User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5979
ESO: Garja

17 Feb 2018, 11:42

Face armor? What does that have to do here?
I thought we were talking strictly about China colonial units in a colonial scenario.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5979
ESO: Garja

17 Feb 2018, 14:46

Some input on China colonial/semi FF play.
Attachments
[EP4-1 SP] Runtius[BR] vs 456[CH] - ESOC Arizona.age3yrec
(768.73 KiB) Downloaded 66 times
ESOC Arizona
ESOC Arizona
Rules: Supremacy (1v1)
Version: ESOC Patch 4.1
Length: 34 minutes
[EP3-1 SP] 456[CH] vs Butifle[GE] - ESOC Arkansas.age3yrec
(1.53 MiB) Downloaded 77 times
ESOC Arkansas
ESOC Arkansas
Rules: Supremacy (1v1)
Version: ESOC Patch 3.1
Length: 13 minutes
[RE SP] _Riot[CH] vs Yurashic[GE] - ESOC Kamchatka.age3yrec
(980.08 KiB) Downloaded 92 times
ESOC Kamchatka
ESOC Kamchatka
Rules: Supremacy (1v1)
Version: Official Patch
Length: 15 minutes
[RE SP] _Riot[CH] vs Yurashic[GE] - ESOC Arkansas.age3yrec
(1019.79 KiB) Downloaded 86 times
ESOC Arkansas
ESOC Arkansas
Rules: Supremacy (1v1)
Version: Official Patch
Length: 16 minutes
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7598
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

17 Feb 2018, 14:54

Thanks.
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13655
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

17 Feb 2018, 17:13

The problem with china colonial is that its colonial lol. Few civs have the setup to go colonial while china is mostly facing some handicaps (slow, cant easily fb, and doesnt have the greatest army).

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
United States of America Inst
Skirmisher
Posts: 126
ESO: Inst

17 Feb 2018, 21:15

I'm not talking about double-faced armor, just ranged resistance reducing Keshik damage. So in reality, when you build Ming, the Qiang are dealing 70 damage per 1.5 seconds, while the Keshiks are dealing 57.6 damage per 1.5 seconds against 20 RR and wiithout Mongolian Scourge.
United States of America Inst
Skirmisher
Posts: 126
ESO: Inst

28 Feb 2018, 17:05

Since I'm bored and I haven't shit-posted enough, why not move Old Han Reforms to Colonial? Discuss.
User avatar
France P i k i l i c
Lancer
Posts: 995
ESO: Pikilic
Location: Dijon, France
GameRanger ID: 7497456

28 Feb 2018, 19:06

Not everyone knows the honor the see his/her posts liked by sudmakmak, though.
Consider not the one who speaks the truth, but the truth that is said

:hmm: AoE logic
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 8266

25 Apr 2018, 14:35

just revert china to re, with the exception perhaps of old han reforms. that can be tweaked to 75%-90%. Obviously with 50% it sux Something like that.
Great Britain Hazza54321
Jaeger
Posts: 4503

25 Apr 2018, 16:09

i agree
Diarouga: How exactly am I arrogant
Image
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7598
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

25 Apr 2018, 16:32

I would have made Reforms 50%/0% and kept the 1000f cost. Other than that, I think Chinese should be in a good spot with the current changes.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 8266

25 Apr 2018, 16:40

nah, livestock change is unnecessary. Cav change is also unnecessary. Of those 2 one should be reverted at least. Preferably cav train time. China was always in a good spot already. This was just totally fear change cause of mappool + some ppl upsetting with china. old han was really the only thing about china that needed change.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7598
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

25 Apr 2018, 16:45

Every change is unncessary. Both of those changes are good, I think. If anything, Forbidden Army is still overly prevalent, and Chinese is still disproportionately powerful on livestock maps.
Great Britain Hazza54321
Jaeger
Posts: 4503

25 Apr 2018, 16:51

yea i agree with umeu, forbidden army trains faster because its only a batch of 4 cav, livestock change it fking takes so much longer than a livestock pen in terms of fattening rate, besides its a benefit of a village for a reason.
Diarouga: How exactly am I arrogant
Image
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 8266

25 Apr 2018, 16:58

zoom wrote:Every change is unncessary. Both of those changes are good, I think. If anything, Forbidden Army is still overly prevalent, and Chinese is still disproportionately powerful on livestock maps.


so because germany are disproportionately powerful on tp maps, were gonna change german tps too now?

All civs have a map type they excel on, and for china that is livestock maps. China definitely doesn't excel more on livestock maps than tp civs do on tp maps.

imo, if the change was unnecessary, than it's not a good change. they aren't horrible (actually the old han change is horrible atm, the idea was fine, but it needs more tweaking), china is playable without it. but theyre worse for it, while they were never in a position where they needed to be nerfed.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1622
ESO: Forgrin

25 Apr 2018, 17:01

Iirc China was nerfed pretty much because of one map: Tibet. Especially since the ESOC map pool is so big now I don't think we need most of those nerfs anymore, except maybe Old Han.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 8266

25 Apr 2018, 17:17

forgrin wrote:Iirc China was nerfed pretty much because of one map: Tibet. Especially since the ESOC map pool is so big now I don't think we need most of those nerfs anymore, except maybe Old Han.


a lot of the early esoc maps had livestock. kamchatka, tibet, indonesia, manchuria, hudson bay. but ye the pool has been expanded a bit more now. but even on those maps i think china wasnt that op. that said, i dont remember if villages already fattened slower than pens, i think they did. just like farms fatten slower. the idea of the change was fine, but i think its been overdone. but of all the changes i'm least concerned with that one. it doesnt really have a huge impact on most games.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
Posts: 6860
Location: France

25 Apr 2018, 17:23

China is weak atm in my opinion. I'm not sure they're really viable in competitive games unless it's a no TP/livestock map.
The old han nerf indeed isn't a big deal balance-wise, but I really dislike it.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Jaeger
Posts: 2056
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

25 Apr 2018, 17:26

Stop fucking changing every civ a million times. Since when is China so weak that they can't win games?
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
Posts: 6860
Location: France

25 Apr 2018, 17:37

yemshi wrote:Stop fucking changing every civ a million times. Since when is China so weak that they can't win games?

They can win, but they're a bottom tier civ on standard maps.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Jaeger
Posts: 2056
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

25 Apr 2018, 17:40

Isn't that fine then? Do you simply want to tweak everything until AoE III: DE comes out just for the sake of it?
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5979
ESO: Garja

25 Apr 2018, 17:55

China is most likely one of the top civs in the current balance state. It does decent vs all civs and on all maps, including current top civs (Brits, India, Dutch). On the other hand doesn't win any MU super hard and requires quite some time before becoming a ridicolous civ which I repute the bottom line to consider nerfing a civ significantly at the moment.
I don't mind reverting the nerfs since they're very marginal and doesn't change the civ much, if by any extent. Especially the livestock fattening rate nerf makes no sense to me, since it was well within the boundaries of an acceptable civ bonus, considering it is by default already penalized compared to other civs.
Cav training time nerf is perhaps more coherent since it was a bit out of par while the unit are also very good. Again 29 secs or 33 secs is not something to lose the sleep on.
My only problem with the civ is that the classic FF is traditionally too powerful in its unharmed version, shortening the "ridicolous civ point" by quite a fair margin. It is because of the combination of various civ perks and not just one, but for sure China fortress shipments are outstanding and could very well be nerfed if we wanted things to be coherent (brit intervention, 10 skirms, 11 changdao, all are crazy good shipments).
In the end I think the civ can be left untouched at his RE or EP version, since none seems interested in reworking it, nerfing the Fortress age and buffing colonial instead.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7598
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

25 Apr 2018, 17:57

Hazza54321 wrote:yea i agree with umeu, forbidden army trains faster because its only a batch of 4 cav, livestock change it fking takes so much longer than a livestock pen in terms of fattening rate, besides its a benefit of a village for a reason.
FA trains faster beyond that, which is why it was changed in the first place. We looked at this in detail at the time. Livestock fattening was nerfed because Chinese overperforms on livestock maps to a significant enough degree, and is basically fine otherwise, apart from FA being evidently dominant.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7598
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

25 Apr 2018, 18:00

umeu wrote:
zoom wrote:Every change is unncessary. Both of those changes are good, I think. If anything, Forbidden Army is still overly prevalent, and Chinese is still disproportionately powerful on livestock maps.


so because germany are disproportionately powerful on tp maps, were gonna change german tps too now?

All civs have a map type they excel on, and for china that is livestock maps. China definitely doesn't excel more on livestock maps than tp civs do on tp maps.

imo, if the change was unnecessary, than it's not a good change. they aren't horrible (actually the old han change is horrible atm, the idea was fine, but it needs more tweaking), china is playable without it. but theyre worse for it, while they were never in a position where they needed to be nerfed.
If that were a realistic option that's indeed exactly what we would have done, remember? Chinese definitely did excel more on several livestock maps than TP-civilizations do on TP-maps. 5000f at 9 minutes says "hai".

IMO every change is unncessary. The question is whether a change is desirable and essential enough.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5979
ESO: Garja

25 Apr 2018, 18:02

The whole overperforms is a judgement given based on pretty much nothing. It's not like since you have data from a tournament (a bunch of games in fact) that you can draw conclusions like this.
It's clear China has an advantage on livestock maps and that naturally translates ot a higher win rate. Whether or not it overperforms is up for discussion. In doubt you shouldn't touch it and focus on stuff that is less controversial, e.g. over the par shipments.
For the record, EP maps generally have less livestock than RE maps and also more evenly spread. It's unlikely for China to even saturate 2 villages while that is an actual possibility on RE maps.

And no, there are some civs that are necessary because imbalances are damn obvious.
Without digging into this phylosphical topic, some features are inherently broken. Those require changes.
Desiderable changes are more related to where you want to push the meta.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 7598
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

25 Apr 2018, 18:13

Garja wrote:The whole overperforms is a judgement given based on pretty much nothing. It's not like since you have data from a tournament (a bunch of games in fact) that you can draw conclusions like this.
It's clear China has an advantage on livestock maps and that naturally translates ot a higher win rate. Whether or not it overperforms is up for discussion. In doubt you shouldn't touch it and focus on stuff that is less controversial, e.g. over the par shipments.
For the record, EP maps generally have less livestock than RE maps and also more evenly spread. It's unlikely for China to even saturate 2 villages while that is an actual possibility on RE maps.

And no, there are some civs that are necessary because imbalances are damn obvious.
Without digging into this phylosphical topic, some features are inherently broken. Those require changes.
Desiderable changes are more related to where you want to push the meta.
You seem to misunderstand my usage of the term "overperforming" then. Chinese most definitely is overperforming on Livestock maps, compared to non-livestock maps. Before the change, it was considered a problem – hence the change.

Forum Info

Return to “ESOC Civilizations Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests