I haven’t been that lucky in team games, most of my team games one of the sides is doing something lame…I honestly love the barb rush…yes waste 10 workers trying to build that across the map…
I’m sorry, but I highly doubt you’re “Diamond” in SC2 if you’re bothered by Cheeses and think it shouldn’t be part of the gameplay, because even in SC2, Cheeses are a very common practice among players. It just so happens that it’s part of the mechanics of RTS, and the way to win, and that’s always been the case in any classic RTS.
Sc and ages play way different it’s not common to have a 10 minute game. And your missing the point again I don’t find it fun to be battling it out with the other team for 30 minutes just so my allies can run past everything, not kill anything at all and just take out 4 buildings that’s just not right that’s not fun and that’s not skill. I am tired of these cheap wins
Play custom game then, disable landmark victory and go
1 Like
I have been, I won’t play quick match ranked or unranked teams it’s just not fun with landmark win it’s cheap and personally it shouldn’t even be a win condition in ages
personally I hate to stay hours looking for some hidden inhabitant when the game is clearly over for a long time. Welcome to landmark victory condition. I speak about vs Human
I don’t play vs IA anymore because it’s weak and boring as you say
1 Like
what point are you making…? absolutely delusional. the game is a flop. No ones Elo is going to change that.
no hes bored bcuz civs are designed to have only 1 strat that works and makes the game stale unlike true rts with assymetrical civs/races
2 Likes
If that’s the one strat the Civ has, it can’t be cheese.
The only consistent way to get away with something interesting or different is to add low ELO players to your team before entering matchmaking, then you can get no age up Delhi spearman rush to work.
1 Like
so that means you have to force yourself to get a different experience that the game itself and by natural setting should bring it. thta means that the game civs are so flawed that are so undimensional
Having a valid strategy that works most of the time wouldn’t mean that the civs are defective, but it does mean that they are poorly designed, by RTS standards, for interesting gameplay.
I stand with the crowd that would like to see dark age removed &/or maps significantly redesigned (size especially) to promote more unique moments of action in general, per game.
And, of course, stronger elephants.
They get rid of landmark victory and do some more balancing and the game is fine. Pom your the ideal cheap player if you only have one strat and it works 90% of the time…ie its broken in rts world…
yup but they are poorly designed that they are not fun to play and made tons of ppl quit
1 Like
Dear friend, I try many ways to play, but times are hard and even the best crops fail. It’s among the reasons I play only 1-10 games per week to break the monotony of unidimensional Civ design.
My replays ought to be visible under the Pomnite nickname if you’d like to see me throw away games by trying different things.
1 Like
If the AI is boring why do you play it? Fact is after 100 games you should be able to beat AI ten different ways. After that point it’s just practicing speeding up your strategies.
I hate when people complain about beating the AI. Can’t satisfy everyone, I’ve run into people that are upset with my strategy no matter how I play.
At first, I was rushing to imperial and printing a huge ball of cavalry and siege and people would complain I’m not helping them rush.
Then I started rushing sacred sites and finishing the game in 20 minutes, people complain and beg to delete the site.
Now I’m feudal rushing and able to finish most games vs AI in 15-20 minutes whether anyone helps me or not. People complain the game is too short.
It’s only like 1/50 people that whine, but it’s ridiculous to me. Why should I spend 40 extra minutes diddling around against a super easy opponent when I can win early in various ways? If that’s fun for you then setup a private game where you can waste as much time as you want. You can choose the win conditions in custom games if it bothers you so much. It only makes me want to finish the games faster when I see people cry about it in a public game.
Your AoE2 nostalgia is from a completely different era of gaming when there was room to play more creatively. Now days with all the stats, replays, streaming, community discussion; games are ‘figured out’ quite quickly and cookie cutter strategies become dominant. That’s any game these days. Defending against cheese and popular metas is part of gaming in 2022.
1 Like
How are the AI? I bet they won’t do the things you don’t like as much as human players
But, tbh, I never really liked the landmark gameplay in the AoE4 tech stress and hoped they weren’t the only way to play in released game. Surely, there’s a classic mode where you can just play conquest against the enemy, no? 
Again I play team games not just the AI. I am tried of ppl exploiting the games cheapness by rushing past army’s and defenses and taking out 4 buildings and the game is over, tired of fighting a good game with someone just to have an ally run over and take the sight’s when we were not even fighting for them…it’s a lame win. Yes it’s in the game but that’s too cheap if you ask me and it’s not ages if you want quick 20min games go play SC, ages is meant to be a true war game in my opinion and to see who has better tactics…not just making one type of unit and killing 4 targets…lame
If someone is able to bumrush through multiple human players, their armies, and their defenses to snipe out all of their landmarks that’s not even a case of it being a cheap win, that’s a case of the players themselves being incredibly bad. Whether its their inability to properly defend by building walls to delay and keeps to secure positions, their inability to pay attention to the map to notice the fat blob strolling through their base, or just simply not doing anything to stop it. And it’s not even one players fault in that case but multiple players fault since its a team game. If its a sacred site win, that’s literally 10 minutes of two or more players refusing to contest them in any way, shape, or form.
At some point, and this is definitely one of them, there needs to be some blame put on people simply being bad at the macro of the game instead of the game being designed cheaply. Even AoE2 games didn’t necessarily last ages in 1v1s as even something like dark age rush or the mongols memery was very common. AoE2 as well was just a game of rock paper scissors, I still remember the memes of Mangonel+Scorpion armies
My friend, I play Delhi. Delhi gets 20 minutes tops to have that win secured.
I would like to have Dark Age removed from this game and for the average late-game time be 30 minutes. This for me would be ideal for the sake of experience.
I understand that many players do not begin militarization until 30 minutes, but they can still think on the opinion of low ELO skill players like me.
I’m not sure if I understood you wrong or not but not starting militarization until 30 minutes is the stuff a low ELO player would do, not a mid or high elo player.