buff other units while nerfing the main unit of ports..

[Kaiserklein]

Broken record

[deleted_user]

I'm glad to say that I'm a broken record, I keep saying the same stuff because EP team has never taken necessary actions to fix ports, old ep leaders listened to some low-skilled germany-france players while fixing ports instead of asking to porto players. There is a reason why ports are considered to be one of the worst civ (talking about land maps) aswell.

But yea, if germany ever was in this situation, we would have witnessed long crying by some nonskilled players.

[Guigs]

I'm glad to say that I'm a broken record, I keep saying the same stuff because EP team has never taken necessary actions to fix ports, old ep leaders listened to some low-skilled germany-france players while fixing ports instead of asking to porto players. There is a reason why ports are considered to be one of the worst civ (talking about land maps) aswell.

But yea, if germany ever was in this situation, we would have witnessed long crying by some nonskilled players.

lol

[Cometk]

Ports are fine

[Kaiserklein]

I'm glad to say that I'm a broken record, I keep saying the same stuff because EP team has never taken necessary actions to fix ports, old ep leaders listened to some low-skilled germany-france players while fixing ports instead of asking to porto players. There is a reason why ports are considered to be one of the worst civ (talking about land maps) aswell.

But yea, if germany ever was in this situation, we would have witnessed long crying by some nonskilled players.

I can play ports (better than you) and they're just fine. You don't even play the game yet you act like you know ports are shit and how they should be buffed. No reason to take you seriously, especially as 25% rr goons would be a garbage change.

[deleted_user]

I'm glad to say that I'm a broken record, I keep saying the same stuff because EP team has never taken necessary actions to fix ports, old ep leaders listened to some low-skilled germany-france players while fixing ports instead of asking to porto players. There is a reason why ports are considered to be one of the worst civ (talking about land maps) aswell.

But yea, if germany ever was in this situation, we would have witnessed long crying by some nonskilled players.

I can play ports (better than you) and they're just fine. You don't even play the game yet you act like you know ports are shit and how they should be buffed. No reason to take you seriously, especially as 25% rr goons would be a garbage change.

How fine? Organ guns still die to falconets, your limited skill capacity forces you to think about buffing useless infrantries while nerfing the only real unit ports have (goons) also ports still struggle economic wise so I don't get what you are talking about.

Ah btw I like how you propose (better than you) card. You are still pathetic lol

[Kaiserklein]

Well you implied I'm low skill, so I just answered by stating I'm in a better position to talk about ports than you, cause I play them better. Also you didn't even play on the last patch but still act like you know better. But right, I'm pathetic.

You're just so biased towards the only civ you can play, what's the point of even discussing? You repeat the same over and over again no matter how we buff them

[deleted_user]

"implied" are you 8 years old or what?
You don't even behave at all, in fact it's you who is jumping this thread to bring drama rather than suggesting helpful stuffs.

[Narida]

how about a fishing boat shipment or imagine this crazy idea: A vil shipment. Port is the only civ that doesnt have any vil shipment or trickle and no matter how you cut it, it makes them trash.
Russia is the closest because they only have a trickle in age 1 and essentially have 1.5 tcs in age 2, but their vils are cheaper which makes all the difference. If anything cheaper vils was a step in right direction. Alternatively maybe a culv shipment in age 3 could be good or like a food trickle in age 1

[Peachrocks]

Dragoons are a really bad unit to design a civ around and a really badly designed unit in general. There's a reason why Port goons and goons in general have been nerfed.

It's a ranged cavalry unit that is good on hand cavalry. In almost any other RTS it is the other way around and for good reason and ranged cavalry usually has other strengths. If it is the other way, there's usually some sort of major trade off and the unit is exceptionally specialized, not something you always build. Still, such a thing is hard built into the game and there's a load of skirm/goon bots who we can't afford to upset. Keep in mind this isn't a balance argument of 'goons/goon clones op' because they aren't, this is a design argument about why Goons cannot be buffed and it's just a flaw in design people have adapted to and balanced the game around.

However while this is the biggest reason why buffing goons should be absolutely out of the question, it is why buffing other units is being considered, both for the sake of making the civ more fun and less one dimensional and for balance. Organ guns? I'm not honestly sure on where they stand at the moment. It has always felt like a liability rather than a unique advantage or even something that allows them to break even for the sake of variety. I wouldn't be opposed to buffing them honestly but not if people who know better think they are alright as they stand.

As for vill and fishing boat shipments. No. There's a real opportunity here to actually make Ports unique and fun to play rather than be 'everyone else' and giving them some unique first shipment options which i went over ages ago.

[Narida]

Dragoons are a really bad unit to design a civ around and a really badly designed unit in general. There's a reason why Port goons and goons in general have been nerfed.

It's a ranged cavalry unit that is good on hand cavalry. In almost any other RTS it is the other way around and for good reason and ranged cavalry usually has other strengths. If it is the other way, there's usually some sort of major trade off and the unit is exceptionally specialized, not something you always build. Still, such a thing is hard built into the game and there's a load of skirm/goon bots who we can't afford to upset. Keep in mind this isn't a balance argument of 'goons/goon clones op' because they aren't, this is a design argument about why Goons cannot be buffed and it's just a flaw in design people have adapted to and balanced the game around.

However while this is the biggest reason why buffing goons should be absolutely out of the question, it is why buffing other units is being considered, both for the sake of making the civ more fun and less one dimensional and for balance. Organ guns? I'm not honestly sure on where they stand at the moment. It has always felt like a liability rather than a unique advantage or even something that allows them to break even for the sake of variety. I wouldn't be opposed to buffing them honestly but not if people who know better think they are alright as they stand.

As for vill and fishing boat shipments. No. There's a real opportunity here to actually make Ports unique and fun to play rather than be 'everyone else' and giving them some unique first shipment options which i went over ages ago.

I read your suggestions for changes which sound good but again they are entirely map dependent so its really just more of the same: Some maps you can them work

[deleted_user]

Maps (and map variety within a tournament/ladder pool) seem to consistently be under-valued when it comes to balance discussion. And as a direct result, new maps are introduced haphazardly.

Ideally every civ should be balanced around Arkansas, but that's impossible for the following reason(s):

The newer maps and other, older non-standard maps, which are fascinating and unique and creative, inherently favor certain civs above others -- on account of their idiosyncrasies -- which "un-intuitively" reduces civ variety, because the considerable inter-civ variety in aoe3 will favor a select few civs above all others which take advantage of those idiosyncrasies.

So, as is so often the case -- stemming all the way back to TWC and especially the TAD expansion -- EP balance is at a crossroads because too many civ designs are fundamentally broken, but remaining true to original civ design is required, and so there isn't an obvious path to universally balance all civs on all maps. It's hard enough to balance completely on Arkansas, but then the team is asked to do this with respect to all the non-standard maps in the tournament and ladder map pool. Certain civs are balanced around their strongest possible maps, and that's why we only see Ports on Indonesia or Dhaka or 5 TP maps, Spain on 5 TP maps, and otto on 4+ TP maps (which shouldn't even be a thing imo).

The idea is that with proper balance (EP's goal), standard maps should actually facilitate more diverse MUs since no civ has a map-advantage. However, I recognize that this is not always true in practice because the predominately strong civs will remain comfort picks for many players (ger, france, brit, etc.). People play what they know. In fact this argument may be so strong as to justify the introduction of non-standard maps into the tournament pool altogether, but I don't know if it always holds up.

It's not such a bad thing that the game is unplayable, far from it, EP has done a stellar job (imo). It's just one of the root reasons why discussing balance outside of the context of maps is imperfect, but balance would be impossible if we didn't -- unless EP radically overhauled aoe3 to be played only on max 3 TP, low-water-potential, standard maps.

The underlying take is an argument against non-standard maps. I think they should be limited to 0 in a BO3 and 1 at most in a BO5 and BO7 (and BO9s should be deleted from competitive play). But even their marginal existence complicates so many things from a balance perspective. I know [the non-standard maps] are valuable to the viewers as a force establishing fresh meta, but it's no easy task to introduce them and also balance around them (the newer the truer). I think this could be a reason why breeze is frustrated with the state of Ports on the current patch.

TL;DR: No one establishes the basis upon which they discuss balance, because a basis can't be established, because there is too wide a variety of maps. This is rarely recognized.

[deleted_user]

Dragoons are a really bad unit to design a civ around and a really badly designed unit in general. There's a reason why Port goons and goons in general have been nerfed.

It's a ranged cavalry unit that is good on hand cavalry. In almost any other RTS it is the other way around and for good reason and ranged cavalry usually has other strengths. If it is the other way, there's usually some sort of major trade off and the unit is exceptionally specialized, not something you always build. Still, such a thing is hard built into the game and there's a load of skirm/goon bots who we can't afford to upset. Keep in mind this isn't a balance argument of 'goons/goon clones op' because they aren't, this is a design argument about why Goons cannot be buffed and it's just a flaw in design people have adapted to and balanced the game around.

However while this is the biggest reason why buffing goons should be absolutely out of the question, it is why buffing other units is being considered, both for the sake of making the civ more fun and less one dimensional and for balance. Organ guns? I'm not honestly sure on where they stand at the moment. It has always felt like a liability rather than a unique advantage or even something that allows them to break even for the sake of variety. I wouldn't be opposed to buffing them honestly but not if people who know better think they are alright as they stand.

As for vill and fishing boat shipments. No. There's a real opportunity here to actually make Ports unique and fun to play rather than be 'everyone else' and giving them some unique first shipment options which i went over ages ago.

Do other mainstream RTS possess the same amount of snare as aoe3? I honestly don't know, but it seems that's why goon units are necessary in this game. I think goons are currently in a healthy position, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been better at the inception of aoe3 to replace all goon units with cav archer types instead, or low RR alternatives like ruyters/zam.

Now this discussion could become about poor pathing in aoe3.

[Peachrocks]

I read your suggestions for changes which sound good but again they are entirely map dependent so its really just more of the same: Some maps you can them work

There would be more theoretical work to do in this regard. The point is to give them one or two options based on the strengths or weaknesses of a map rather than being sod out of luck.

Do other mainstream RTS possess the same amount of snare as aoe3? I honestly don't know, but it seems that's why goon units are necessary in this game. I think goons are currently in a healthy position, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been better at the inception of aoe3 to replace all goon units with cav archer types instead, or low RR alternatives like ruyters/zam.

Now this discussion could become about poor pathing in aoe3.

Let's not give the designers too much credit when they designed mechanics in this game, back then Dragoons didn't get bonus damage from skirmisher like units. They really had no clue what they were doing. I think goons are in a 'well balanced' position. Healthy is too strong a word when Skirm/goon bots exist. Relying almost entirely on two unit types exclusively is just not healthy.

As for snare a few civs don't even have good ranged cavalry options and they manage just fine so I wouldn't be too sure about goons being the way they are being a core necessity at the base design level but all the same I wouldn't want to risk what would happen if you upended something so fundamental to the game. Just saying why they absolutely should not be buffed despite being Portugal's 'best' or 'special' unit.

[deleted_user]

I agree-ish dawg.

[Kawapasaka]

This "skirm goon bot" boogeyman is so overblown lol.

[deleted_user]

This "skirm goon bot" boogeyman is so overblown lol.

Honestly this needs to be demonstrated and idk that it is

[[Armag] diarouga]

TL;DR: No one establishes the basis upon which they discuss balance, because a basis can't be established, because there is too wide a variety of maps. This is rarely recognized.

There is a basis for balance : it's Arkansas/Kamchatka.
In theory, all the civs should be viable on these two maps, and as you pointed out, on less standard maps the balance is worse because some civs do better.

[deleted_user]

TL;DR: No one establishes the basis upon which they discuss balance, because a basis can't be established, because there is too wide a variety of maps. This is rarely recognized.

There is a basis for balance : it's Arkansas/Kamchatka.
In theory, all the civs should be viable on these two maps, and as you pointed out, on less standard maps the balance is worse because some civs do better.

Yeah that's what I said