This sentence just shows you have nothing to back up what you said and you have no clue what you are talking about. Ok then you should have nothing to say to me by now. Why do you still have so many following stuff…not bothered to read anyway.
1 Like
Maybe a new player lobby / ladder could help. After a certain number of games / a certain win rate you graduate to the normal ladder & can never join the new player area again & once there is at least one family sharing account that exited the new player area you cannot join it anymore.
It might also be a good idea to have a different map pool.
I am not sure if the number of new players is high enough to have a dedicated new player area though.
1 Like
Maybe it would be good to have maps with neutral camps as part of the rotation. I also played RTS games where neutral camps added a lot of fun and strategical depth to the game.
Neutral camps would help noobs to recover the investment in Feudal Age army (so they can afford early defenses), and give them an objective if the enemy is walled.
It could also make 1 TC pushes more viable.
1 Like
This sentence just shows you have nothing to back up what you said and you have no clue what you are talking about. Ok then you should have nothing to say to me by now. Why do you still have so many following stuff…not bothered to read anyway.
When I was new to the agme, I wanted to play it through. This means reaching the best age, and making the best units and buildings. That is why it was bad when games ended early. It does not felt like playing the complete game,a nd learning all of the game. It just felt like cheese. I also don’t cared much about winning early, as it meant to not play the complete game.
1 Like
It seems no one can come up with a viable solution for this, and the reason is simple: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
At the end of the day it really is up to your friends if they wanna stick with AoE2 or not, if they have fun they will continue to play and improve, if not they will just move on to something else like mine did. There’s really nothing that can be done i think.
You say they don’t want to practice build orders without enemies, or play against Ai until they get the hang of the game. So it’s either ranked, where they’ll get massacred a few dozen times until they reach their elo, and nobody’s got time for that, or ultra noob lobbies where good players will infiltrate it and destroy them, (guys with 0 ranked matches played that like noob bashing, unranked is full of them) unless you get more ppl and lock the lobby with a password.
What about lobbies vs Ai? How many friends are they btw? can you make 4v4 against Ai? Those can be pretty fun. I used to do this back in the day, Black Forest Giant map 3v3, it was fun 
(btw 3 on wood for new players might not be ideal, 4 makes the game go more smoothly, even if it’s not optimal.)
It is a strategy game. Some people prefer turtle some one prefer early rush. All strats should be treated equally. If you like turtling, and be good enough to hold against rush, then it is fine.
If you are not able to hold vs rush strategy, and complain about the game and try to change to game balance in order to achieve your desired turtle style, that is selfish. You are changing the game to punish those who prefer a different strategy than you.
Yes, from my experience. Barrier to entry is becoming high for AOE2. I myself used to play without Deer pushing. I used to put down a mill near to deer or I could go farms and do early scouting. But now it seems Deer pushing is a must.
Civs like Poles previously and Malians currently snowball so quickly.
3 Likes
It is the players finding out new ways to play and getting better. Back in 2000 pro players don’t even collect berries. 2000s pros would not even be close to top level today
You don’t have to change your play style. You can play like that always (not pushing deer etc). Surely you will lose some elo points and be worse in comparison, but you can always find equally skilled opponents who also doesn’t pish deer etc…once your elo is stablised.
I don’t think thay the game should be adjusted ti favour newer players. If you want to brung your friends into the game, don’t toss them into ranked. There is already a lobby system which has always been there, which will allow you to host custom games, treaty or not? More/less resources and even the recently introduced handicap feature. In fact, the handicap, while not ideal for learning the game properly, ia still a great way to bridge the gap between large skill levels in a friendly lobby game.
Scouts are already weak as hell to TC fire, so that change is a no-go.
I recall a buddy of mine exploring each civ to see their unique units, unique techs etc and playing against moderate AI. defending wonder and win for all the civs
It is a strategy game. Some people prefer turtle some one prefer early rush. All strats should be treated equally. If you like turtling, and be good enough to hold against rush, then it is fine.
If you are not able to hold vs rush strategy, and complain about the game and try to change to game balance in order to achieve your desired turtle style, that is selfish. You are changing the game to punish those who prefer a different strategy than you.
Who said that I prefer turtle style? Thats not true. One thing I learned as a beginner in AoE2 is that walling is useless for me like a noob trap. For others it seems to work, but for me certainly not.
But I think walling should be buffed for low elo players and nerfed for high elo players, by nerfing quick walls and house walls but buffing palisade walls and gates.
And Black Forest should maybe be a standard 1v1 map. Its a standard 4v4 map, there is no reason it should be different for 1v1.
2 Likes
I like turtling, it’s the strat i enjoy the most lol. But i rarely turtle because the game favours aggressive play too much for turtling to be a real tactic, you’re basically giving up map control and if the other person reaches imp age or does a siege push it’s over. Maybe towers need a buff.
BF 1v1 is cool!
Edit: Replying to AriesXBox90.
1 Like
Bf 1v1 is bad because it depends on relic spawn and the fun part of bf is trade…in 1v1 no trade
Bf 1v1 is bad because it depends on relic spawn and the fun part of bf is trade…in 1v1 no trade
It could be coded in a way that 1 relic is exactly in the middle of a path in the center and the others are balanced 2:2 or 1:1 with 2 other relics enclosed in the forest. The lakes can also be balanced. Overall the changes should not be difficult to implement.
I don’t see why trade is fun on black forest. The special fun part is rather onager cuting to enclosed ressources or for surprise attacks. Balance of fish economy/land economy is also interessting. ANd the fact that you can get to your best units more often. I also like the discovered map.
2 Likes
Civs balance is more brutal on Bf than other maps….on Arabia even the worst civ can still perform decently. On BF civs like Chinese is unplayable because everything die to onager. Gold heavy eagle warrior civ also just die in late game when gold is out.
1 Like
I’m just trying to get them to play co-op campaigns at the moment. The Khmer one, now. They are happy to play with me, but not sure if they like the game or not.
You should stop telling others how to have fun. Different people enjoy different things about the game, and that’s okay.
Yeah, walls are a noob trap. You should still wall, but you should use small walls/house walls/quick walls. It is a pretty deep skill to just wall.
I agree that pallisade gates could use a little buff. But I think quickwalls are fine where they are. They are an aspect of skill in AoE2. We wouldn’t have a lot of legendary moments and maps like the alcatraz challenge without quickwall.
No, everything dies to Siege Onager. Like 10 civs have those. Onagers can be handled by hussars, and both can be handled by bombard cannons. In any case, just pick a decent civ then.
1 Like
No, @anon69503411 is correct. You don’t need Siege onager and Chinese lack hussar. With just 3-4 Onagers, it is enough to make Chinese players back off because rotation fire can flatten your entire army. The only way they can fight this, is with Light cavalry, or their own onager.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and I would recommend you stop spreading false info.
The irony behind this statement… sigh
repeate, deleted x20 chars
Oh, look. It’s the “High Elo Player” who couldn’t take a simple bet to back up his words. Here to make more bold claims you can’t back up?
Alright, let’s make a bet here. You take like 5 onagers, I’ll take like 15 hussars. Make it a narrow corridor. Let’s see if I can destroy you or not. If you balance the resources, it should be like 4 hussars, and way more in the late game when gold is worth more. But that’s okay.
Also, for the record, I wasn’t exclusively talking about chinese. I literally said this, on top of speaking about siege onagers and bombard cannons:
I’m not even going to bother responding to rest of your comment. Actions speak louder than words.
Says you, you have no back up on your claim. You even recommend people to get hussar which Chinese lack. Why don’t you stop your attitude and attacks and provide some facts?
Besides, if you are “arguing” for lower Elo in general, what makes you think you’re correct and somehow your statement trumps over another for “supposedly” high Elo?
Since the discussion involving low Elo vs high Elo would obviously different, as content would differ then your argument don’t disapprove anything.