Aggressive posting might be fun for trolls, but it’s turning away casuals. Please, for the sake of everyone else in this thread, try to stop arguing.
7 Likes
Sure, I assumed that Chinese have hussars, and I was mistaken. But guess what? I will admit that. I usually admit my mistakes, you can look through my history. You are doubling and tripling down on minor point to get an own.
It doesn’t disprove my point whatsoever, though. You know what, screw it. I’ll take you on with Chinese light cav and cavalier. Balanced resources. You take the siege. How about it?
You don’t understand the difference between onagers and siege onagers. At least do some scenario editor tests, you’ll learn a lot.
Of course, you’ll pretend like you didn’t even hear it. This is pointless. Have a good day, mate. I’m blocking you and moving on.
I agree my dude. I’m going overboard here, mostly because I have a bit of history with this person. My bad. Let’s get this thread back on track.
On black forest with 1 opening? You must be insane! but sure I’ll take you on.
Makes me curious how you plan to fight pikes + onager with only horses on small opening.
Not on this thread. I didn’t make this thread for this reason. If you want to DM and talk about it, fine. Also, nobody said anything about pikes. If you want an unrealistic scenario, let’s make it unrealistic. If you want realistic, let’s make it so.
I think you are contradicting yourself here. If you think any player, regardless of Elo (minus the super newbies) going to have no pike for siege, then you’re the one being unrealistic.
This statement says a lot about your mind set, you simply wanted to win to prove a point.
Lets do both the cases here, one with the HC, and this one.
Oh! btw also remember! you are arguing for lower Elo, so if you did any “superb/pro” micro would instantly mean you prove yourself wrong, since you are so against “high” Elo.
I don’t want to get in the middle of the discussion here but if you’re gonna go siege onager you gotta get some pikes in there, that’s classic AoE2 combo! Going just SO is too much of a risk lol I kind of assumed gflings1 would add pikes to that.
1 Like
I thought it is only normal to have any sort of protection to siege. mht’s statement was about Chinese on BF, which implies closed map and you would think it’ll benefit Chinese more but it doesn’t.
not on this thread.
Yes, and that’s fine. But then, expect me to add my own support units, while balancing resrouces. That’s what I said here:
Because what you would actually do in the situation is hold with your own onagers, and/or a castle, while cutting on the other side. There are a few other options, but this is generally what I would do.
Does anyone know how to ping a mod? It would be great if someone could clean up this thread a bit.
Hi, how are you? Me fine
Well, nothing, I ask you to please be respectful and focus on the discussion, I’m watching you huh.
2 Likes
You can, now keep it in mind that people put Pike in front so that it can be replaced, as that should be the most realistic situation here.
I think you’ll have a much harder time to manage cutting from the side when engaging in a fight already.
The thread continues from here:
################################################################################################################################# (that’s a first. this forum is censoring links to itself)
1 Like
I realized that the partner here had several smurf accounts, I decided to ban him permanently, if you realize that he made another new account to avoid the ban, please report it.
1 Like
Is he connected to that other guy putting down casual players who is suspected to be another user evading a ban?
1 Like
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.
Win rates on 1v1 Black Forest spread between 57.11% for Turks to 42.47% for Tatars in the last 12 months:
This is more balanced than Arena or Nomad. The americans civs are all 3 above 50%. Chinese are at 44.97% but there win rate on other maps is also bad.
So the balance on 1v1 Black Forest is actually not that bad, and even if there are unbalanced maps, I rather see civs balanced instead of maps skiped.
2 Likes
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.
I generally don’t think that mechanics should be just removed from the game. But they can be balanced differently. Quick walls are also used too much offensivly imo in castle drops what is extremly unfun for new players. New palyers can often not do much against a castle foundation, and even if there is enough military to fight the villagers the villagers can be proteced with something like gate foundation. Imo when an opponent sends 10 villagers to build a castle, and the other players sends 10 villagers to attack the castle foundation, the castle should not go up. But Curretly I think it would go up rather easily. What is also extremly unrealistic. In real life you need safe working condiations to build a building. Enemy villagers could just throw you of the ladder litterally.
But I think quick walls can be also annoying while rushing an enemy on rather higher elo. It is a bit weird that a foundation that was just be worked on for less than a second is not destroyed in like 1 hit. Do they get an instant health bonus in the first second or something?
1 Like
I’ll be honest with you, I don’t really care about “realism” in the game. Does it make sense that monks are able to convert elephants by preaching religion? Or that town center just creates people with food? Or every military unit, even the ones fighting, getting upgrades as soon as blacksmith researches it? There are like a thousand examples, quickwall is just one.
I do agree with you on the castle drops though. It was one of the most frustrating aspects of the game for me initially. Dealing with castle drops effectively require quick thinking and strategy, and a decent eAPM on top of that. Castle drop is one of the reasons why new players hate maps like arena and nomad.
I would welcome a change like “if x number of units attack a building foundation at once, it will immediately collapse”. The number can be 10-20, depending on balance requirements. This is a simple, direct rule, works on castles as intented, and doesn’t prevent saving vils, or blocking out armies through quickwalls.
I would welcome a change like “if x number of units attack a building foundation at once, it will immediately collapse” . The number can be 10-20, depending on balance requirements. This is a simple, direct rule, works on castles as intented, and doesn’t prevent saving vils, or blocking out armies through quickwalls.
First of all it should be more clear in game what the health of a foundation is. I think there are two numbers: The construction state and the deconstrustion state. A builing can be at 90% construction but already 70% destroyed. By having these two numbers it is ensured that it doesn’t take longer or costs more to build a building that is attacked. But it makes it difficult to check how far away it is from builing 100% build. Maybe there can be two health bars.
Then if the goal is to nerf offensive foundations but not defensive foundation, I think the cleanest way is to just buff the villagers damage against foundations but not the damage from military units. Atm villagers have +6 bonus damage against stone defense, what makes them rather good against towers. But Castles don’t count as stone defense. So I would say either give villagers bonus damage against castles too, and/or introduce a new armor class “foundation” against which just villagers could have an attack bonus.
A rule like that foundations get instantly destroyed when attacked by x units, is problematic imo. It also would nerf defenisve castle foundations a lot when offensive military units attack it.
Disclaimer: didnt bother to read all 96 replies, just briefly read main post.
I have failed experience bringing new players to play, and I dont think reducing early aggression would help my case.
I am mainly playing AI with my friends. Being a experienced AI determinator, I can control AI aggression to the point that the AI would never be able to attack in full force, only small forces in between. (and they couldnt see it, because shared vision was not a thing)
They still quit. Main reason is that the game was
-
too slow, spent 20min to reach castle age!! (which actually means early aggression make it worse). Compared to LoL (the other game we played) there is action/interactions right after the start.
-
The game is way too complex, too many buildings to remember. Doubt stoping early aggression help that, because there are more units(=more complex) as we advance. (My friends were trying hard using mangonel to kill castle, imagine they play without me and check tech tree to find out treb on their own!!)
The point is, are there many players who will join, and stay in the game, if early aggression is not a thing? I dont think so.
In fact, I think we should focus more on PVE content than PVP for that matter.
4 Likes
It’s not all about win rate. Good civ can boost player elo and eventually he matched with better player and still win 50%. Bad civs drop elo and he win 50% vs worse players.
Your post was extremely insightful, thank you. A few other experienced people in the thread have echoed your sentiment about slow buildup. If that is one of the main factors, I guess we are stuck. I am here for that slow buildup. The entire reason I play AoE2 is because of that ##### ### it does seem to require a specific type of person to enjoy.
I think the same as well. As I have said somewhere above, Co-op campaigns were the best method I could find. Adding/expanding on those might be the path forward.
You can never accept that you are even slightly wrong, can you? I can write like a 5 page report on why what you are saying is nonsense, statistically speaking. Heck, a simple hypothesis test will reveal what is happening here. But, I know that you won’t read it, and even reading it will need a basic understanding of statistics. And that just isn’t worth my time.
I’ll give you a simpler argument. What you are saying applies to all maps. So, is your argument that win rates aren’t representative of game balance at all?
So please drop this. This is a thread for discussing new players, and how to get them here. Not black forest civ balance. Make a thread on that if you want to.