Possibly, but I already recommended a possible extension of wonder timings, and they’ve talked about increased wonder costs for 2v2, 3v3, etc as well. So unless we actually see this as a huge issue I don’t think we make any preemptive chamges.
maybe the best solution would be, to win, you have to destroy x amount of landmarks and X is more when more players arei n one Team, so 2 v 2 would be 6 landmarks 3v3 10 landmarks and 4v4 stays the same.
so 1 player cant be sniped and wipes out instantly
I think we should let this play out.
We had a match us 4 vs 2 mongol and 1 china and 1 other civ. We killed one opponents and lost two teammates to Fire Lancers. We both destroyed remaining two Mongols and China eco. I also lost to FLs but we were able to eliminate China. Now its two mongols with no eco and hiding their landmarks vs single player with good eco and standing army. We lost because he could not locate and kill all opponents landmarks and prevent opponent from repairing. Also there were a lot of stealth forests in this map.
So in short change was there for Mongols and China. Mongols would hide their landmarks and keep turtling. Same for china. If their base get raided they can sneak in one landmark in corner of the map and keep pushing. This was already a problem and gave this civs unfair advantage. Now I think every civ is on equal footing. Now Abbasids wont be the first to get sniped every match by chinese FLs. And now the target would be more focused to destroying eco than just landmarks.
I am concerned with length of teamgames. But I think this will turn out to be good change. People will still dropout if their entire eco is destroyed and they dont see any way coming back to the game but atleast it wont be frustrating for players realizing whenever they try to push opponents their base gets landmark snipped by random chinese noob.
1 Like
If player is about to lose 3 landmarks the game is already over for that player. They either have 0 economy and their infrastructure is destroyed so pointless to even try come back. Chances of recovering from that much dmg is close to 0%.
oh yes, no more victories in 10 minutes, cause 2vs1 or 3vs1 kill one player.
of course is will extend.
good or bad?
old victory was forcing 5 out of 8 players to play simcity into resign. (cause one was doubled and died).
oh man, i see
you do not understand a thing in 4vs4 TGs.
there were dozens of games, there i comeback from 2-3 vils.
For reference: my best result top 250 in aoe2 (solo queue)
yes, it’s not aoe2, but logic the same → 3 vils → ask res → place 10 TC → in 10 minute you in the game.
Even in aoe4, i’ve hide Landmarks and comeback.
you skip all dump deaths.
imagine you booming for 30 minutes and one player ded → simcity gameplay into resign.
1 Like
I understand the perspective raised by both sides of this discussion. One side finds it frustrating that you or your allies are completely dominating to suddenly be 4v3 or 3v2 by landmark snipe. On the other hand, making landmark snipe no longer viable will drive the game more into booming wonder victory territory.
I think a good approach is a middle ground of punishing the players who lose all their landmarks but does not eliminate them.
Example, the player who has lost all their landmarks will loses access to all their infrastructure and cannot build. They can regain the ability to build AFTER at least one landmark is FULLY restored. However they still need to rebuild ALL their infrastures as it will not be recovered (eg. house, mill, barracks, etc).
This serves a strong purpose to allow for rushing early as it prevents the player from just packing up and moving their economy elsewhere. If they want to come back, they better bank on the fact their allies reclaim their base and allow them to repair their landmark to full and then rebuild everything.
In the late game, they will immediately be supply cap and lose all ability to produce and need to drive the enemy army away to repair and waste a lot of time rebuilding all their infrastructure. Furthermore, their old infrastructures will not go away, so they themselves will have to destroy them if they need the space to rebuild. With exception of walls, they will immediately crumble.
This way, they are not eliminated, but they aren’t exactly still kicking either.
2 Likes
:DDDDDDDDDDDD You wont comeback with 2-3 vils against opponent that is competent. Either you’re playing against very low elo players that do not know how to finish your teammates or they’re just incompetent and start idling and let you get back. Fact is when players are high skilled enough your chances to come back from such situation is close to 0% just because it happens in low elo doesn’t make it any good argument because its opponents own fault to let u back in.
Imagine booming for 30mins on large map with 8 players. Takes like 15mins to reach 100-120 villagers depending on civ and then you only need army and in 4v4 with low elo you get away with everything
not for you.
You trade yourself for slowing down 2 opponents, while your teammate was booming.
Very very comon situation.
i’ve already said what level i’ve played… to skip useless comments…but whatever…
No offense, but I think this barely occur in high elo game, most high elo player know how to defend/delay the push, buying enough time for teammates to rush castle or imp (Keep in mind that every civ can go to castle sub 8 mins easily) , and by the time it is down to 3v2, the two players get veteran/elite units, and that really depends on how well the rushing team can defend, against much more superior army and tech that pour to kill the base, and carving thru your feudal army (just imagine HRE elite MaA, running inside your base, and your feudal knight bow and spear are no difference that a vill).
I barely engaged in the game that the teammate instant gg after a guy took out, and decide now its time to leave.
For Landmark hiding the devs can implement a new technology “spies” like in AOE2 or AOE3 which give u the vision of your enemy, or they make another technology “x marks the spot” (for 100g or so) which reveal all landmarks on the map for a short time 10s or so and mark their position on the minimap. Both techs available in Imperial Age in the Town center.
no offense, should that game play only top 200? cause in top1000 it was happening every third game.
Premade team was doing rush.
To get into top200, you need to pass top1000 and you see all that shitty expierence.
Instead of ideas and balance changes of toxic 3vs1 gameplay - people saying very strange advice “learn how to play”. LOL.
Who should learn, player who defend 1vs3, cause his random teammate booming?
OR should we play only premade?
number of only premade players will be even less.
Start thinking a little.
I have no idea, why people want old victory conditions. If not for abuse.
Abuse to win is it your strat? To win with landmark snipe?
Not to play units vs units, but to be “clever”?
(aoe2) had the problem with **laming**, it **IS** part of the game, and some love to lame, block scouts etc.
the best game in the universe
99%of players wanted to relax, do default build order and play with units, not to resign cause laming.
1 Like
Well, from my experience, I barely encounter the situation where the teammates just resign. As I mention I dont mean to offend you but, this is barely the case from my perspective, I don’t mean to say get gut or anything. But it is a matter of fact that this change will discourage any aggressive all-in feudal push, and lead to having more a boom game.
You are forgetting that the maps are reduced. I do think that the rush is possible in Feudal, although it is not as decisive as before.
true now it is imo fair, there are 50-50 chance of success, even one player taking out the chance increase to around 65-35 imo depends on the remaining civ, but if the new condition is passed, the chance of success will be like 99-1?.
Keep in mind that when they rush you, they need to waste resouce on ram, plus main army is far from base leaving it exposed, so if both team have equivalent skills and army size, ofc the rushing team will be more exposed.
if players equal and play decent, then 3vs4 is unplayable/unwinnable. I would resign, if you have 0 chance to win.
BdelloidBore5 said
So, if lost player can not comeback from 3 vils than it’s impossible to win 3vs4.
So, fight between yourselves, I can argue with winner.
If you can comeback with 3 vils → than why you do not let player continue to play. **
if you can not comeback with 3 vils → why you continue to play 3vs4, there no way to win. → resign.
** imagine being premade and diying in first 10 minutes… and waiting for team mates.
kk, discuss between yourself…because you have opposite arguments.
If players are equal and decent, 3v4 without having 2-3 player becoming gigachad in the team with 3 players will probably not occur as I mention that it is easy to go castle sub 8 mins nowadays especially in team game. It means that the team getting rushed will have an advantage, both reinforced distance, and them having the enemy bases exposed for the raid due to the army is far from the base, not to mention that fighting at the base has advantages like, easy to repair, pull vill to support, civ buff (like HRE, Eng TC), so if both teams have equivalent skills and army size, ofc the rushing team will be more at disadvantage.
At first, I didn’t want to say the exact same sentence to you, but I think you should speak this to yourself, my point is always clear as water, new victory conditions will discourage the aggressive all-in feudal push and team game meta will become more one dimensional booming/rushing castle/imp. Unless you can’t understand basic English. I have nothing more to say.
Other the other land, you contradict urself by saying
This clearly implied that rushing feudal to take out a player sucks, it costs the teammates to instantly leave the game.
Then u stated
What this means is - lmao, even in this current condition, I can easily survive the rush with 2-3 vills and comeback. The rush means nothing. This implication supports my point that in the current condition (with the current booming meta), it is not easy to rush if the players know what to do, and I can easily get always with it even with 2-3 vills and comeback. Therefore, the new victory condition will even become more …?
So again, I think you try to give ur arguments while still want to argue with your forever arch-enemy (Bdelloid) making ur argument contradict yourself. May be focus more on ur point rather just making arguments whenever I want
You wont comeback from that situation unless your opponent throws the game. The advantage is too massive to comeback and you can struggle as much as you want but if the players are at high level GL not going to happen thats why in Pro TG’s teams resign when one takes too much dmg because they know game is over especially if team that took dmg cant make counter attack and deal equal amount of dmg.
Yes, please change this.
A team game is working together with your team, and if that requires overpowering every opponent and destroying all the landmarks, then good.
A team game is NOT one person winning the game for the team with some cheese landmark snipes and a single unit composition. Sounds like this is the way you like to play, I don’t.
4 Likes
Landmark sniping is not cheese, for crying out loud. It happens when a player is not good enough to defend both their base as well as the wonder. Landmark sniping to eliminate a poor player is a legitimate strategy. Players need to learn to defend multiple areas of the map simultaneously.
Did landmark sniping turn the game into a 3v4? Oh that’s fine, here’s the thing, there’s nothing stopping you from doing some landmark sniping of your own to turn it into 3v3. That involves your team making a decision to move some troops away from the wonder and sending them to the opposition base. That would involve you making a strategic decision on who sends their troops forward to the opposition base, and how many troops numerically. That’s strategy. Because this is an RTS and we need strategy instead of all allies lazily hanging back next to a wonder hoping to run out a timer.
I definitely do not want a change that permits poor players to survive for reasons that have nothing to do with their skill at the game.
1 Like
What about make a switch?