Something needs to be done so its less ideal to always age up as quickly as possible. Almost all games are just a contest of who can click age3/4 GPs first and snowball the game from that point. Its not fun to play or go against.
This increased snowball-potential mostly exists thanks to stronger GPs, higher pop cap (and thus larger armies), stronger techs (both generic and god-specific) and less durable buildings/defenses. Additionally, unit counters are now stronger than in the original game.
In the end this just creates games that are over in an instant; especially if your opponent knows what he is doing and pressures the lead. I dont remember this happening that much in the original game - sure some games you lost quickly but for the most part two equally skilled players would have numerous fights over key locations, not just a single wipe and its gg.
What do you guys think about this ?
1 Like
I agree, some strategies are still very strong from age 2 but it’s almost all-in, so if you don’t do any significant damage and you let your opponenet the opportunity to move on to age 3 or age 4 too quickly, it’s game over.
I played against an ISIS player with the god SETH, he rushed 3 CC and age 3, even though I killed 40 villagers at the start of the game he was able to come back with his 3 CC and kill me. It’s probably my fault, you have to be super punitive to hope to win.
That’s why I made the suggestion that GPs start with a cooldown so that aging up is not such a huge power spike.
Yea that would be one option - adding a timer for GPs; maybe with lowered efficiency if the player still wants to cast them instantly (the player basically “unlocks” the GP in its current version after ~3mins but can already use a weaker version before that).
I think it’s fine, you have to choose what you’re doing and live with the consequences one way or another. Some, like Atty, may need to rush when Greek classical is a pain