Please nerfd tower Rush more!,some suggest

This proove that you wrong, cause you can make a great game. For TGs and Solo. But you denying, based on SC2 experience.

the main difference, why you can balance in aoe and can not in SC2.
Cause in AOE - you have map control with buildings, and you do not fight 100 army vs 100 army, armies fight for different positions.

So, you need to analyze WHY you can or can not make both.
And at least one game managed to make good 4vs4 and 1vs1.

PS I’ve forgot Warcraft3 have great 4vs4, it’s fun.

Simple solution towards tower rush: allow villagers to build battering rams. In Dark Age.

Reduce cost of battering ram from 300 to 175.

This should allow people to easily counter any early aggresive towers that isn’t well protected by early military units.

A great game based on your view of what a great game is. I have a diferent take. And as i see i’m not alone.

  • This does not prove that your point is wrong. It’s just that people enjoy different takes.

Even if we let “democracy” decide and make a pool. If the point that wins does not win with more than 50% you end up upsetting more than 50%.

you even forgot, where you start. I’ve gave examples, where it works.

how people love bullshit with democracy.

easy to measure, like any game measured with reviews and number of players.

  1. close number of players for each. (if 1vs1 dominate, it’s already means that TGs unpopular.)
  2. survey do people like 1vs1/TGs

aoe2 - 1vs1/TGs numbers almost the same (with high intersection).
sc2 - i believe 1vs1 dominate.
aoe4 - 1vs1 has slightly more people.

you can not satisfy everyone, there will be always China-main, who unsatisfied.
but based on numbers: 1vs1 numbers is not far from 4vs4, so…
you can make game, there 90% of players for each 1vs1 or TG will be satisfied, and play both.

PS democracy is a plug in every barrel. But you can just analyze and measure.

I did not say democracy i said “democracy” and if we rely on it. You quoted me wrong.

That my point.

  • They need to take a stand in one direction (even if i or others don’t agree with) and stick wit it.

  • Right now theyre allover the place.

i’ve provided numbers. why you ignore it.
26,179 -4-4
28,276 -3-3
29,987 -2-2
sum with intersections will be around 40k

1-1 15,369 or 40,389 -ranked.

So, if TGs will be higher, we should shut down 1vs1 and focus on TGs?

I’ve provided examples of 2 games, where TGs and 1vs1 coexist (w3 and aoe2).

But follow your “logic”

they need either satisfy PROS or NOOBS. Is not it the same?
Deli OP on pro scene, but noobs do not pick the civ → buf → buf → buf. → buf.

or is it somehow different?

90% of changes in TGs do not affect 1vs1 at all.
Landmark fix. How it affect 1vs1?
Wonder cost. (they could keep cost for 1vs1 the same).

TGs only highlight the problems, not create new problems.

Dude… You cant count 2v2 +3v3 +4v4 and think then TG’s are important. If balance is made around TG’s then the decision needs to made if its 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4.

Its impossible to balance 4 different modes and expect the balance be good and now they’re doing everything and nothing gets done right.

1v1 is the most popular mode in AOE4 not single TG mode gets close to it and your numbers prove it.

Its for developers to decide what they want to do, but fact is they cant make impossible happen because if it could be done then someone would’ve already done it.

2 Likes

Most of yall need to go try out the PUP, it appears all that backend stuff they did with delays between subsequent attacks AND the initially attack delay/setup has been SIGNIFICANTLY reduced; I had a guy pull all his villagers vs a BBQ rush and he KILLED all my villagers in melee?? Even with pulling hurt villagers away and having him chase the hurt ones around?

I rate marinelord highly. Imo he has been the best player by some distance from the very beginning on but he just threw that game against kasva it was painful to watch. Just because he’s a very good player does not make him free from doing any sort of mistakes and in that game he did some horrible mistakes.

All pro players do mistakes, they’re humans after all. This guy just uses pro players in way that it makes his point more appealing “oh this player lost to it once so its op strategy” because he doesn’t like thing X. Every pro player losses to something either its because they make mistake or get caught completely off guard and didn’t respond properly.

Ok, ML did mistake, so strategy is useless.

quite easy to remember.

Oh come on, stop that childish behaviour. Watch the game and you can clearly see that he has done some crucial mistakes which he shouldn’t have made considering his skill level. The strategy is in a good spot right now (talking about prior to recent patch). It is not useless but also not OP. People have said multiple times that if this was not the case the stats would show the Chinese as an OP civ with a very high winrate. Get over it and stop arguing against a wall.

Pro players usually after they loose the game have a different mentality.

  • They blame the loss on themselves not the game ballance or op strategies.

  • They usually say that the opponent played on the same conditions.

  • And some even open the replay on stream after the game to find where they lost , why they lost and how they could have done something different.

Exactly.

Yes there are strategies that might be slightly too strong or were too strong but them were completely butchered. Prof scout and stone wall tower rush for example.

Prof scout was too strong but they butchered it completely and in result they removed stealing deer under TC etc strategy.

Stone Wall rush was quite strong, but once again it was completely nerffed to ground it wont happen anymore which again results one strategy going away.

Its the whiney AOE2&3 community that constantly bitches about AOE4 not being AOE2 or 3 and try to make exactly same. Game is called AOE4 stop moaning about it not being AOE2 or 3. Top of that biggest pro scene whiners were AOE2 pros and some of them went back to AOE2 because they got stomped by ex SC2 pros and couldn’t handle it.

i get it.
ML lose to TR cause mistake → TR is not OP.
It’s not OP cause ML lost to the strat because error.

TheCrutialMistake

it was

Clearly, 1k ELO player with revealed map can judge and know exactly what mistake were done. And how ML should play.

just won 1vs1 game with TR. The opponent cried.

again… mistake… mysterious mistake, which only you have seen… continue that topic.
mistake was not to TR against Kasva. 100% agreed.
He could even BBQ-rush

No it’s not only me that has seen it. Pretty much everyone that wants to give seeing those mistakes a chance will see them. Just look at the placement of the BBQ. It was a complete waste at that position and he knows that too. He could have secured a woodline and mines with that barbican but instead builds it next to the rus tower which was going to get up 100 % already. As for further mistakes just watch the game and we can discuss them.

The PUP setup/recast time between attack make villager hit faster!!! just kill the villager with yours!

You still try to justify it somehow.

ML lost because he played greedy and made mistakes. Thats all there is it.

He goes for IA instead of Barbican first which is greedier opening and Barbican is safer opening so he tried to cut corners to get economic advantage over opponent. If he had Barbican up next to tree line / berries (if he chose to put it there, i personally prefer gold because food can be relocated and if necessary using prof scout to move closest deer camp under mill next to TC)

Next mistake is he tried to be again greedy and went song dynasty. Thats already 600 resources spent on dynasty that only pays off after several minutes alongside the fact that lot of his food goes to villager production. Instead of 3 villagers per minute 150 food he uses 4.5 which is 225 food per minute.

He could’ve gone for fast castle which would’ve automatically given him the win.

Next mistake is the tree line. Behinds his tree line there is section which he could have walled off to avoid more towers coming up to that direction and it would’ve costed him like 50wood or less

Next mistake is that he goes to stables?!?!? Archery range would have denied all the future towers coming up.

But hey im only +1600 elo player and has no idea what im talking about but im sure you know that also and know better than me that ML didnt do single mistake or screw up. Pro players play perfectly

1 Like

It is easier said than done. Marinlord has long developed a method for scouts to prevent Mongolian tower explosions, but most of France is still difficult to deal with Mongolian tower explosions in the competition. Because of the map generation mechanism of aoe4 ,after upgrading the arrow, only one defense tower can radiate your two resource points. If you are unlucky and can’t even collect the two wood areas near your home, you simply don’t have enough wood to build and produce soldiers. It would be dangerous for you to go out and collect your farmers。Moreover, you can produce cavalry on the opposite side after you step out of the archer to restrain you. With the field of view information provided by the defense tower, your game has been very passive.So at least increase the cost of the tower and weaken arrow。