Message for developers. About: new patch

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Message for developers. About: new patch

This topic contains 199 replies, has 42 voices, and was last updated by  Nodor 7 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 151 through 180 (of 200 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #204278

    Gloweye
    Member

    Mono-culture elf should, agree.

    I’m not getting the idea that BBB’s trying to balance for MP only – more that he just recommends caution. Also, I’m not having that large games commonly – my last attempt is somewhere around turn 75, because AI turns are taking almost 50 minutes right now. (my own are also some 40 minutes, for 1.5 hours per turn. Average crash time with this memory: 2.5 hours. Less then 2 turns.). That said, I think I could finish that game without to much problems.

    #204293

    @gloweye

    It was me! I was making the point that you usually like to see consensus before making big changes between the communities. Like for The Horned God: a lot of mp people said they didn’t use it at all, and sp people complained about it as well.

    Tigrans also got attacked from both sides. Exalted and lost souls are the kind of unit that have to be balanced with great precision because of massable resurgence and mobility.

    @bear sp guy. If you start of ranting at people, they are likely to respond in kind. That is part of why people tend to listen to Arcane Sereph, for example, even if they disagree (tombles and he went back and forth with all kinds of math), and the fact that he is also a game Dev in the real life helps too.

    #204306

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Mono-culture elf should, agree.

    I’m not getting the idea that BBB’s trying to balance for MP only – more that he just recommends caution.

    I don’t think I have made this accusation in regard to his posts, though he’s made similar misrepresentations about my posts here.

    Mono-culture elf should, agree.

    I’m not getting the idea that BBB’s trying to balance for MP only – more that he just recommends caution. Also, I’m not having that large games commonly – my last attempt is somewhere around turn 75, because AI turns are taking almost 50 minutes right now. (my own are also some 40 minutes, for 1.5 hours per turn. Average crash time with this memory: 2.5 hours. Less then 2 turns.). That said, I think I could finish that game without to much problems.

    Really? Do you play classic turns? My XL games take long, so I now play less XL map but more L map (unless I am multitasking and cannot devote myself purely to the game), but 40 minute per turn only at turn 7 seems unusual.

    #204315

    Epa, if you think I care that much about you then I hate to burst your ego, because frankly I don’t.

    I do find your persecution complex irritating.

    You claim that because you are not literally the only one having any particular issue that that is somehow proof that everyone feels that way.

    And you ignored my one key point, because it is you who is blinded by your hate of betas in general.

    I’ll repeat it – for better or worse the game experience was and is based around a default setting, and anything you do.that moves away from that will have an effect. That may be a desirable or undesirable effect, but you can’t, and shouldn’t, take outliers from the default, and the further from the default the more of an outlier you get, by definition, and try to rebalanced the default around the outlier, because that way you get a more rubbish default and a more rubbish outlier.

    That is why I said the default needs to be considered and why people asking for balance changes need to be posting what their settings are.

    Again, hate to bruise your ego, but that applies to everyone, and I posted that recommendation in the thread about Tigran shamans.

    If you are playing 500 turn games then you must know that the game wasn’t designed, for better or worse, for that.

    Now a case.may be made for a full on alternative game mode that caters specifically for that (and it would have to be something built from the ground up, or else the essential tension will remain.)

    And you phrase your requests like they are so easy and innocent. Like, hey let’s limit certain spells or add this or remove that, but Imho they would do more damage than good, as you’d be messing up the Base and STILL not be fully addressing what you really want.

    Lastly, for someone crying about ad hominem, you sure do like to engage in it yourself.

    #204318

    And you’re Living in a fantasy world if you think I have some sort of cabal.

    Just read the tournament thread debate…

    Cabal My arse.

    #204319

    Gloweye
    Member

    Gloweye wrote:
    Mono-culture elf should, agree.

    I’m not getting the idea that BBB’s trying to balance for MP only – more that he just recommends caution. Also, I’m not having that large games commonly – my last attempt is somewhere around turn 75, because AI turns are taking almost 50 minutes right now. (my own are also some 40 minutes, for 1.5 hours per turn. Average crash time with this memory: 2.5 hours. Less then 2 turns.). That said, I think I could finish that game without to much problems.
    Really? Do you play classic turns? My XL games take long, so I now play less XL map but more L map (unless I am multitasking and cannot devote myself purely to the game), but 40 minute per turn only at turn 7 seems unusual.

    Yeah, I always play classic since I hate simultaneous with a greater vigor than you do Hellfire and Disintegrate combined. My laptop is pretty bad though, so that slows it down a bit. Also, you reply with turn 7, which should be turn 75 I believe?(that’s what I got). My preference for classic also had the consequence that I never played MP before PBEM.

    Oh, and I also manual practically every battle if I even care a little bit about any losses. I’ve auto’d some Stacks of Random Ghouls lately, but nothing else.

    #204323

    Epaminondas
    Member

    BBB,

    Your lengthy retort basically does nothing but prove my point about how you constantly distort I said. Some examples:

    If you are playing 500 turn games then you must know that the game wasn’t designed, for better or worse, for that.

    I never said I play 500 turn games, not even close. I said there are people who play that long like Shaithias, and I explicitly said that my games are only about half of that (and more like GeorgiSR’s 200 turn games).

    And you phrase your requests like they are so easy and innocent. Like, hey let’s limit certain spells or add this or remove that, but Imho they would do more damage than good, as you’d be messing up the Base and STILL not be fully addressing what you really want.

    1. I’ve never requested an outright removal, to my knowledge. Another false attribution. I have never ever even contemplated an outright removal of even my most persistent bette noires like Disintegrate and Invoke Death or ultimate spells.

    Further, I’ve rarely asked for wholly new things to be added: I am actually quite conservative and do not like radical changes. And to the extent I have asked for things to be added, they were usually general “quality of life” issues that had no bearing on my playstyle (for instance, recently being able to sell mounts obtained from the Sorcerer spell).

    2. As for your claim, my suggested changes would indeed damage the “normal” playerbase and not “fully address” my issues. This is why compromise is important; I am a pragmatist. I know one cannot get everything one wants in a deliberative setting; so you do some proverbial give and take. Moreover, I am more than willing to consider solutions where I give more than I take.

    Lastly, for someone crying about ad hominem, you sure do like to engage in it yourself.

    To that charge I plead guilty, but usually in retaliation for someone else’s initial ad hominem attack (often yours).

    Summary: If you are not going to actually address what I said, then don’t bother to respond. I am sick and tired of correting the record and wasting time on clarifying what I actually said and thus going circles with you. And to the extent you raise relevant and accurate points of debate, they always involve arguments that are recycled and I have rebutted elsewhere in depth. So either way we are always wasting time talking to each other.

    #204325

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Yeah, I always play classic since I hate simultaneous with a greater vigor than you do Hellfire and Disintegrate combined. My laptop is pretty bad though, so that slows it down a bit. Also, you reply with turn 7, which should be turn 75 I believe?(that’s what I got). My preference for classic also had the consequence that I never played MP before PBEM.

    Ah, ok. That explains things. I actually play simultaneous v. AI, too. So my turns do not take that long (unless we go really deep into the game). Also, these days I play L maps more than XL maps, unless I am testing stuff, as I am now with all the post EL changes.

    #204331

    edit to last post: any changes need to be very very carefully considered, with relation to the baseline.

    Ultimately, I think the best thing for TS to do is indeed make a new mode, or redo “slow” to be more the civ like experience some people would like.

    That seems the best course Imho because then you can rebalance (in the general sense of restructuring every thing so it fits together cohesively) gane speed, production costs, resource income etc around that very specific game mode, without changing the Base game.

    #204332

    And Epa, you are correct, you are indeed a time waster.

    #204334

    Epaminondas
    Member

    And Epa, you are correct, you are indeed a time waster.

    So let’s just agree to not talk to each other on subjects that will get personal or have a high potential to derailmentville?

    #204338

    And Epa, you are correct, you are indeed a time waster.

    So let’s just agree to not talk to each other on subjects that will get personal or have a high potential to derailmentville?

    You mean like almost everything you post because you are being persecuted?

    As for your claim, my suggested changes would indeed damage the “normal” playerbase and not “fully address” my issues.

    Exactly, which is why they are not good proposals.

    Now you’ve admitted that, it’s the principle I am against.

    #204340

    I never said I play 500 turn games, not even close. I said there are people who play that long like Shaithias, and I explicitly said that my games are only about half of that (and more like GeorgiSR’s 200 turn games).

    The more I read about games that people play, the more I am persuaded that 1) lots of people play XL map games; and 2) many of those who do so play games that lasts as long or even longer

    in order to make the point that your game styles are not “extreme” but are normal, when my entire point, which you have never rebutted, instead preferring to play the victim, is that those game are going further and further away from the centre, and one should not lose sight of that if you are talking about balancing the entire game.

    #204341

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Exactly, which is why they are not good proposals.

    Now you’ve admitted that, it’s the principle I am against.

    In my haste, I actually misphrased that. (In general, don’t forget that English is not my native language either but something I learned rather late.)

    There should have been a colon “:” after “issues,” not a period “.”. In short, I was rephrasing your claim merely.

    Nonetheless, even with the grammatical corrections, there is still some (albeit perhaps implicit only) concession, as you say. So I would like a dialogue where the concerns of both sides are taken into account. What is so wrong with that in “principle”? In the lengthy larger map issues thread perfectly demonstrates that I am willing to compromise much, as are most who have similar concerns. Or do you think the “base” game should be totally untouched, even slightly, to satisfy larger map players?

    #204342

    Epaminondas
    Member

    in order to make the point that your game styles are not “extreme” but are normal, when my entire point, which you have never rebutted, instead preferring to play the victim, is that those game are going further and further away from the centre, and one should not lose sight of that if you are talking about balancing the entire game.

    As one poster eloquently posted in my larger map thread (or perhaps from another thead), there is one definitional issue of what is “normal” or “standard.”

    If “normal” or “standard” gameplay refers to the type of game the devs designed the game to be, then I and other larger map players are indeed veering from the normal greatly. But if “normal” or “standard” gameplay refers to the type of game that the average player plays, then it’s a wholly different animal.

    As several people have said in the thread mentioned, we won’t even begin to progress what unless we clarify what we mean by “normal” or “standard.” Now, if you refer to “normal” or “standard” in terms of dev design, which you seem to do, then the question becomes: How much should devs redesign a product if the majority of the player base wants a product that is a bit different? Of course, empirically, proving that the majority play larger map games will be difficult, and no amount of empirical data might be sufficient for some. But assuming that can be done, and I actually represent the majority, would you be willing to modify the game a bit? If still no, then there’s no point to discuss further really, since we don’t have any common point of contact, just like the Jews and Palestinians.

    #204369

    For a second (or 3rd?) language you are doing a masterful job of using words.

    I’m all for a dialogue but ultimately, and I think we’re not that far off, changing one setting because of another is never going to work, and will cause more than it solves.

    It’s fairly evident what the baseline is, and my fear is that this will be changed in favour of people arguing loudly, squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that – precisely what some people are complaining about multiplayer versus single player.

    And even if you could somehow prove something like that, the solution would still be to not to change something that works in an attempt to stretch it to try and please everyone. The better solution would still be to diversify the design of the settings and make them more distinct.

    If, somehow, super large slow maps (or whatever) became the default, all that would do would be to alienate a section of the player Base that are already happy (but happy people rarely complain) in favour of catering to another section.

    In other words we’d be in exactly the same situation we are in right now, but after unnecessary tinkering with a winning formula.

    No, as I said, it’d make much more sense to stop asking for changes to the Base and trying to stretch and shoehorn something that simply can’t fit.

    No, I say build a separate mode, call it marathon or adventure or whatever, and build on the existing slow setting, but build it from the ground up to cater for those that have complaints.

    #204398

    Epaminondas
    Member

    For a second (or 3rd?) language you are doing a masterful job of using words.

    3rd: Korean, then Chinese, then English. And thanks, though I am very selfconscious about my fluency.

    I’m all for a dialogue but ultimately, and I think we’re not that far off, changing one setting because of another is never going to work, and will cause more than it solves.

    At times that’s what I think and what you say, but other times you say something else and say I should try another game. So I don’t know…

    And even if you could somehow prove something like that, the solution would still be to not to change something that works in an attempt to stretch it to try and please everyone.

    Okay, so we now know where you are coming from clearly: The status quo should not change even if the popular sentiment favors it. That’s prefectly respectable position, and I am hardly someone who always believe “the majority is always right.”

    The better solution would still be to diversify the design of the settings and make them more distinct.

    Some of what I propose fall under this strategy: That is, they would have literally zero impact on the “base” game players. For instance, I absolutely despise ultimate spells, and I have consistently argued for an option to disable them, and that would not at all affect the base game. Likewise with some folks wanting options to disable T4s (this is not my position, however; I like T4s though I think there are still ways to better implement them).

    If, somehow, super large slow maps (or whatever) became the default…

    I hate to repeat myself, but this is simply not my position; nor do I know anyone with similar playstyle preferences (e.g. ArcaneSeraph) who argue this. And a pure straw man argument really does not help anyone.

    No, I say build a separate mode, call it marathon or adventure or whatever, and build on the existing slow setting, but build it from the ground up to cater for those that have complaints.

    This is fine by me; and again, some of my suggestions fall into this category. But the problem is that it seems to me that the devs find that a lot more work and are not amenable to that route.

    #204403

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Addendum:

    I know this is a bit off topic, but I really have to get something off my chest about ultimate spells, because I think it is not always working at all in the way the devs originally intended.

    Basically, it appears to me that the devs saw ultimate spells as a “time saving” device to end games quickly when you have basically won the game without going through a tedious mopping process. It may indeed even work this way in some games. But in some MP games I’ve played with my friend (and to a lesser extent in some SP games), the spells worked in a totally opposite way. That is, they essentially gave victory to the one who first researched it (and was able to overcome, by luck, the initial few Disjunction attempts) in an otherwise closely contested game with no clear advantage on either side. So, instead of accelerating the end of an already “done” game, the ultimate spells artificially ended games. I found this totally unfun, as the game was at least partly decided on “random” luck.

    Please give us an option to do away with it; it will hurt no one, since those who want to play with them can keep it.

    #204410

    Taykor
    Member

    For instance, I absolutely despise ultimate spells, and I have consistently argued for an option to disable them, and that would not at all affect the base game.

    For instance, I think that ultimate spells are definitely part of the base game. I mostly like them. And, I actually think that Sorcerer with an Age of Magic is close to how it should be played from the start of a game, not just at the very end.

    But in some MP games I’ve played with my friend (and to a lesser extent in some SP games), the spells worked in a totally opposite way. That is, they essentially gave victory to the one who first researched it (and was able to overcome, by luck, the initial few Disjunction attempts) in an otherwise closely contested game with no clear advantage on either side. So, instead of accelerating the end of an already “done” game, the ultimate spells artificially ended games.

    And all of that is absolutely great! I like that they work like that. I am only curious why other ultimates aren’t used against the first one in your example.
    I’m not even sure why you think that this wasn’t intended, they wouldn’t be ultimates otherwise.

    I found this totally unfun, as the game was at least partly decided on “random” luck.

    Furthermore, I don’t really understand how all the effort to research and cast an ultimate spell could be called a ‘random luck’.
    You see, even here you can’t possibly claim that your vision should cause changes in the game. (And I’m not a MP player at all, as you maybe know.)

    #204412

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    Mono-culture elf should, agree.
    I’m not getting the idea that BBB’s trying to balance for MP only – more that he just recommends caution. Also, I’m not having that large games commonly – my last attempt is somewhere around turn 75, because AI turns are taking almost 50 minutes right now. (my own are also some 40 minutes, for 1.5 hours per turn. Average crash time with this memory: 2.5 hours. Less then 2 turns.). That said, I think I could finish that game without to much problems.

    Yikes! 50 minutes? I am playing a large map with 5 AI players, and it takes only about 2-3 minutes for all of them to act. And my CPU is ancient (I am getting a new one now).
    That said, I am annoyed by always having to watch my ally just run every single unit (not a group) around, totally at random. Despite being at war with two other AIs, he does nothing but run around inside his domain…

    #204417

    Epaminondas
    Member

    For instance, I think that ultimate spells are definitely part of the base game. I mostly like them. And, I actually think that Sorcerer with an Age of Magic is close to how it should be played from the start of a game, not just at the very end.

    Then every other thread on the forum would be complaints about Sorcerers being OP! 😉

    I’m not even sure why you think that this wasn’t intended, they wouldn’t be ultimates otherwise.

    Devs have said so multiple times in explaining the original intent of ultimate spells.

    Furthermore, I don’t really understand how all the effort to research and cast an ultimate spell could be called a ‘random luck’.

    You misunderstood me, and I was fairly clear here. First, I did not mean obtaining an ultimate spell was “random luck.” I clearly indicated that the failure to Disjunct in multiple tries constituted random luck. Further, I qualified that position further by saying that that game itself was “partly” (not “wholly” or “completely”) decided by random luck.

    #204462

    Sounds like a specific issue with disjunct. As for ultimate spells, I thought they were supposed to act as the stalemate breaker if there was a stalemate, a bit like t4 units as well, and to allow.someone who was in a dominant position to clear up.

    They’re not incompatible.

    But this is a good example, because you might not like these spells, and in your games they might not be fun at all, but I dare say lots of people are just fine with them, and that.includes the dreaded disintegrate. (and.The counter to that has been shown, so.in that case at least why remove or alter disintegrate to suit you, when you can adapt your strategy to deal with it?)

    #204464

    As for ‘make it an.option’ I get the feeling it isn’t as easy as that. Some classes have a heavier tilt towards end game strength, so putting in an option without rebalancing around that option would probably lead to some.bizarre cases.

    You could say players should just be aware of that anyway, but shouldn’t they be aware of that when choosing super slow or super fast settings anyway?

    I should point out that the baseline has changed several times, starting with a huge slowdown in patch 1.2 and since then most patches have been trying to rejig things (nerfed assassins, more expensive summons, warlord got a scout, supports moved to temples) etc and the net result is that the game overall is slower, but in a typical mp game it’s unlikely you’ll see half of what the game has to offer.

    #204469

    Ericridge
    Member

    If a player manages to grab a ultimate spell early and use it to push to victory. That is also a stalemate breaker. For that player has just took a risk to break a stalemate early. Working as intended in my eyes.

    #204484

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    So, basically it’s pretty easy: you cannot balance the game for all settings possible. Simple example: if you play with strong or even very strong defenders, your units will collect more XP, and the units you have/produce early will become extremely strong. Try to kill a 200 HP Ghoul Mammoth Rider: even if you do, he’s likely to be animated with 100 HPs again.
    On the other hand, having and developing such units is fun.

    There is, however, a very simple relation that should work in all setups: a game is done when you have researched everything, and if it’s not done, an important part of the game simply ceases to exist. With all these different RMG settings, there is obviously one thing necessary, and that has to work like the above mentioned unit-upgrading: as much as you need a way for units to collect endless amounts of XP and get something out of it, you need a way to put all that research into good use.

    I don’t see any reason, not to make it in a comparable way:
    After the techbook is emptied, a new batch of techs becomes available, something ADVANCED TECHS, starting with, say, 3000 Research, needing always 1000 more or so. These techs might simply give all of your units or part of them a stat increase and/or reduce upkeep costs.

    That’s obviously the prerequisite for longer-lasting games – which are easily set up: just put everyting to many on an XL map with Underground and speed to normal, with only few players, and there you go.

    I also agree that there necessarily is THE regular game setup that would be an M map with underground, 4 players, everything on normal and standard. If the game is balanced around that and becomes imbalanced with some other settings, then the only thing you should NOT do is changing the balance – you can also change the way settings work.

    #204489

    @jj, do you mean something like “future tech” from the civ games?

    I also agree that there necessarily is THE regular game setup that would be an M map with underground, 4 players, everything on normal and standard. If the game is balanced around that and becomes imbalanced with some other settings, then the only thing you should NOT do is changing the balance – you can also change the way settings work.

    You said it better than I.

    I think those that have real issues with whatever map settings, should think of ways to make those particular settings more entertaining, and come up with a list of suggestions, e.g (an example, not a suggestion as such):

    very slow xl maps, settler starts:

    – halve the research gained from research sites
    – halve production

    #204490

    Alternatively, more grades of choice in existing settings?

    So, picking marathon games then opens up a sub menu that lets you choose to have half research etc.

    #204491

    Capirex
    Member

    I am not sure that balancing toward what is considered base/normal setting is a good idea in a game like this. And to some extent it punishes players that like to try and make their gaming experience the most eterogeneous possibile.
    By the way i play mostly on medium map on avarage settings because after you start familiarizing with the game, those kind of settings really feel like a more balanced experience overall. And some setting just cripple the AI too much, like slow research speed + lot of raging indipendents + strong defenders, so they are cool to try one or two times and then they feel like an inferior experience overall.

    Pick a strategy game like Civ IV, which has a more flexible random map generator than AoW 3 (which is understandeble considering the financial capabilties of firaxis are quite different from those of TS), you can generate all different kinds all maps: continets, islands, fractal, lake maps, highlands map, maps that simulate earth like geography, etc… very big, small… with normal or epic speed setting.. raging barbarian, always war etc… and you can play them experiencing pretty different situations while still not losing the sense of general balance that forms the general framework of the game.

    I don’t always get the same feeling for AoW 3 on some setting (it’s most evident on XL maps against emperor AIs like some people said), especially in the late game. And the fixes to the related problems wouldn’t probably affect MP or medium map games.

    #204495

    esvath
    Member

    Alternatively, more grades of choice in existing settings?
    So, picking marathon games then opens up a sub menu that lets you choose to have half research etc.

    IIRC, current game speed setting already does this, right? Slowest = 300% research cost and 300% population cost for cities? Maybe add 300% production cost to this setting and I think that is enough to warrant a long play. Not my cup of tea but whatever.

    If it is possible to add new setting, maybe something that regulate magic and CP?
    – high magic –> discount to mana cost, mana upkeep and CP
    – normal –> as it is
    – low magic –> double mana cost, mana upkeep and CP cost

    #204498

    @ esvath, yeah add to those settings, so that labs give 5 candles, not 10 etc.

Viewing 30 posts - 151 through 180 (of 200 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.