Point being its not random like a coin toss. Scouting gives information and you can decide how to play against opponent’s strategy. Be it cuman 2 tc, hoang, youpudding, phosphorus or any other unorthodox builds. You only have to be aware of such a possibility against such civs.
If something is easy to do and winning chance is reasonably good then people are still going to opt for it because its an easier path to winning. However if its easy to do but its unlikely to end up in a winning situation or risky, there’s really no problem or necessity to nerf at all.
That’s true, scouting early definetely makes you in a good situation vs these strats i got it, still going to scout early 50% of matchups, because a lot of civs(if not every civs) can make a version of these fc to kill you easily if you cant react properly early on put you a lot behind on a normal games.
Pushing only 1 deer can definetely make you loosing a game especially if you want to invest on playing agressive (maa, frush, forward etc) or vs someone playing early feudal because that’s gonna be way harder to make / avoid damages.
Scouting early everytimes isn’t viable at all at the moment, that’s an issue that does make these fc all in completly random to defend against, last times i played on the ladder someone doing that 2 times in a row, first time, i got lucky to be able to scout it and it was very easy to defend against as i could go to castle age fast enough to be able to make some mangonels to counter organ, however the second times with rathas it was really really hard to defend against as i wasnt able to scout it, honestly, the only fact that got me saved if because i knew this guy can make these fcs so i tried my best to be able to go castle age while still doing a classic opening, if this guys was unknow to me, i would have loose, that’s stupid.
Laming early is also something with the same issue as it’s completly random if it’s gonna be worth it or not.
That’s called a “strategy game”, If your strat is “i push deer because I think it’s overall better” the opponent can go for atypical strats to surprise you.
That’s how this kind of stuff works on a bigger scheme. If information wasn’t valueable we wouldn’t play with fog of war in the first place.
The actually whacky “coinflip” development is NOT the Phosphoru. It’s the deer push meta. it gives up information in exchange for a little timing advantage.
It’s YOU who bets on the opponent doing a meta strat you know. It’s NOT the opponent, NOT the Phosphoru player - usually Phosphoru players have actually high priority to scout the opponent. It’s very important because it’s NOT an “easy strat” - it needs a lot of tactical adaptation to be successfull beyond a certain level.
But instead of actually acknowledging this as the source of the perceived fortuity it’s blamed on a consistant strat that only uses the low priority on getting information about the opponent strat.
Also again: There are various strats that DON’T scout the Phosphoru player early. It’s not essential to be able to deal with it. It’s just that those strats are often basically even matched with the Phohsphoru - you only look at the shining goblet of going FC yourself to have that 80-90 % winchance.
It’s your decision what path you want to take. But both paths are fair - one gives you a huge advantage against the Phosphoru but probably a small disadvantage against the meta openers. The other gives you even games against both. At least if you’re willing to look into some feudal strats of other players how they opposed the phosphoru.
Finally you still haven’t apologized to Phosphoru for your derogatory statements. Are you trying to go over that with just ignoring? I will remind you, you’re not getting away with this disrespect.
what if you get lamed by 1 boar or 2 sheeps? you quit?
You can decide game by game if and how many deers you should push.
It depends even on when you find all your resources and start pushing deers: if you do it very early you can push all the deers and have enough time to scout the opponent and adapt.
If you are late in finding your resources, maybe you push 1 or no deers even if you go meta, unless you intentionally want to play defensive.
It depends even on the opponent civ, since there are some civs that have more probability to open with particular strategies, not only the Red Phoshoru’s one. If your opponent is Mongols, Vietnamese, Goth or Meso civs you should be aware of the laming risk. As mentioned before, Cumans is peculiar with the 2nd TC build.
If you want to go blind you can do it, but it’s your risk, not the game that is wrong.
Scouting is important: “don’t forget, keep exploring the map” cit.
I think, if we want to get constructive with this topic, we should focus on how to counter the strat: going tower on the opponent stone in enough? Someone have experiences and/or rec games to share?
I don’t think many civs can do a version of phosphorus build. Unique unit needs to be ranged and very powerful in low numbers without needing too many upgrades. At best around a dozen civs can do that. Deer pushing without scouting vs scouting and having to go feudal with more pop is the trade-off and decision making needed.
Scout is given in dark age to explore your mines and animals as well as scout your opponent map to decide on strategies. Reason why you keep bringing up deer pushing is because that scouting has become almost unnecessary since majority of the players play the familiar meta. This is because its the minimum risk build in most situations. That doesn’t imply that this should be the ONLY way of playing the game. Phosphorus build has its risks but appears easier because you want to always push 3 deer, 19 pop feudal and play the current meta.
You want to play your meta early feudal build and you’re good at it. But what if that doesn’t suit someone else’s playstyle. Why should such a person be forced to do the same build which you’re already comfortable with. Ideally instead of nerfing phosphorus build any further, more strategies like pre-mill drush, tower rush, old school forward ranges should become more viable and competent so that scouting is always important and tight feudal builds with 3 deer pushing get equally risky.
If opponent does lame boar he’ll have a scout low hp as well as being unable to push deers himself so not really comparable (at least if you push deers, if you dont well, you’re probably gg yeah 1 boar and 2 sheeps are very hard to recover)
Again if no one scouts early there is a reason why having info of someone going for scouts or skirms or archers or whatever isnt valuable at all compared to push some deers, the only case where scouting is more valuable if vs these strats but as i’ve explained countless times before every civs can make a fc all in very oppresive it’s isnt limited to fc uu with bohemians malay or whatever.
All civilisations are able to make a version of fc all in which can be very hard to defend against and most of them, forcing you tu buy your castle age as soon as possible, the only exception being monk siege which you should counter it staying feudal and spamming scouts (mongols steppe, romans siege, conqs, janis, eagle, hoang rush, phosphoru, serjeant etc are all examples of specific fc’s which force you to be in castle age very fast as you’ll die if you stay in feudal)
Partially true but also lacking some deers makes a huge differences countering these “anti meta play” that you talked about just after
Pushing deers makes you in huge advantage vs most agressive feudal build actually.
scouting it is nice but deers are again way more important as nowadays, opening are very flexible so you’ll be able to react no matter what on feudal play if you got deers.
Again, i’d like to make deers pushing less rewarding as it’s completly op or even completly removes the pushing mechanics but at the moment we don’t have viable way to get scouting early most of the cases.
I’ve lost more than 150 elo doing so as opposite to making what i am really better at but at least i see some improvements and i know that at some point i will recover my elo but with less variation and more potential as before.
Market, if you go aggressive feudal, you’ll probably make damage but market will kill you
Eagle rush is meta for meso civs. They dont get cavalry or gunpowder and need a strong lead. It makes no sense to include that with gimmick rushes.
Other than that Mongol fc lancers are the only build that’s easy to execute and that’s because Mongol hunt bonus is broken. Balancing that is a separate topic. The rest aren’t easy to execute. If it was easy, everyone would pick Spanish, Turks, Romans and do fc uu or scorp rush and win. If its easy to fc with every civ and crush the feudal player, the meta will be fc. Stats however doesn’t indicate that. Complaining about non-meta being overpowered just shows unwillingness to adapt. You have to move out of your comfort zone and add the 2nd range or send vills forward to tower the gold to disrupt the fc player’s plan.
If you try to counter anti meta play by doing the meta, sure. But you shouldn’t play meta and prepare the counter for the anti-meta you’ve scouted. And that’s not always buying your way to castle age.
That’s just when both players play the meta. And that’s why these fc high risk strats shouldn’t be nerfed because it gives a way to punish the deer pushing meta play and makes scouting more important at least against a few civs.
I don’t know whether you mean you lost 150 elo by playing meta or by doing monk rush. But either ways elo fluctuates for everyone depending on your opponent’s elos, civs and other random factors. If you’re consistently losing playing non-meta, that’s kinda obvious. But otherwise probably you are getting shit civs going random.
No, its not. Unfortunately you’re stuck with that assumption.
The point is that 150 food given by the 3rd deer is not something game-changing. You can win a game pushing only 2 deers. If you lose, it’s not for the 3rd deer.
But I agree on one point: if you do one thing, you sacrifice another one.
If you use your scout to lame the boar, you won’t be able to use him properly in a fight later and the opponent could take advantage on that.
If you scout the opponent base, you sacrifice deer pushing, and the opponent could take advatage on that.
If you push deer, you sacrifice vision and you should be aware that the opponent could take advatage on that
I’m getting sick of all these brainless Hamster Meta slaves who can’t scout what I’m doing and go blind fast feudal. Then they buy their way up and it still gives them a chance despite having done everything wrong from the beginning.
Finally with removing the ability to buy food in feudal this brainless zero skill meta play would be impossible and we can finally have the high skill Phosphoru play become the meta!
I consider that it is not brainless to go fast feudal every game on Arabia. I consider the following early game tactics on Arabia:
Fast feudal into heavy offense
2a) Fast feudal into defense and semi fast castle
2b) walls (+maybe drush) into fast castle
2c) fast feudal into minimal offense & defense into semi fast castle.
naked fast castle
If everything were balanced properly, I would like to see:
1 >> 3 >> 2a, 2b, 2c >> 1,
where A >> B means you have a significant advantage when blindly following tactic A against someone with similar skill blindly following tactic B.
Among these tactics, fast feudal should always be meta because we can scout and choose later between 1, 2a and 2c. Whereas when going fast castle, we cannot instantly build walls or refund them. And i feel it is a good thing that on open maps feudal play would be the meta, just like fast castle on arena.
The problem with naked fast castle play is not that it beats the hamstering meta (as I want to have 3 >> 2c), the problem is that is work too well against full feudal play. Or at least too well for the current game understanding of most players, brainless or not.
Maybe the current balance state is fine and a proper feudal play counter just need to be understood (by those who havent yet). But as long as there is a feeling that to defend a naked fast castle (into UU), you need to fast castle (into siege or monks or UU) yourself, there will be the umsatistactory feeling that there is no map to play feudal age.
Regarding phosphoru in particular, I am supportive of him, he is more skilled than many give him credit for, it is great to see him in T90s Silver league (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ybu7piClY). But I would be annoyed if everyone on the tournament played like him. Just like I am annoyed when seeing everyone full walled at minute 10 in a KotD tournament.
–
Now, I may also propose game changing balance ideas:
no pallisades in Dark age
no selling/buying resources in Feudal
maximum 4 builders per building, including TCs, castles, and towers.
If you towered opponents gold mine, it is impossible for them to turn the tide by aging up thru getting gold in market. I think this can be more unfair.
First: My comment was entirely sarcastic. And I used the same “just call every other strat stupid and requiring no skill” rhetorik as these annoying people who want to nerf everything that’s not their chosen meta.
Second: I consider it pretty brainless to assume that you can get away with small variations of the same strat playing blindly. At the same time a lot of people complain about the “slow and repetitive boring early game”. Which is only is when everybody makes the same 3 builds over and over again.
It’s a self-fullfilling prophecy. The slow early game should give the opportunity to prepare your own strategy aswell as checking on the opponents. Which both is only then of value IF there is a seizable variance of possible competitive strategies.
And it would be helpful to make the game more attractive for NEW players if this early game wasn’t as brainless as it is atm. If there was more interaction. The issue then might be, that for most people (like 99 % of the playerbase) the game speed is already so high they barely manage to do their own necessary buildup in the dark age, even WHEN it is so repetitive as it is currently. And now I talk about how interesting it would be if there was some more interaction with the opponent at this early stage.
That’s why I always told that I think for people below like 1k6 elo or so it would be better if the game was a bit slower and for below 1k even more, so they CAN enjoy the strategical and tactical depth of the game which is currently only really a thing on high elo and pro level unfortunately.
Nah, this just won’t work. There’s a reason why Markets are available in Feudal. It’s quite common to be pushed off a ressource with tower rushes and the market allows to get that. Especially stone is so essential there cause you often need towers yourself to stop the creep. But also food can be an issue because you need some food income to use your TC. Gold usually less of an issue at this stage and wood isn’t really replacable anyways, way too expensive to buy.
No ofc not. Like with the Hamstering it would always become boring and we would be fed up with seeing the same games over and over again. The Hamstering was also fine as long as there were other strats played a lot. But now it has become so dominant it’s just too much.
Luckily we atm have the WWC, which gives amazing games with a lot of different strats. I really like that tourney. Even when a lot of “top guys” are now out. But I think this exactly will now allow the finals to be very nice to watch aswell and not the unattractive blowouts we had in the last few s-tier tourneys.
And I hope that from that now people learn to appreciate the tactical and strategical diversity in these games and start to question the tendency towards the hamster meta already on lower elos.
I think the main thing that’s likely to hold him back is not knowing how to handle water/hybrid maps. If it weren’t for that, I’d expect him to perform reasonably well. As it is, I think he’ll do well on his home maps and struggle on the away maps (which will be selected for their water-aspects). So I suspect whether he wins or loses the set will mainly be determined by whether he wins or loses the first game.
It seems a bit too much to me
Maybe it could be useful to prevent consecutive market usage by putting a timer when you buy or sell a resource. Unless timer in out, you can’t buy or sell the same resource.
Tbh the thing that is really striking me here - and that’s what I really don’t like and is entirely toxic.
The sheer fact that Phosphoru is still playing the game wirh his strats was basically immediately met with the response that the “nerf wasn’t enough”.
Which is consistant with a lot of other posts here which imply that the goal is to punish him so hard for coming up with that strategy that he becomes tilted and leave the game.
What’s wrong with these people that they openly imply that kind of super toxic goals?
And why is this accepted in the public forum?
It is about market abuse, the game was not designed to send 10 vills to gold and avoid the RTS aspects of building an economy, phospho is not the first and he is not going to be the last one, all arena clowns depend of market abuse, hoang and several players, their gameplay is in ur own language toxic.
