Which is totally fine.
Nobody wants to force anyone to play a new game mode.
This is as far as I’m concerned only about parts of the community which want to get right into action.
Only because onw prefers playing the stadard more slow start doesn’t mean we can’t implement a gamemode that satisfies the whishes of the more “fast-paced” oriented players.
What makes sense for somebody is usually very different and we should respect the others peoples likings. For some people it doesn’t make sense to start in a game when the first 7-8 minutes basically nothing happens.
And if EW didn’t brought satisfying results why not talking about suitable alternatives?
Ok so you don’t like EW? So you can suggest these changes for EW, not RM.
Leave RM alone! It’s the gold standard and has stood the test of time. Changing it so drastically now after 20+ years would be career suicide for aoe2. Just because you personally find the first few minutes boring, why should we all be forced to change what we like to match your preference?
Because it is, while not explicitly suggested, heavily implied.
A new game mode will only be played by a considerable amount of the community if it’s offered in ranked matchmaking. And there’s no way to have a matchmaking system for both 3 vill start and something else that just differs by speeding up the start by a few minutes. It’s either or.
I’m all for that.
I have never played EW because it’s not appealing to me, BUT i have watched many EW matches. I think EW matches start too late into the game, if that makes any sense. 27 vils is too much, I think it should start with max 20 vils right after you get to feudal. This way you still have some time to think about a strategy, scout the enemy and make a decision. with 27 vils you should be attacking right off the bat, and that doesn’t feel right.
Speaking as a guy who’s never played it, so maybe i’m totally wrong here. But idk what i’d do starting with so many vils, which strat to go for and unit to make, think about civ matchup etc.
Feel free to agree or disagree, i’d like to know what ppl think.
It would make sense if there was like a 3 choice option at the start of the game.
So you start feudal 20 pop and you have 3 options: 3 militia on the way to the enemy base, or standard setups for archer or scout openings. And ofc you also start with a reasonable amoint of scouting.
I don’t know how this can possibly be implemented (triggers?), but that’s how I would think most people would think of a game mode that “skips dark age”.
But the map changed very gradually over the course of 20 years, not suddenly and drastically overnight. Also the fundamental basics from AOK and DE Arabia are still the same. 3 villager start, 2x boars etc.
Build orders are designed and perfected so that you have the exact amount of resources when you hit the next age. Skipping the time it takes to age up means you won’t be able to afford anything when you hit the next age.
Yeah nice move, one using misleading terms and if you try to respond to that, WITH ACTUALLY CRITICIZING IT others get “misleaded” by it.
This is getting absurd here, why can’t we openly discuss stuff?
Why can’t we openly disagree with your wild suggestions without you getting upset about it? The very nature of debate involves back and forth, you have to expect that when you put forward crazy ideas.
so maybe increase to 4 village start with one house then eventually 8 vill start with two house.
Actually when you see the dev nerf Berbers and Poles dark age bonus you can see that dev are strongly disencourage people to play any kind of vill fight excluding TC drop. And the fastest strategy you can do in dark age is pre mill Militia rush. If so why dont just start the game with 8 pop and 2 house
Because the game is supposed to test all skills, including macro. It’s not just about the number of villagers. It’s about force dropping food, not idling TC, giving more time to scout base, scout opponent and lure deer etc. What separates the low ELO players from the mid tier and higher is basic things like idle TC, not scouting, deer luring, idle villagers / efficiency, force dropping food etc. The more you skip the start of the game, the less opportunity you are giving for players to get ahead with better skill level. Obviously the best players will still win in the end with an 8 villager start, but changing the beginning of the game makes a far bigger impact on how the game plays out than a change in imperial age. Personally I don’t think aoe2 is a slow game, nor do I think the start is boring. There are plenty of other faster RTS games if that’s your thing. I would only be OK with 8 or 9 villager start on fast castle maps like Arena, Black Forest, Team Islands. It only makes sense on those kind of maps. Open maps should be left alone.
I think for this one dev can adjust so that the game will as similar as 3 vill start.
As we all know the gathering rate in dark age in AOK and DE are different that it already give a big impact on how the game play through the years. I guess the introduction of EW shows that the roadmap of the dev team is to make the game faster (although it is fail) so that it will similar to a modern game more. So I wildly guess that they will try to do other thing to increase the game speed such as changing the RM to 8 vill + 2 house start and try their best to balance the start so that it will similar to the previous one. Now they test the Michi and I can see that they will try this setting on other meme / close map and eventually will be arabia
For reference, average game length of a more modern game SC2 is 10 - 15 minutes. Can be # ##### ## ## sometimes as long as 30, but generally don’t go longer than 20. Which like what happen in EW. and the setting of 8 villager is one of the solution which do not affect the game wayyyy too much