I also liked the mechanic, i know some people dont like it, because it gained movement speed.
Right now it is a bit clunky to get them inside and outside and the TC instantly fires on them when they jump out. In AoE 2 i used it quite often to get them into position or protect them from archer fire in some cases.
I liked also the surprise effect when someone destroys the ram or I drop them out.
If the TC is undefended just the villagers are there, you could use it to avoid some volleys of the TC, but overall u donât gain much out of it, it is micro intensive and has a clunky delay.
There is also no surprise factor since u see the amount garrisoned inside the ram.
I would also like to see there a benefit of having the units inside of the ram, just something that let me consider it to put them inside âŠ
towncenters except landmark towncenter can have a garrison but no attack to gain attack you need to research something smiliar like the outpost improvement and they will cost wood and stone to repair how is that?
while me and @Warzor1006 talking we realised town center is a castle age building in the games before and it didnt caused any problem so maybe it should be like that in aoe4 too it makes super sense so either to compete with tc everybody is going to build them or nobody is gonna build them until age 3
Me: âYeh TCs also were mainly available in castle age. You could even outrun them with a scout, just dance in TC range and arrows miss. The games are too different to be compared exactlyâ
none of this means anything if you cant/dont attack the opponent fast enough, i already pointed out a defensive case like china, this includes many other choke pooint or stone wall scenarios
so even if it ends up resolving the meta at the higher elos, it will mean nothing for the majority of the playerbase, until extra TCs are no longer such a financial gain. that needs to change, regardless of every other change, the financial gain is simply too great in too many cases
people have already explain how the ram nerfs might have even been unnecessary and we had ram rush games purely because players hadnt figured out how to multi TC yet, that even in those cases with the easy ram rush, multi TC was still too good due to the financial gain
terrible idea. literally the worst thing they can add
the reason TC fire had to change, was because it was nonsensical AF. there are 100s of ways of changing the meta, dont make it so you lose simply due to TCs acting like morons.
anything can argue anything can make the game longer. but being able to spam masses of armies, generally makes the game slower, because both players can spam equally. the reason why aoe2 is actually a faster game in real time, is because punishing an eco is so much more effective, you dont need to destroy their TCs, you simply need to idle their eco enough and it becomes impossible to make a comeback
conversely idling, and vil loses are not only harder in aoe4, but mean much less
Thats why I disagree ⊠A mechanical rework is another one for me.
Like i said, even if u build the TC and dont get anything out of it, by not queuing up any villagers ⊠Good luck killing it in feudal and getting out ahead of it.
I was not suggesting to include the old fire mechanic again!
It clearly says lets compare it ⊠to illustrate smth âŠ
Months after the release, greedy double TC as abba was always meta, nothing to figure there out there, it was always there ~5:00 min 2. TC, except vs french. But I know that if the opponent rushes me it will be tough! Now I can drink coffee while defending it
This is just the case because the defensive structures are a pain in the ⊠they slow it down to a degree that it grants the defensive player enough time to get into this stage of the game, where both have their desired villager maximum and can start spamming
There I agree, while i would not reduce it just to it alone
There are many RTS on the market, including AoE 2, wc3, starcraft where u donât get an auto-target defensive structure, that ignores its counter ⊠all of them are just nonsensical AF. It is so ridiculous that this was even implemented at the release of AoE 4 ⊠Glad the devs finally found an answer to this micro-intensive mess of a defense âŠ
I play mainly Abba, so Iâm on the defending side here. The current meta favors a civ I play the most and i could care less. It is just that i also cant punish 3. TC, when i go for 2 ⊠And all games get dragged out ⊠The other reason that I play Abba currently a lot is, that more offensive-oriented civs are unattractive for me to play, thanks to the current meta. I donât even want to try something out, that has such a big disadvantage
This. Also I really do not get why people keep bringing up something being nonsensical or not as an actual argument. Thereâs so many things that are nonsensical and itâs perfectly fine. This is a computer game after all and game play >>>> reality.
People really need to understand that this game at its current state is highly repetitive. And since pretty much everything, even the most fun things, in life become boring after a while, playing this game will become boring too sooner or later. And with that multiple TC meta im very very certain that the overall player count will drop further since it prevents many strategical decisions from being considered hence being highly repetitive.
Thatâs why we have âcontinuous developmentâ today. They will balance the game and change stuff from time to time, and then the meta is also changing. There is a reason why people play a game in the long term.
To be honest, aoe2 even if itâs DE or not, is an old game. Still played by thousands.
Yeh, it is very repetitive and saying smth is nonsensical in a video game is not fitting, when it comes to gameplay.
I can understand that no one likes to see a laser sword, but when it comes to gameplay ⊠come on âŠ
It is sad to see, that 1 year after release Iâm still that restricted in what is viable to play.
They are trying and overall slowly the game moves in the right direction, it feels like 1.5 step forward and 1 backward tho.
They want to support a more casual way to play, it is a design choice, u see it across the board. But if u go this route, then u have to deliver strategy diversity and reward strategic decisions in return!
I can contribute less through out micro, is it rushing, raiding, dodging projectiles, using abilities in the right moment, stances, formations, to be careful about my own siege (friendly fire) that can really turn the fight in even numbers, or to celebrate a comeback.
Bottom line: They donât want to balance the game through mechanics, they go for default counters and numbers. Y > Z and u need X amount of Y to beat Z.
It is hard to really get a comeback and it favors an eco approach, besides the strong defensive structures.
Personally less entertaining to play and watch.
I think one simple change could fix the TC issue. Give them a minimum distance they must be from other TCs. Multiple TCâs early isnât the issue, itâs that people stack them so close that itâs like one super-city. Expansions should be spread out, for the purpose of map control just as much as villager generation.
that benefits ranged units, and doesnât help at all, (buildings have ranged armor), the arite already has armor and in the same way melee units take damage, if the Tc doesnât fall itâs because they repair it while they attack it, it must be repaired with stone
The 30s additional build time amounts to 9s when building with 8 villagers? 9 more sec isnât gonna get that TC denied.
I favor the mongol treatment of a 900 resources TC then keep the 2min 30s build time.
The issue with 750 resources TCs is you can easily and safely gather MORE than amount of resources in transition from dark to feudal buidling your landmarks with 3 or less villagers. Since Dark age aggression isnt viable except for maybe 3 civs, nobody can have a sizable army fielded to challenge a forwarded placed TC.
BUT if you made TCs cost 900 resources is would virtually be all the resources you can theoretical gather in a transition from dark to feudal using 3 or more villagers building landmark, so you would ONLY be able to afford a 2nd TC and housing, which would put you in a very vulnerable place if challenged!! This woupd force 2nd TCs to be defensive OR placed AFTER a defensive army has been trained. Both options would prove to be a fair nerf to TC meta.
A minimum distance between TCs would build be a better way of increasing their build duration because the distance villagers must walk would be 10-30 seconds. Their distance from home TC would make them vulnerable to picking off as the 2nd TC is constructed, forcing them to retreat and leave the unfinished TC vulnerable to destruction, or force them to at least make a tower before starting the TC which further delays the 2nd TC.
Defensive TCs are not that big a thing. Most pro level games 2nd TC gets dropped on deer or boar or far berries etc.
Imo increase the cost would consume more of the transitional income and THAT would leave even smaller amounts of resources to build a Defensive army AND 2nd TC so soon after aging up.
no, because you also have to attack the defense and they donât mind losing some villagers because they get them back with the double production of villagers
