Bro I am not saying that I dislike the game, but I think the game need to shake the meta a little bit. Lately they nerfed Celts drush, Persian dark TC, Incas Trush, Koreans Trush and so on…I am just saying we need like more availability for some units or more new strats like for example adding new things in the dark/feudal age to add more strats.
a dead game that still has more active players then aoe2.
but even a decade ago when the game was fresh you could get to the top by memorizing just a build order or two. same thing with wc3 when it was new. you think build orders are something new? don’t make me laugh.
because those things were busted - celt drush could get to your opponents base and outmicro any response they could muster. persian dark age tc advantage was causing them in excess of 55% winrates. Incan trush same thing, Koreans winrates were stupid as well.
when the best answer to a feudal age pressure is to go to castle age and use siege, there is a problem with said build.
You have to compare it relatively to itself too. AoE2 hasn’t really had any fanfare until recently. Nor can you really compare the size of resources the team behind the AoE2 devs and Blizzard.
Maybe, but you see how well WC3 ended up doing in other aspects. At least even if the main game got you bored, the lobby system was good, the map editor was good and community was thriving. Now compare that to AoE2 lobby. So if they’re not going to (be able to) provide a decent lobby experience, they should at least make sure the meta isn’t pissing off veteran players.
Just an all round bad argument. There are a ton of things with >55% win rates at various point still in the game. So either a lot of things (that no one seems to complain about) are busted, or 55% isn’t the magic number. Most of the complaints were from players who QQ when their pre-learned build order didn’t work out.
uh what? aoe2 is heralded as one of the best RTS games ever.
and is the meta pissing off vets? maybe a small minority but from what i see the majority don’t have an issue.
source for this? a real source? not just your QQ this is my way of saying tower rushing wasn’t OP!
point is though that build orders are not new, they aren’t limited to aoe2, and while they can get you near the top they aren’t going to teach you how to react to the unknown and make you a truly great player.
Yes and that’s why it survived, just because it retained a loyal community. But it was not receiving a lot of attention (in terms of marketing itself and what not) before DE.
bruh… like this very forum with all the ‘next balance change suggestions’ threads. just take a browse man
i said a real source -this forum has maybe 200 active posters in it and it is a small minority that are sitting there saying that trushing was fine and balanced. one of them being equalizer who somehow thinks Hussar and HCA were too expensive. food for thought. so go ahead - give me a real source that what you say is true.
LOL i’m not going to sit here and argue with you all day. You can’t be just dimissive of other posters in the community just because you feel like you are right about everything you ever write.
11, well about what it gives it is, but forget about Hussar because in the end it is a trash, but HCA is really expensive about it gives especially you pay 900f, 500g for the +1 attack advantage at most not the “meh” 10hp, +1 melee.
And again, pls don’t make me write about 20 years ago argument for our grand fathers 11.
then PROVIDE A SOURCE TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT.
you make a claim without a shred of proof to back it up.
you know what backs up tower rushing being too strong?
the fact that it was pretty much the only strategy Incas used, even at the pro level.
the fact that incas early game winrate was as high as it was, even at the highest levels of the ladder.
the fact that even the pros were happy to see it nerfed.
if you think 1v1 is the main mode of aoe2, you do not understand aoe2
I did, you dismissed it. Why should I keep trying? I don’t have time to waste on you all day. Now we will start circling back on topics that aren’t even relevant to the original premise of what we were talking about, which is why I generally don’t like talking with you. Every conversation with you devolves into pure dumpsterfire.
And what? Not every civ needs to go with exactly the same strategy. (The civ was clearly designed for feudal strength based on all it’s bonuses, so really, what is your point here)
There are civs with much higher win rates for the early game that nobody complains about. I pointed this out to you last time you brought this up.
It was not really a clear cut positive response as what you just wrote.
TL;DR talking with you is pointless, as always.
For balancing, i think that higher lvl 1v1 should be the place to look bc that is the most impacted by far and as long as the other modes do not get actively harmed its fine for those. they dont need a perfectly finetuned balance
that’s because you ignore that the +1 attack increases the time to kill substantially. you also like to write off the extra and health because “its a ranged unit”, but ignore that is a serious survival advantage that does matter. if cav archers were not able to be killed “Because they are a fast ranged unit” they would be an auto win unit and need nerfs, but they got buffed recently didn’t they? you also ignore the training time reduction, something very few generic units get for upgrades in imperial age.
yes because i am so against change when i literally post a list of recommended balance changes every couple months. equalizer maybe you should change your argument to make snese because this doesn’t.
your source was “the forums”. what i see on the forums is people asking for it to be nerfed - even high level players were asking for it to be nerfed on the various forums. you going to tell me that those high level players don’t know what they are talking about?
no. provide a real source - a real source is something with data to back it up.
no, they don’t. but when said strategy has a 55% winrate or higher, even at the highest level, that is an issue.
the majority were happy to see it nerfed though weren’t they?
coming from the guy who can’t even provide a real source with stats and data and facts to back it up, this comment is hilarious.
Again, I can only repeat myself the same way as you do…
You can check aoestats and this forums yourself. I remember you were talking a lot a couple of months ago about how archers are overrepresented in the early game. Well no wonder they are, as things get nerfed out of the game, more players will converge to the fewer remaining options available.
and i think those things need to be nerfed as well.
and aoestats said the build was busted and needing nerfed.
actually i thought archers were fine - at best thy might have needed a slight stacking nerf.
yeah because you know we haven’t seen unique units buffed, we haven’t seen cav archers buffed, etc lately have we?
I agree with you, team community have the most players not 1v1, but you can’t ever balance a game from team games perspective, all balances should be taken from 1v1 perspective.
This will lead to more problems like the one you were talking about a few months ago. If you nerf everything, then there will be less and less strategies to converge towards.
Very relevant for our discussion of the early game. (not)
I Don’t think they need to be nerfed out of the meta. even reducing Lithuanians starting food to 100 means their early game is less abusable and yet leaves the rest of the civ strong, as a good example.
yeah well the early game only has a few units to work with, but frankly during the early game i frequently see every unit used - so yeah, even eagles with their 60 second training time get used from time to time. what more do you want? tower rushes back? do it in a way that doesn’t make the winrates busted.
EVERY SINGLE RTS CONSIDERS THE BALANCE RANGE FROM 45 TO 55.
let’s hope it is very difficult to have metas in AoE4
i wish you the best of luck with that, but even games like civilization have “metas” and those games are very complex.