Ok I almost play team game and from now I will join Japan, Sweden and Dutch.
The balance is kept adjusting for they can defending rush, but rush civs are still impossible to fight if they boom successfully.
Thanks Devs for giving less choice to other civs.
If you have any suggestions, I believe the production team will value this article
This is not the first post from me and here also not only me to give suggestions, but devs seems only living in their rooms only.
Yes, a faction which can defend a rush well but also is good lategame is optimal.
In the higher ranks it’s all rushing though, lategame rarely becomes a factor.
I see a lot of post about “every game is rush vs rush, we never see long games, most game end in 2 or 3 age, etc, etc”, and then there is this kind of post “boom civs are better, impossible to raid civilizations make boom OP, x civ late game is unbeatable”
They are all opinions and most, like yours, have some true, what I don’t like is why we are always saying DEVs don’t care and they only make bad modifications to the game. Dude, I love this game, and we, as a community, should help the game to stay alive (at least don’t help killing it) and one thing we can do is not overly criticize the people that work on it, imagine you beeing one of the DEVs, would you feel happy?
This is above balance?
They have treaty. ES made this for them.
And more, if rush civ don’t rush, they must lose. They have no choice, in nowadays gameplay.
Some guys are using them because like them even they are UP now and still being considered OP by Devs.
And Devs just make them also become boom civ is ok.
I understand that there are balance issues on the game, however ppl need to be patient, the game has only been out for a month, we are seeing updates being released on the regular.
Balancing this game is an extremely hard task. Some civs do well against certain civs but will do worse against others!! So nerfing of buffing a civ to make a match up more balanced may result in several other unbalanced match ups
Also making a civ better on 1v1 may make 1v1 games balanced with that civ but it may be cause it to be op on teams and vice versa.
These things take time, the best we can do is to enjoy the game and work on what we have while we keep reporting issues that we see and if the devs find it relevant good, if not then its not the end of the world
I agree, however within this one month, many many topics have already complaint about some issues and their opinion are almost the same. However Devs did the opposite way in this patch, which let, at least me very disappointed.
And patient of a guy is limited, I can almost sure I will not want to keep facing those 2~3 OP civs in games for months and months.
I dont think you are using the term booming correctly, as normally the main weakness of that strategy is rushing. Booming means you invest everything in your economy, no offence or defence. Maybe you are talking about turtling? This is a strategy that involve a mix of defence (units, walls, towers) and economy and is used to counter rushes.
Yes, my English is not good.
Sorry for misunderstanding.
No worry mate.
I’ll try to give more insight on the matter.
How do you counter a turtling player?
Boom! In the rock, paper, scissor analogy, booming beats turtling. For a turtle strategy, you have to invest in defence, but that investment wont pay off if the opponent boom. The booming player will get a way better economy, as he wont lose time building walls, wont start buildings mills because he is too afraid to have his vills outside, etc.
But what if you dont like booming? What if you want to beat a turtling player with a rush?
Now, this is a very different question. As I said, turtling is a strategy to counter rush.
Pro players would be better to help you than me, but basically, it would come down to civs choices, units choices and micro. It is definitively possible, but keep in mind this will always be harder.
The only sure thing is that if you abord a fight with a turtling player the same way you do with any other playstyle, you are doing yourself a disservice.
I am playing Russia/Lakota/Port in team game.
For Port booming still ok. However, Even I tried to Boom with Russia/Lakota, (I know they are rushed civs), they still lose eco to the some turtling civs, and in team games, maps are bigger, your teammate also affect your action (you will not rush when your teammate is turtle civ and also he is not willing to rush with you). That makes I can only boom and try my best to disturb opponent’s eco.
However, even I tried hard and successfully killed some vils, their eco are still much better far away from the civs I used (Russia and Lakota).
And there are some situations, even I and my teammate rushed, however even we successfully destroyed one of opponent’s TC, another opponent due to the turtling civ power (you know some civ can boom very powerful and quick), it is already not possible to stop that anymore and he can 1v2 us with that strong eco.
I didn’t read most of this thread, just the initial post.
The reason this mentality is wrong, is because you are assuming we should play every civ the same. The fact is, some civs can boom or rush better than others, are stronger in different ages, and have different unit options that outclass those of other civs. This is intentional by design. If you try to boom as Sioux against British, you will lose. On the other hand, if you play aggressive in Age 2 by raiding and harassing as Sioux against British, you will not only slow down any boom attempt, but you will have a much more equal match up.
My observation in online is that many players don’t play aggressively or try to attack or raid. They’re too afraid to make the first move, or too easily retreat. This results in more booming and turtling vs. playing aggressively, giving the impression that booming civs are at an advantage. This isn’t true. The civs don’t need to change, the mentality of the players using certain civs do.
My observation and experience is opposite to yours. Even they tried hard and was easy defended. What I mean is even all-in rush, their booming/turtle power are TOO strong that can 1v2 or even 1v3 after the opponent has 2 tc destroyed.
Supplement: I played team game most.
and my experience is I always play with same group people (>10) (team game).
When all of them using booming civs (Japan/Sweden/Dutch/Brits), they became more stronger, and we shouldn’t say that is because these civs are easy for people to use. Even we have tried otto/az/Haud rush around 5 mins. The result will always goes one of their eco was boom good enough to push our team back. Sure if they use other civs will not have this power.
That causes my group people almost all guys are only using these civs. (I don’t know you have the same situation or not, but I posted here before, guys agreed they are facing the same).
and the main issue is because many guys using these civs don’t want their civs to be nerfed. However, we are always facing only these 3~5 civs (5 of 16) in the game. This already makes people (at least my group) start giving up playing this game due to boring. Sure if I keep on playing just against only these civs, I will also give up soon.
Thats what I am experiencing.
One thing, you say you play always with the same people (around 10 players) and that you face almost always the same a civs.
Have you thought that you face the same civs because are their favorite/best civs? And maybe, maybe… They are simply better because they always play the same civ, against the same opponent, using the same strategy?
Apologies, as I’m having a hard time understanding some of what you wrote.
It may just be that you’re being outplayed. I don’t think balance is in bad shape at the moment, and I play pretty competitively rating wise. I will say that team games bring a different balance dynamic to the game, but a 3 person team rushing against 3 person team that is all booming will get steamrolled pretty quickly.
That is an interesting point.
It is true that in AOE3, the Forward base that focuses one player is relatively common. But when I think of my AOE2 experience, this is not really present. Normally it is more common to see flanks engage one another, while the pocket(s) player(s) boom.
Maybe focusing one enemy and letting the others boom is just a strategic mistake in team games?
The fundamental issue is that booming civs can TURTLE more effectively than rushing civs can BOOM. Nobody is saying that Lakota can outboom Britain. Nobody is debating that Lakota should beat a pure boom Britain. The problem is that a turtling Britain will beat both a rush and a boom. They can trade a moderate amount of eco for just enough military/defense in order to beat both an all-in rush OR a full boom. In other words, they don’t even need to scout the opponent half the time.
Basically:
Britain boom > Lakota boom (obviously)
Britain boom > Lakota turtle
Britain boom < Lakota rush
Britain rush < Lakota rush
Britain rush > Lakota boom
Britain rush > Lakota turtle
Britain turtle > Lakota turtle
BRITAIN TURTLE > LAKOTA BOOM
BRITAIN TURTLE > LAKOTA RUSH
I think the problem is the difference between Turtle and Boom, I will answer based on this:
With that on mind I will disagree with this:
BRITAIN TURTLE > LAKOTA BOOM
As the post on the link says, if someone pure turtles, they send economy on defenses, outpost, and army. The player will reach higher ages mutch slower then a pure boom player, that only developes his economy, even lakota will have a mutch better economy and a upgraded army.
Boom > Turtle > Rush > Boom