This is for discussions about the community, players, forum games, grudge matches, memes and everything else related to ESOC and its members.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9275
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

25 Mar 2020, 19:33

iNcog wrote:I have a good point to make but I am on my phone and cba to type it all out. If I get home and reread this post I will elaborate on why balance is totally possible even with 14 civs
That is entirely dependent on your definition of balance. You could achieve significantly better inter-civilization balance, while continuing to improve the viability of basic features of the game, in practice – as I think we will see in the coming months. You couldn't achieve perfect balance, even in theory.
User avatar
Kiribati SirCallen
Gendarme
Donator 03
Posts: 9716
ESO: SirCallen
Location: Midwest best west

26 Mar 2020, 06:29

Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
SirCallen wrote:In games like Chess and Go, there are no changes. So the meta will inevitably settle, as players continue to slowly improve the meta. Both are very popular games, but we can safely say the meta is fairly stale in Chess whereas innovations in Go are relatively frequent and especially relatively impactful. This is because Go is a more complex game.



I kind of think neither you nor SirCallen follow high level play closely. I would in fact say that the meta has been shifting a lot in the last twenty years. Computers have completely changed the way chess is played at the top level, with many opening that were considered bad being rehabilitated and many moves that would have been considered "too ugly" twenty years ago being played routinely (particularly with pawn play). The reason why top level chess is less interesting to watch than twenty or fifty years ago is that it has become so complex than us mere mortal can not understand anything. And with deep learning chess programs it is even better, players are discovering new way to play old position routinely now.

This is true, and I don't follow high level chess play closely, but I follow it more closely than then, two years ago.

Neural networks are revolutionary and there are so many h4 h5s now. What's next? I don't know anything, but revolutions never stay as revolutions. The game is still within its same bounds and there is an asymptote. However the game is capable of so many different permutations that interesting play will always be an option. I prefer when scoring is altered to favor decisive results. 2manydraws.
Image

and the giving famishes the craving
sweet thames, run softly, til I end my song

The shepherd's staff's tantalus around my neck

please stop eating :food:
User avatar
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 10511
ESO: kami_ryu

26 Mar 2020, 11:26

zoom wrote:
iNcog wrote:I have a good point to make but I am on my phone and cba to type it all out. If I get home and reread this post I will elaborate on why balance is totally possible even with 14 civs
That is entirely dependent on your definition of balance. You could achieve significantly better inter-civilization balance, while continuing to improve the viability of basic features of the game, in practice – as I think we will see in the coming months. You couldn't achieve perfect balance, even in theory.

Human players will never be able to play a civ to its 100% potential. That's fact. It would require too much APM and too perfect of an understanding of the intricacies of every civilization and match-up. That's too much for a single human, no matter if iamgrunt or H20 were to come back and be paid $1000 a day to figure out the game perfectly.

Thus there will always be a human limitation when it comes to playing the game. Thus, as long as civilization strength remains within a small, certain %, then balance is basically there.

Furthermore, there aren't even any glaringly bad match-ups on EP. and if there are, it's a perception more than a reality. I think there are some favored match-ups for some civilizations, yes. probably to the point where two very closely matched players at the highest level would have their game decided by the match-up. but even then, if those two players sat down and really mapped out how the match-up works and how the civilizations interact with each other, I have a feeling that something could be figured out.

because no one realistically has time to devote to that kind of depth, the meta will evolve at its slower pace and players who are already naturally exploring different options (shoutout to @Oliveza and @Rohbrot for example, but also @[Armag] diarouga and many others) are already ahead of the meta and already being rewarded.

I think that a lot of games are still lost these days due to mistakes that can be avoided, small adjustments, etc. That is why I am cautious whenever someone says that a match-up is bad or whatever. I think there is room to out-play your opponent in pretty much any game/match-up these days. and that is basically balance. is it absolutely balanced? no. is it balanced for our intent of human players playing together? yeah.

would be interesting if we could get a an AI like alphastar or whatever the fuck it was to play aoe3 random civilizations. it would probably be more interesting than having it play protoss.
For I am Oden, and I was born... TO BOIL!
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 9022

26 Mar 2020, 11:31

[Armag] diarouga wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:... and repeat

Yes.
I think you didn't get my point. My point is that you need to make small changes from time to time to make sure that balance is good, but making 50 changes isn't necessary.
If your changes aren't big enough, the meta will re-settle almost immediately after you make them. If a meta is settled but Brits are OP, and you make a change to make Brits not OP, people will just immediately switch to the civ that was deemed second-best.

I agree that you don't need to make 50 changes, but a minimalist approach won't get you far. The reason I think we should make 50 changes is that the game is just not as good as it could be. A lot of civs are still one-dimensional, and we aren't seeing a lot of variety in unit compositions.
User avatar
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 10511
ESO: kami_ryu

26 Mar 2020, 11:37

That's assuming that the meta is settled when imo it isn't yet, I think. Though I don't know, perhaps pr39+ would disagree with that statement.
For I am Oden, and I was born... TO BOIL!
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Howdah
Posts: 1878

26 Mar 2020, 11:40

The meta has been relatively stale for 10 years or so in my opinion. But thats just the nature of old games. I believe aoe2's meta is stale too, but that game looks fun regardless.

If you want constant changes to have fun, I think you should look to exoand your repetoire of games.
User avatar
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 10511
ESO: kami_ryu

26 Mar 2020, 11:42

AOE2 meta is to wall everything. gross
For I am Oden, and I was born... TO BOIL!
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 9022

26 Mar 2020, 11:49

RefluxSemantic wrote:The meta has been relatively stale for 10 years or so in my opinion. But thats just the nature of old games. I believe aoe2's meta is stale too, but that game looks fun regardless.

If you want constant changes to have fun, I think you should look to exoand your repetoire of games.
Keeping the meta from becoming too stale isn't only to keep the game fun. Initially it was brought up as a way to increase the impact of creativity as opposed to mechanics.

Forum Info

Return to “ESOC Talk”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests