IMO, just in saying of balancing in buildings vs. units, I felt (ex-rules) games in about 230-240 pop in well balanced in 1v1 games.
Currently 200 rules were sometimes overpowered in pre-placed walls and keeps-in-map-controlling in a bit, in other words bombards and trebchets should be buffed in a bit but clearly not stylish ways.
230~240 pop(=110~115 standard units) can rush without sieges and defenders own stone walls. personally that’s the good situation.
Surely 230-240 pop changes some civs balances, optimized fixes required to compatitive games …
Overpop games require(in well played games) so-called large player’s APM, personally those matches become my good practices
I don’t really enjoy these games of 140-150 villagers (because the meta forces them) 4 siege units take up 12 population leaving little room for units, please limit villagers to 120!
If the objective of the population is not to prolong the matches, well, they are not doing it, the longest games of the tournament were even before the siege was nerfed
please limit the number of villagers
game of 40 minutes thanks to this “meta” of villagers and farms
I think i would like a higher population count but am not sure what that population should be. The other thing I can see a problem with is mechanically a 300 food army vs a 300 food army in one spot - battles don’t go very wide as it is and makes anti infantry siege stronger then it already is.
I liked the idea of 210-220 but with this “meta” if they increase the population we will simply see 160 villagers 80 farms and the same 60 soldiers between siege and infantry, horrible
the percentage of villagers depends on the bonuses of the technologies and it is unthinkable now to think about changing the bonus rate of all the technologies, this meta benefits the player who makes more villagers many farms and accumulates a lot of food
That’s the issue.
With such a high number of villagers the game just turns into mass spam of units.
Units are only trained to die quickly so they can free up population again. Not a fun way to play in my opinion.
You can’t build up larger armies because you need all your population for villagers.
Despite the said, I don’t think make limits to villagers, siege, etc… Is a good point, because you are limiting the gameplay. Making 200 villagers to get all techs and eco fast, then kill 50-80 villagers to get army should be a way to play the game, is up to you let the enemy grow or force him to get army and delay his eco grow.
The issue I was talking about is not having to many unit.
It’s the opposite. Having a constant stream of units but never building up a real army.
I don’t think many people enjoy that kind of gameplay where you just constantly send small armies to death because you can retrain them instantly.
Sometimes limits open more possibilities.
If there is only one valid tacit in 99% of games then the game is boring. Setting a hard limit on that tactic can open up a lot of new possibilities.
It’s not a good game design to solve everything with limits but having no limits can make an awful game too.
Don’t think so, making villagers limits would only create a new meta, then everyone will be doing the same and you will return to the 99% games to be the same, but with a villager limit.
Games like RTS, MOBA, etc… Are meta based, pro’s always find the better way to play and people will start to do the same, or similar.
It has been the same since AoE1. It’s a 25 year old meta.
AoE3 and AoM have a villager limit but in those games the over all population isn’t that large (all AoM units cost 2 population and half of the AoE3 ones do) so you have similar issues. AoE3 is a whole different story because the economy is so different.
And you have to consider how much fun is it for none competitive players.
People that play casually with friends and team games.
Even if there would be only one meta again for competitive 1v1, other game modes would benefit more of it.
Most 1v1 games don’t end in this situation anyway.
I mean in SC2 you just run out of resources. But how many games actually do get so far?
I feel you, but problem is that you can’t measure this because “is more or less funny”. Because for someone can be funny a thing and for someone can be the opposite.
