And the other player would need to go aggressive against that. This is why I said that Wonder Victory prevents the players from both turtling.
Also, what you describe is not a winning strategy for players of average skill and above.
1 Like
You throw some statements to this topic without any arguments at all. These statements doesnt make any sense to me.
Relic victory is annoying because it interferes to much with castle age strategies. I do not always make monastery and a monk, and I do not want to have to do it. This type of victory only costs 150 wood and 100 gold, is much cheaper than Wonder victory and also already available in castle age. I don’t like it.
Wonder victories seem fun and a good solution for some type of stalemate games, but can also hurt some games. It is a good mode but so different from normal ranked, that it can be a separate mode with separate maps, that are better suited for Wonder victory.
Vipers supposed 6 vil mode does not deserve to get matchmaking, because it is to similar to normal games. Matchmaking should be reserved for distict modes to have more variation.
Diplomacy and FFA should be ranked because these are basic distict game modes, that often suffer from bad balance outside ranked. They are so good, that pushing them would be good for AoE.
Empire Wars is less distinct than Wonder victory, Diplomacy and FFA, it was a mistake to replace the unique Deathmatch for this.
That’s not what you said. You said Wonder victory prevents turtling, which it clearly doesn’t. It allows the turtling player to hide behind layers and layers of walls; safe in the knowledge that there’s no way the attacking player will be able to get past the 50 layers of walls and reach his Wonder and destroy it within the 16 minutes 40 seconds in-game time it takes for the 200 years to be up. That’s less than 10 minutes in real life time, which is nothing in an epic long battle. Probably wouldn’t even need to research Fortified Wall.
There’s a reason why the Devs made Conquest the standard. The game should reward aggression and higher skilled play. Wonder victory is the exact opposite of aggression and high skill.
If you let your enemy take all relics with just 1 monk, then that is more likely your fault. Normally you will have some map presents, so the enemy cant just send 1 monk to all the relics to get them. So if he was able to get all the relics with just investing only 175 wood and 100 gold, then you already making some mistakes and you deserve to lose. If you have some map presents (so you dont give up map control in general) it is already hard to take all the relics. You are really over exaggerating the ease of a relic victory… I am pretty sure it wont impact 90% of the games.
Wonder victories also dont really matter for most games. Only games in which it might matter, are closed team games. Maps like black forest or michi. On most other maps it doesnt have too much impact. These close maps are already the game in which most of the stale mate happens. So this is a solution for the long games on these maps. Even there it doesnt really matter. I can only see this has some impact on maps like Michi, where it is really about one small pass and big battles, which become really a grind to finish. Wonder victory will even be an improvement for these kind of maps.
Didnt they suggeset 9 vill starts? I dont like that as seperate game mode, but i can see how it replace the current RM mode, so it will speed up the boring dark age a bit.
Why? Many of these kind of games are community based games. These kind of games are perfect for the lobby. The number of other FFA or diplo games are really low. It will be a death game mode if you try to move it to ranked.
What?! There isnt much difference between conquest or standard victory. That difference is really small. EW difference a lot from RM compared to conquest or standard victory.
Diplomacy and FFA are both also different, but also not really popular.
If you let your enemy take all relics with just 1 monk, then that is more likely your fault. Normally you will have some map presents, so the enemy cant just send 1 monk to all the relics to get them. So if he was able to get all the relics with just investing only 175 wood and 100 gold, then you already making some mistakes and you deserve to lose. If you have some map presents (so you dont give up map control in general) it is already hard to take all the relics. You are really over exaggerating the ease of a relic victory… I am pretty sure it wont impact 90% of the games.
I don’t have much experience with relic victories. But for example on Amazon Tunnel 1v1 it could be really annoying. Wall forward in dark age, and then Rush to castle age and collect all the relics in the middle. On Arena it could be also very annoying.
But standard victory won’t be chnaged. So I think it is somewhat suboptimal, but it is what it is and should still be ranked.
Wonder victories also dont really matter for most games. Only games in which it might matter, are closed team games. Maps like black forest or michi. On most other maps it doesnt have too much impact. These close maps are already the game in which most of the stale mate happens. So this is a solution for the long games on these maps. Even there it doesnt really matter. I can only see this has some impact on maps like Michi, where it is really about one small pass and big battles, which become really a grind to finish. Wonder victory will even be an improvement for these kind of maps.
Wonder victories are best for water maps imo, because it can be annoying to completely win on both land and water, and even real stalemates are possible, where nobody can’t even win withoutressources left. Beside that I think I kinda prefer Wonder victories for 1v1s and for open maps, because on closed maps and team games it can be to easy to defend a wonder imo.
Didnt they suggeset 9 vill starts? I dont like that as seperate game mode, but i can see how it replace the current RM mode, so it will speed up the boring dark age a bit.
Maybe they suggested a 9 vil start, but I don’t like it anyway. I like the dark age and if anything it should be prolonged.
Why? Many of these kind of games are community based games. These kind of games are perfect for the lobby. The number of other FFA or diplo games are really low. It will be a death game mode if you try to move it to ranked.
Matchmaking for these games would be very easy because the number of players doesn’t really matter. You can play it with 4,5,6,7,8 players whatever fits elo-wise in the moment. And you don’t need to balance the teams, because they are up to diplomacy or inexistent in FFA.
The number of games is probably low because it isn’t ranked and you need make lobbies and all this complicated stuff. I want to press just one button to play it. And I want more balanced games than in Lobbies.
There is a good chance that I would play this more than 1v1 ranked.
What?! There isnt much difference between conquest or standard victory. That difference is really small. EW difference a lot from RM compared to conquest or standard victory.
Maybe, but Empire Wars is very similar to RM compared to Deathmatch.The existence of Empire Wars basically doesn’t make sense.
If you think Wonder victory suddenly turns AoE in to Sim City it’s because you have a poor understanding of the game and are deathly afraid of change. If the devs snuck in wonder victory right now it’s unlikely you’d notice because no one would be going for wonder victory because it’s a bad idea 99% of the time. The original developers of the game included Wonder victory for a reason, and Huns even have a unique tech that affects Wonder victory. It was always meant to be part of the game.
3 Likes
The easiest solution is to make a button on the screen where the civs are chocen, and of both players click it, the game will be with standard victory. The same can also be done with another button for Regicide, although i don’t like Regicide. But skill-wise these modes are not so different, that you need a separat matchmaking and elo.
1 Like
It’s bad game design. It doesn’t solve the problem of stalemates either, it just gives a lopsided advantage to the turtling booming player. Nobody wants it because it’s a low skill turtle strategy. Just mega boom and hide behind Fatslob walls until you run down the clock. Any win condition which allows you to win without making a single military unit should not be an option in a war game.
Hey, do you remember that mediaeval battle in the 14th century where that civilisation won the war without training any soldiers or making any weapons, simply by building a big religious building and waiting?
And a lot has changed since the original version of the game. That’s not an argument in defence of Wonders. Do you want to go back to Age of Kings now?
1 Like
I mean, just because it has been part of the original game (also with the Hun UT), it doesn’t mean that it’s automatically good. Imo, Ensemble nailed it with the Trade Posts condition in AoE 3. It’s a bit like Ruins from AoE 1 as it requires all players to actively fight for the trade posts.
I actually wish Fortress would be played with Regicide, just like it’s also the case in tournaments.
3 Likes
Again, you have a poor understanding of the game if you think that a player can boom and build a wonder and win with 0 military units. What a laughable fantasy you just dreamed up.
2 Likes
You have a poor understanding of the game if you think a Wonder victory is a skillful way to win a game. It’s a noob setting from the Voobly days. It goes hand in hand with Treaty, high resources and Explored map.
2 Likes
@NastyHigh im personaly not the biggest fan of the idea aswell but i think if we debate it on a neutral ground it would mean that agression especially as it is right now in feudal and castle aswell as map pressure would prevent a wonder win. Aswell as if you stay aggressive either in 1v1 or tg and crippled the enemy their chances of getting their also sinks as you keep up pressure right?
Could a good compromise be to have Wonder victory enabled on 1v1, and have modified victory conditions for some maps (such as Fortress)?
Or would that become too complicated?
I do think eg Arena with relic victory could be interesting, but I understand why the traditional Arena fans want to be able to keep playing the current version. Arena with relic victory could even be considered a separate map.
@NastyHigh: If your opponent is turteling behind 50 layers of stone walls with 5 TCs, you really should be in Imp and building a Wonder whilst the dude is still in castle age. 50 layers of walls and 5 TCs is a lot of investment, and if he’s turtling like that you can free boom yourself.
Exactly! Which is why Wonder victory is such a bad idea because it encourages both players to go for a Wonder if they believe they can finish building it before their opponent.
What exactly is the problem?
If someone reaches Imp and spends 1000 wood/stone/gold and the villager time for building a wonder, it seems likely to be a big throw. Imp has cost already 1800 ressources.
It depends on the maps, and I like it more for open maps and water maps, but it starts as a bad strategy in the game and becomes better over time. In many cases it will be an interessting battle if the wonder has success.
The worse wonder situations are in team games imo, whhere after 2 hours randomly someone makes a wonder and it is super strong. For team games wonder makes no sense.
I would just make a butten like the random civ button, if both players agree, then the game will be with standard victory. So if you don’t like it you never have to deal with it.
2 Likes
I personally like Wonder victory, even though I don’t play with it, because I like the way Wonders look. Sometimes I’ll build one even in Conquest mode if I have a surplus of resources and villagers have nothing to do.
Yes, this. This is the perfect solution.
2 Likes
I could also be happy with a ‘Standard Victory’ opt-in button.
Especially if it was enabled by default.
(When a veto is enabled by default, as it is for random civ in 1v1, that’s just bad and frustrating design. It’s far too easy to slip into a meta where no-one bothers turning off the veto.)
I disagree. Enabling it as default enforces the idea that it should be the standard setting and that Conquest is unusual, when in reality the opposite is true and always had been, even in the Voobly days.
1 Like
If in a match between 2 people, 1 of which selects Conquest and 1 of which selects Standard, Conquest is the game mode, that enforces the idea that Conquest is the standard setting very very strongly.
This effect is more pronounced than the default.
Would you switch it round? Conquest is default but Standard wins if someone selects it? Or would that also enforce the idea that Standard is standard?
Because you can’t have it both ways.