1v1 only players don't understand game balance

Yeah, no. You are pathetic. After all that trash talk, you couldn’t respect yourself even to such a small bet. What is funny is that you don’t even know 1v1s. If you did, you’d know that 60 halbs aren’t enough. That’s because 60 halbs will lose to 60 paladins and war elephants are far stronger and more expensive than paladins.

You don’t have to apologize, I don’t care enough to value your apology. Here’s the gif for anyone else who might be on the fence. I will block this guy and move on.

60 Persian War Elephants vs 60 Spanish halbs, all FU

There was no micro involved on either side. I used attack move for them to move towards each other. Halbs were in spread formation to reduce initial trample damage. You can clearly see this with my mouse novements. Also, no amount of micro on either side will change the final result.

Oh, and for all team players. The proper counter here are siege onagers, battle elephants, and monks. There are a few other units, but these are the main ones. Heavy scorpions also have a bonus, against elephants. But they are hard to work with.

3 Likes

The guy posts a gif which does refute my claim and proceeds to block me so he will never read my apology. This is hysteria, plain and simple. This is what humanity has come to.

Althoug, if I may point out, the elephants were microed to surround the halbardiers, which is the scenario I described in which they could have success. Skill matters a lot in this things.

I haven’t read all the replies but it looks like this thread quickly became a slug fest.

Personally I read the OP as saying “game balance should factor in team games as well as 1v1 Arabia games”, which with the stats given seems fair.

Some questions and one piece of advice:

Do you think that team games are imbalanced right now?
Do you think that team games aren’t factored into game balance?

Maybe don’t title your post “you don’t understand X” cause that’s inflammatory and of course led people to be aggressive to you trying to defend themselves against an accusation you made in the title.

4 Likes

Very good advice. Thank you.

This was actually an exact copy of another post, here:

Thank you. Yes, that’s my point. I thought that was pretty clear if you actually read the post.

I will write a longer reply when I get home and am on my PC.

1 Like

Oh, another thing. I said “60 Halbardiers” without really thinking. Yes, it was stupid. It takes two of them to defeat a single paladin, so it’s obvious that more are needed to kill an elephant. But it’s just a question of numbers. How many, then? 120? 150? That is just a minor detail. The matter is a different one. The matter is how hysteria affects the guy who posted this thread. I’m still wondering if videogames like the present one make this psychological issue worse. Are forums a blessing, so people can vent their issues? Or does this kind of discussion enhances their hysteria?

The problem is, common & decent threads don’t generate much commentary so they quickly fall to the bottom. Inflammatory threads generate a lot of discussion so they stay on the top. The more aggressive someone is, the more likely they are to spur people trying to counter them, but the more experienced they are, the better they get at defending their ideas, while newer members quickly get frustrated and leave.

This leads to long-term forum-goers being primarily the most quarrelsome members of the community, right or wrong. The basis of ‘victory’ in a thread primarily has to do with whoever has the staying power to argue until the other person gives up.

And even if they do manage to reach some sort of consensus, there’s a very small probability that their agreement is right for the game. I write in my free time, and perhaps the best advice I ever got was, “If someone tells me they’re annoyed with XYZ, they might be right. If they tell you ABC is the solution to XYZ, they’re probably wrong.”

In this thread in particular, following that logic, I can get behind the frustration being felt on team games, but I can’t agree with the answers that have been proposed in the past.

1 Like

Offtopic but indeed

And they are the ones who get closed and unlisted first.

Please stay friendly , no matter how frustrating other people seem. Discussions are fine, but going with personal attacks and flaming is not.

4 Likes

But then you must realize that at least a significant chunk of what that person said was explicit and direct personal attacks. I never start levying personal attacks. I’d rather just ask people to stop and move on. But that seems to be pretty difficult.

I can show you 3 examples of this pretty recently. There are more than a few people in this forum who are downright toxic. Asking them to agree to disagree and move on does nothing.

@DrMaxy4142 how is this relevant to the discussion here? This is just a bunch of personal attacks with little to foundation. If more people here were like this, I’d rather just delete all my posts and find a better place to talk.

This is not even mentioning that “hysteria” as a word has has been used to attack women on the basis of pseudo-psychology for decades in the past.

1 Like

Seeing the last remaining percent, i think the word “large” doesnt fit.

As for the main title. I will be honest, and say that i prefer someone who has more knowledge on 1v1 game rather than someone who only play TG on my team. For me if you are horrible at 1v1 you cant be good on TG because sometime you need to hold your position to cover your teammates

3 Likes

I kinda disagree tbh, feels like

is actually the only rule we should follow.

Otherwise, if we seek majority for the sake of majority, we should balance our game to look like LoL/Dota/whatever popular game instead.

4 Likes

So nerf Franks, nerf camel civs , delete ballista elephant, delete mamelukes , delete conquistador, delete longboat

I disagree, mostly because I think that most AoE2 players actually like and want AoE2. I am here for this game, not for any of the other ones.

But even otherwise, we are in agreement. Priority 1 is keeping feel of AoE2. Priority 2 is balance in a way most people can enjoy what they want. You do not sacrifice 1 for 2.

Bro, what are you talking about? I don’t understand what this argument even is. How about you start by showing me some charity and interpreting my comments the best way you can? If we disagree, we can take it from there.

Do you really think I want to delete conqs, ballista eles and mamelukes?

1 Like

I was joking, but you know, the low elo players are the majority. They favor closed maps, they want to boom and mass strong units. The units I mentioned are the ones they usually can’t deal with. They might know what to do but they can’t perform it in game.

3 Likes

As a Team Game only player I totally agree with your claim. imho 1v1 player and Team Game player are two totally different species that dev should balance them separately

2 Likes

Sorry but you are completely wrong

1 Like

Oh we noticed, but you kept doubling down on it, while filtercoffee was rightfully telling you how wrong you were

That’s not even the bad part, you were just denying facts without even testing stuff and calling him names for no reason, then when he started “calling you names” in retaliation (can’t really blame him, you were insufferable) you started complaining how you were being harassed yourself… Just stop being toxic and saying stuff like you know what you are talking about when you clearly don’t, it’s ok to question stuff if you are not sure, but don’t act like a know-it-all and start derailing the thread

Don’t expect to be respected if you don’t respect others

3 Likes

Does balance count for single player?
Or does it not matter at all?
What is true is that a civ must have a maximum power in TG and have enough power spikes during some periods of the game in 1v1 games to be around balance
In equally matched 1v1 games there is never enough time/resources to be able to show the potential of each civ; in TG you assume you are going to use the full potential of each civ
Obviously the interesting thing in TG is to reach/survive to that point of the game. While in 1v1 it is to defeat the other player in that fair use of time/resources; using them in better measure than the opponent

At the end of the day the important thing is to have fun, the balance is looking for that. But most of the games are not even ranked games, most of the games are SP. There are also some non-ranked MP games that have to be taken into account

2 Likes

if you only play 1v1s, you only understand around 60% of what balance means.

I think we can not give percentages for this.

If there are 600000 1v1 games but 400000 team games than much more time is spend in team games, because more players are involved.

But 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 all have a somewhat different balance too.

Every map has a different balance. Every setting has a different balance. Every elo has a different balance. Every player has a different balance.

Unranked mods like Diplomacy and FFA are relavant too. Things like Deathmatch and Regicide are relevant too.

When the talk is about “balance”, this implies that there can be a balance, an overall balanced state. But that is an illusion imo.

“Game balance” as something exactly measurable doesn’t exist.

2 Likes

Currently there seems to be two different threads: One about team games players only dont understand balance and one about 1v1 players dont understand balance. I’ll be posting this replay to both to show my vision on this debate. Personally i do believe both are wrong.

The main point: This game should be balanced towards both 1v1 and team games. To both open maps and closed maps. Having all civs at 50% win rate for every setting is an utopia. It will never achieved. It will even make the game feels blend. Civs dont have any identity. To me it will be fine if a civ have an edge for a specific niche, as long as it isnt game breaking for other settings.

Different settings (map type, 1v1 or team game) ask both for different things. A civ can be weak for 1v1, but strong for team games or visa versa. Both cases should be considered when doing balance changes. Limiting balance to just one setting (Looking at you 1v1 Arabia only or 4v4 black forest only people) is to narrow minded. When suggesting balance changes you have to consider all popular option.

In the end stupid balance changes aren’t made because people play only team games or only 1v1s. The real reason to me is people arre to narrow minded or just lack the insight/game knowledge. They just badly lost a game against a strategy and therefore want to nerf that strategy. They lack to aknowledge it was due to other reason they lost. Balance isnt always the reason why you lost. There are many others reasons.

You could have made bad mistakes. Your enemy could be playing better then normal. You could be matches wrongly against a better player that recently underperformed, so his rating dropped. Some players are much better on certain maps, so that is a reason why they play better or worse. And for teaam games also other factors play a role as well. Like premades vs solo or team play between a team as well. As result team games tend to be more unbalanced in general, since you can be carried by allies doing all the hard work for you. These are all factors in the outcome of games. But these are much harder to aknowledge for players. So they blame balance and made a thread.

On average higher rated players do have a better insight in this game and are better in deciding which balance changes make sense and which don’t make sense, but there are clearly some exceptions. Even pros can be wrong about the impact of balance changes, while a few lower rated players can be right. There is some correlation between Elo en you good your balance suggestions is, but it won’t be a 100% correlation…

4 Likes