I dont like this idea. It will really hurt the decision making in this game, which is really a bad thing for the game. At lower levels they might think: I pick Franks and i go for a FC into knights build, no matter the civ of the opponent. But at high level this decision making is a lot more complex and removing the civ of the enemy in this decision making will change the game in a bad way.
Or if you mean you have to scout the enemy and click on a building / unit? Then you still really quickly know what civ he is and it doesnt really have any impact at all, except it makes things a bit more akward for no reason at all.
The game is stale as heck, balance is also out of whack. Most games when it’s not random-random I face the same rotation of 5 civs and 2 Build Orders… which ties in nicely to the ALT+F4 thread as to why one might quickly get bored of certain maps. I honestly only find Socotra and Nomad to have any chance of an interesting game.
OTT:
Bold advice to give exactly during steam summer sale
You are totally right. There is no that much of variation, 37 civs and 2 otw will be the same, with literally mainly 2 build orders, this is why I suggested to creat new techs and new units in the dark and feudal age and even the castle age. The devs added the steppe lancers and the battle elephants, and lastly was introducing a UU in the feudal age, so they can add new things to spice the things around.
I would also suggest resurrecting the civs that have been nerfed to obsolescence (Burmese, Incas, Spanish for example), and bringing back towers as a viable option as well
Exactly! Get back the unique crazy strats! Get back Celts drush too and Persian dark workrate, Koreans Trush, shake the things around and take the current meta to hell, make towrs cheaper, change units costs, change everything.
Both dont really benefit the game. It wont really add something to the variation. That is why i dont think we need more civs to keep the game fresh.
We are better of by good balance changes that keeps the game fresh and exiting. Now civs are mostly nerfed, so the dont have any flavor left and get in obsolescense, someone already posted:
It does make sense. Meta changes on his own everytime according to what the most popular openings are. With drush fc around no one would even think to go very low pop straight archers mono range + blacksmith, which is something that now, since man at arms are very common, we start to see often depending on how good your map is.
This goes for tgs as well: on voobly every pocket would open fc, couple of kts, two tcs mini boom then full kts, now every one opens scout. Pocket used to do 3/4 scouts, now people do 7/8 scouts. Those changes happen on their own according to what the most common strats are.
Another good example is when people simply figured out that by walling their base they’d have an edge against fully opened opponents since they could attack while the other could not
In parallel there are changes that happen because of the maps: on AOC arabia it was more common to see full feudal because it was hard to wall because of ponds and some random woodline bullshit generation. You had no sheep under the tc, so Chinese were not even close to be top tier and so on. But what happened when in KOTD1 1 sheep would always spawn under the tc? Chinese became one of the most picked civ, because you could do a consistentky good start.
Let’s make another example: the first DE arabia had 4 woodline very close to eache, drush FC was the easiest strat to pull off and suddenly Brits started to be considered S tier, but as soon as they changed that they fell off to A tier.
Map generation is really important when it comes to shape the meta.
Last but not least there balance changes that come into play when we talked about changes in the meta (eg: Khmer with the new farms became S tier everywhere)
And that’s why people get killed by a man at arms opening by the franks even at 2k+ elo since their opponent is too busy pushing his deers instead of scouting what the opponent is doing 11
This happens to low elo, the higher you go in the ladder the more scouting is a key part of the game
Doesn’t make sense. it’s really easy to adapt BOs and you could simply find your opponent and adapt to his civ. Especially at low level, this won’t change the meta a single bit since people go blindly for an opening no matter the opponent civ (yes, I’m watching you people who thinks opening man at arms against japanese or burmese is the right call 11).
At high level the only thing that would change is just an earlier scouting, while also precluding mind games related to openings. You’d just make the game worse yet again
Totally not true, at least the higher you go up the ladder
i honestly found them two of the shittiest map in the pool and I’ve been playing this game a lot
Static defenses should be used as static defenses, not to push an enemy because you lack micro and/or macro to be at that level 11. Yeah, I’m talking about players that while playijng meta cannot cut it against 1k7/1k8 players but while inca trushing they arrived 2k1
And that’s the main reasons this forum should never be taken seriously when it comes to balance: changes for the sake of changes or because you loved to cheese 11
LOL… that was a good joke, but yeah, there is a clear reason why everyone picks the same few civs… look at <20 min win rates for civs like Mayans, Ethiopians, Lithuanians… totally balanced /s Those win rates are not flukes too. A strong early pressure from these civs often closes games out, because civs that don’t have a comparable early civ advantages just don’t have an answer.
Why? I think they’re good maps. I see a better variety of different strategies, and it’s usually harder to predict in advance what might happen. Moreover, just not seeing the same 5 civs all the time in itself is already worth it.
Ok mr Viper, you must have missed all the threads about walls being too strong. Besides that, there is nothing wrong with using towers, and if you think that every game needs to be decided who can micro those 5-6 feudal archers better, then you’re gonna see a LOT more threads like this one. Tbh the Inca trushing was a good way to punish those who decided NOT to pick the random civ option.
The thing which keeps this game fresh are new maps and civs which come mostly in expansion they sell towards us.
One of the few things I might like to see still in terms of new generic units is something for water like some type of Water Mangonel or some Water Treb, a substitute to Cannon Galleon which would work slightly differently so that having access to Cannon Galleon would still be the better option (like having to unpack in a certain manner or something like that).
Game is stale!
60% of games on Arabia, with spikes almost at 80% at some levels.
Maybe, and just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that people play only the same map over and over again?
And that of course optimized a lot build orders for that map?
Well, I’m a casual AOE player who doesn’t play Ranked. I just said what I thought about what makes the game less stale in general. If some people find it boring to play the same map over and over again, they should maybe try out some other stuff too
Exactly, you can’t play arabia only and then complain because the game is repetitive.
Obviously it is, and after 20 years all build orders are EXTREMELY optimized for arabia, meaning some strategies work way better than others, and why would you gimp yourself on purpose in competitive games?
It’s like saying that basketball is boring because to win you always have to launch a ball in a basket.
Indeed the map have some reasons to make the game reach stale. I agree that changing the maps will add more varity, however, most of the maps are the same with only different names, but Arabia will remain the best choice, so even in Arabia the game reach a stale and become boring each day, 40 civs with almost mainly 2 openings and 2 units.
Усиление ополченцев заставит больше времени проводить в Тёмной эпохе, что увеличит время игры.
Строительство башен - отдельная тема - нельзя построить башню и забыть про неё, необходима поддержка, иначе ИМБА.
В поздней игре, согласен с постом выше, уже необходимо более щепитильно относиться к ресурсам. Никто не мешает построить осадные орудия, но так как они требуют вложений, мало отправить кучу таранов на базу к оппоненту - необходимо позаботиться об их сохранности, что вынуждает игроков разделяться на защиту и атаку одновременно - довольно интересно по-моему.
