It needs to stop. For real. It should not be allowed at all. That simple. Tired of losing games to lamers.


People got adapted to laming. I guess nobody is gonna agree to stop laming. They think it’s what makes the game interesting in dark age for spectators. Little they did know about the game is mainly for us as well.

Now, the defenders of laming will come and tell “Get good or learn to adapt after getting lamed”.

That’s what they told about palisade scanning. They called it as “part of the game”. Now as it is removed, I don’t know where they are. I wish laming as an exploit should be removed as well. As it mainly depends on RNG.

The laming also makes my new friends to leave the game.


It seems pretty clear it isn’t an exploit, given the civ bonus Celts have relating to it.


That’s just a flaw in design.

Isn’t op talking about boars? How often do celts even steal sheep?

I like the solution for Hidden Cup 4. It is allowed, but boars always spawn behind the TC. That means you always have a fair chance to prevent it, but it’s also still in the game (without being unfair).

Steeling sheep is not that bad as long as he doesn’t steal 4.

Blocking villagers has counterplay, so no problem with that in my opinion.


Nope, the Arena script was recently altered so sheeps can’t spawn outside walls. Celt bonus can also be a defensive bonus and says absolutely nothing about the original devs stance on laming + its a horrible argument

You used the word “original” there because the current in-game description of the Celts bonus makes it clear that it is intended that it can be used to steal sheep. This means that stealing sheep is not an exploit at this point in time, regardless of whether or not the original devs intended it to be part of the game.

However, given that it was part of real medieval warfare, I see no reason why the mechanic would have been unintended.



One could also wall-off the enemy’s access to their water or watering hole, and thus their access to fish. Should that be banned? I see nothing wrong with laming. I don’t do it and don’t particularly like it (unless I go try to do it to enemy AI on rare occasion, in which case it’s fun and nice to have the freedom to try), but I don’t think it should be banned by devs just because I maybe don’t know how to defend or counter it very well myself, or because I don’t do it first or at all, or because I’m hoping for mutual peace for a while.


The only type of laming which is weird is walling the ressources. Mostly because it looks so strange.

But I don’t think it needs to be nerfed. If you don’t scan your ressource access occasionally you deserve to be lamed that way tbh.


Too bad most people who complain about laming managed to get this canceled 11

1 Like

What’s laming? I actually don’t know what it is.

It refers mostly to stealing your opponent’s boar, sheep, or walling their ressources in dark age.

1 Like

Laming is a tactic and a good one at that.


I would like to point out that heardcolt has not specified a single reason laming “should not be allowed,” only that he particularly dislikes losing games in which it has occurred.

In contrast, here are some actual reasons to keep laming in the game:

  1. It keeps dark age interesting. Rather than a pre-game of following rote tasks in preparation for the “real game”, laming keeps players in the game from minute one and mixes in adaptation and contest to the very start. (idea borrowed from MBL pro lame rant)

  2. It allows for a wider variety of strategies. Perhaps you want to try a very early up-time followed by food-heavy pressure. A laming attempt can make this possible.

  3. It adds another element of risk vs reward to the game: lose scout hp, scouting, deer pushing to put opponent off balance and get inside his OODA loop.


people who think dark age is boring without laming don’t understand age of empires

it’s easy to get confused when devs have made a mockery of the game by including all these garbage pre-explored scenario maps like arena/blackforest in ranked ladder, but on actual RM maps dark age is the real game.

it’s castle/imperial that are rote. select all buildings. spam spam spam is not RM. explore/scout/adapt/plan is real RM


Which is all fine if the resources weren’t so rng dependent.

At the moment we’re already fighting the terrible algos, now we have to fight some luck based tactic.

The game can already put your sheep closer to the enemy while their sheep are at their back. Same for boar, same for deer behind forests or just extremely far away. How is this fair if laming is permissable?

Unless you’re an anarchist that supports randomness over a fair match.

Which i think is actually the root cause here. You either support winning at all cost and give zero effs about a fair match, or you think its fine to have a completely imbalanced match up because it’s fun (which would be fine if it wasn’t ranked)

But when it comes down to it the same people would be unhappy if they were screwed over by rng. Mbl would whine like a baby if he had a bad layout every single game which is statistically possible. Neither do i think mbl should be used as a measure of justification for anything. It’s not like he is the pinnacle of morality, from what I’ve seen he is extremely elitist.

And finally these pros are generally super hypocrites supporting laming but against vil fighting.

And finally laming is too swingy. Equal skilled players. The lamer will be ahead. Not because they were clever but simply because they were lucky or their opponent was unlucky. Even more so if one guy has two front boar (impossible to stop a lame without screwing yourself) and the other guy has 2 back boar (your counter lame will be a giant waste of time)

One guy gains a boar the other guy loses a boar AND wastes time trying to block it or wastes time trying to counter lame back boar.


The never ending issue about laming. Some see this as a skill to master. Other see this as something that is just annoying and unfair. We will be never in the position in which everyone is happy.

In the end i dont really think laming is really an issue in most games. Yes, some guys like to lame, but this is a small minority. I dont really think we need to give those guys to much attention. So dont really change these things.

1 Like

While random victories for their own sake are not desirable, many of the features that make AOE2 attractive over more fair RTS games (like starcraft for example) are a direct result of some random mechanic. For example: scouting the map for resources and relics, identifying and evaluating important hills. Securing or redirecting from your own weaknesses (such as far woodlines or open map), pressuring your opponents forward golds or stones.

Here’s the misunderstanding, I don’t want a “completely imbalanced match up”. I am just willing to accept a somewhat imbalanced match up rather than toss out value-added randomness and valid strategic options. I would even go so far as to say a certain amount of randomness imbalance is a feature not a bug of AOE2, as clearly evidenced by less controversial aspects such as monk RNG and random resource spawning.

Finally, rank is an issue that fixes itself. The more iterations of chance you throw at something, the more it evens out. And that will fluctuate with far more factors such as mood, energy, and clarity on a given day.

As for MBL, I’m not going to criticize him or elevate him, I just wanted to give the man credit for his ideas.

This is a bit nitpicking, but saying “statistically possible” about an infinitesimal chance such as having a bad layout “every single game” is counterproductive as it is statistics which helps you identify and ignore such inconsequential probabilities such as that.