AoEO hasn’t had a good competitive system in its life and an RTS without that feature can never go far, other than other factors. A game played by 2 cats may seem better to you, but it doesn’t make it better.
And if you need 6-7 years to achieve a moderately viable balance (you say that happens in AoEO and for that many players and statistical review are needed to check if that is true), the game is not played by almost anyone.
It is your perspective. For you this game is not asymmetrical enough, for AoE2 players it is very asymmetrical. By the way, I come from AoE3 and there is not much difference in asymmetry between the first 8 civilizations from 3 to 4.
Yea, I find it ridiculous that some people are mentioning AoEO, a game played by a total of 24 people, as a “successful” example. AoEO needs to be killed with fire, it was such a failure that it almost killed the franchise.
Eyes on the ball. I am not mentioning AoEO as an example of an Age game with a lot of players. I am mentioning it as an example of an Age game with balanced and asymmetric civs. To any extent that AoEO is an Age game with balanced and asymmetric civs, AoEO is relevant in any discussion about those things. AoE3 is also a great example of these things, too.
Unfortunately neither AoE3 nor AoEO are examples of balance in their first years of history, mainly because there was not enough traffic or enough statistics to determine if civilizations are really moderately balanced or not, that is why they died quickly in the competitive scene. It’s hard, but that’s how it is.
I don’t believe that obtaining balance requires a large player base. In my experience, balance issues come to light quickly when high level players compete against each other. A small group of high level players can quickly figure out metas. This is exactly how things have worked in AoE4 – prior to release, a small group of high level players were able to identify all sorts of balance problems that they fixed. New patches have since adjusted things, and those players continue to identify them, and they do not particularly need to play anyone but themselves to identify them.
Here is an example of pressuring the ovoo. The mongols player attempts to counter tower, fails, then moves his base 3 times. Obviously that is a loss for him. But obviously mongols are completely broken and can NEVER be beaten!
Its minute 7 and the mongol player doesn’t have the map pressure. Beating one bad player doesn’t mean that the civ is not too strong. They are beatable if they don’t know what they do or if you cheese them, but do you really think that you are better than all the high elo pros, because they agree that mongols are just too strong? This might work against a 1300 elo player but not against the viper.
yeah man if you cant beat the greatest aoe player of all time it must not be viable in any shape or form. get a clue. my pressure started 2 and a half mins before that screenshot, the game was over when I took it.
More players, more games per hour, more average level and more discoveries of dominant strategies.
Don’t be surprised if the same players played in AoEO as AoE4 we would see balance issues that “high level” AoEO players have not seen.
But I am telling you, I believe that a mixture of asymmetry and symmetry, with the civilizations that are yet to come, is the best for balance. The only thing missing is for the developers to get on with it.
Yea beating a bad player. Look my strategy disproves what all high elo players say. Mongols balanced.
So the mongol player did exactly what? What rank/elo was your opponent and how much experience does he have playing mongols? Why didn’t he have the army lead to deny your towers when you put villagers on stone and he does not? Did he towerrushed you? So many variables that such a “proving” screenshot can’t tell us. You might even have played against easy AI. Who knows?
Lets be real - most of us are not that good in the game(everything<1800) in here compared to the better players. Most people don’t adapt and lose to things they never seen. This is whats the difference in a good player and a great player - adapting things. You might win some games with this strategy, but when your enemy knows that you might go for this play a simple tower on his ovvo recks you.
There is 30 players in the entire world above 1800 elo. Ill tell you what, why dont you and I play a match, and you know im going to do this strategy and I will still easily kill you with it. That should settle it right? I average 1500-1550 elo. You average around 1300.
Exactly. And probably 10 are there because they abuse op civs. So maybe >1850 would be even better to really only get the good players instead
I never played mongols once since the first closed beta. This would only prove that you might win against an unexperienced mongol player.
Also averaging with a 70+% wr? Im just not playing enough games to climb faster because i find this game a bit lacklustering right now. Hope things change for the better with time.
Interesting.
Most mongol tower rushes I saw, they were already in the base with a tower up around 4-5 mins.
So do you come back with that counter pressure or do you block their tower rush? Putting 4 villls on stone also delays your age up, giving them even more time, which is the main issue most players seem to have, as by the time they are able to counter, the mongol player is above and beyond.
