Lol exactly never seen so much seige in the entire time I’ve played the game. Cav dosn’t counter bombards are so slow they cant shoot mangos so everyone is just setting up 10-20 mangos now and its disgusting…
Theres more seige than before!!! But its all mangonals now… everything is so slow to get there to attack the siege its pointless.
Ah yes, belittling other users and players – a winning strategy!
As I mentioned in another thread, siege weapons need to be more fundamentally rethought and probably removed until that rethinking is completed.
For example, a single melee unit should be able to take out multiple mangonels if micro’d properly, as siege weapons are inaccurate blunt force instruments designed for destroying massed units and structures. The fact that cannons are capable of essentially snipping cavalry is problematic. I think to some degree, perhaps cannons should only be able to target walls/buildings and other siege weapons, with only the occasional chance of damaging actual units.
AoE2 got this right. AoE4 got it badly wrong.
As an additional thought, if siege weapons were actually crewed, you could have an animation that forces that crew to switch to melee mode when they are under attack. This would also ensure that siege weapons can no longer fire if they are under attack by a melee unit.
Wouldn’t changing it so Mangonels shots (or really all siege) don’t track their target and instead they hit the tile that the target was on when they fired basically fix this problem. Also it just makes sense.
Mangonels should crush infantry, otherwise they are a pointless unit, but cavalry should be able to outrun their shots and close the gap without taking much damage. I agree that siege is over powered but I don’t think removing it all together is necessary. Cavalry should decimate siege, especially heavy cavalry. I think some simple accuracy penalties for moving targets would go a long way towards balancing things out, not saying it would fix everything but it would help. Friendly fire on siege units might help also, though that may actually encourage mass siege or at least discourage using melee units with siege, hard to say.
last 3 v 3 game other team have 67 Mangonels (i watched replay and counted)
Nothing can be done nothing gets close. they had spears and archer protecting. game was over. nothing can be done to beat it. Unless you went all magonels yourself.
They make it close to a base and its game over.
Can’t agree more. If you aren’t a top 1000 (even 1000 is pushing it a bit) player, you just simply won’t understand balance issues. So many whiners here who just doesn’t understand the game talking about balance…
Yeah I’ve seen that siege units track to a certain extent, like it depends on the area of effect because fast enough units can get out it if you micro’d at a millisecond after the shot was fired but if the unit is in a full army then that’s going to hit the unit regardless.
The AOE2 mechanic for them would be useful as I’ve noticed siege kind of freezes when attacked unless you click on a specific enemy to target while under attack, and now since they are weaker they make for an even easier target. With the army formations when in the moshpit, you can split your army in 2 and just bypass all resistance when clashing to attack the support units if you don’t have any. The spread battle formation is also useful as tested when approaching such threats.
There are plenty of alternatives to defeating sieges in mid battle, that’s why I think the conflict carries on on both sides. Now more than it was before, sieges take extra time and are weaker which makes them inclined towards a more defensive position to stop aggression. But this position can be a full wall of 20 Mangonel defense that goes on the offense and that’s something some struggle with because there’s more than just XxXhardcoreXxX gamer boys in the player base. Not everyone wants to feel important, some just want to enjoy the Age of Empires and at the moment, the scrap that the game is, can’t fulfill the needs of FUN entirely as I’ve said in a previous thread:
FUN ≠ Victories/game, FUN = number of possibilities + faction flexibility to certain pre-existing scenarios that are meta and occur frequently. There’s a variety of aspects that are taken into account when making the perfect gamer experience and gaining satisfaction only out of victories will inevitably push the game towards competitiveness for a later stage of marketing, which will inevitably cause internal fights between community members, dramas over patches and nerfs and so on.
I highly doubt any Dev is top 1000.
I have designed many games in my life, and sucked at most - But was still able to balance them. Top players understand the game well, they understand the CURRENT balance very well, but they are not always informative or correct when it comes to “what should we do to fix this”. Many variables and concepts are hidden from the players as they fail to realize the solution is not just “nerf this / buff that”. Many times nerfing 1 unit creates a problem with another unit or even more.
Anyone is entitled to an opinion, and a 1000 ELO player can understand the game as well as a 1600 ELO yet simply fail at execution.
Not true and what you said is actually a very common thing low level players “believe” in. They think they have the “theory” and “understanding”, but just doesn’t have the execution, or “time” to practice. This is simply not true. The players who are at low level just simply doesn’t have the basic “concept” of RTS. Like any other subjects taught in schools actually. I just couldn’t understand people struggling with basic math questions where as I’m sure some may not understand why I would struggle with such easy English questions. It’s just the concept, or dare I’d say, “talent”, in that area.
Can I ask which game you were part of in balancing?
Let’s give Blizzard as an example. Of course BW nor SC2 weren’t perfect in balance from time to time, I’d say that they did a damn good job balancing 3 very unique races. Their balance team was lead by David Kim and I’d agree he is not a top player. AFAIK they had a team of pro gamers who would give them constant feedback every now and then for balancing.
I’m not saying EVERYTHING low ELO players say don’t matter. But to be bluntly honest, it is quite close to not being a matter. It hurts low level players’ ego to admit this and they never will, but is the truth.
You may give an example of some amazing sports coaches who were never players themselves, but they are VERY rare, and in most cases, even the coaches who failed as a player were still very good players. They were just never the well known ones as they weren’t THAT good.
The players who are at low level just simply doesn’t have the basic “concept” of RTS
I do not agree, alot of RTS is just execution. You are right that the higher level a player is the more likely he is to understand RTS concepts, but that is not a “given” and you shouldn’t just dismiss people.
Your level in RTS is(in very broad abstract way) simply your strategy*execution. If you lack either of those you will be extremely lacking in general.
Not true and what you said is actually a very common thing low level players “believe” in
You are also seemingly assuming im a low ELO player, Im not(1280, not a “pro” but I am not low elo either)
Im developing and publishing board games and tabletop games in my country, been also modding for video games for quite a while.
Since you asked I can give you an example, I made a mod for AOE2 which got 600k views on a Spirit of the Law video, you can find it here in the link
The question is… What are you doing while enemy are amassing sieges? You are watching TV? Writing on this forum? Have you ever try to attack and push them in early game? I rarely see tons of sieges against, due to I’m not waiting imperial age to do my first attack…
If you let them turtle and walling and you do nothing, well you are serving to them tons of sieges in late game
We can agree to disagree, but if the devs agree with you then the game will always go towards wrong direction. As I said, as low level players, they “believe” in what you believe in because it makes them feel good to know that the only reason they aren’t at high level (or a big reason) is that they don’t have the time to work on the execution. When a high level player watches a pro player compared to low level player, high level players can see and understand a lot more. How many times in a pro players’ stream have we seen people saying “make this, make that”? High level players understand WHY pro players aren’t going for those units even when they are the clear counters. The short term vs long term resource efficiency, mind games, etc etc.
I’m really sorry too but 1260 does feel very low. You may give me how 1260 ELO is xx rank but that xx rank is low ELO I’m sorry. You made a great mod I’m sure (I watched that video you linked me briefly) but that is more “creativity” that you used, not really the balancing aspect of RTS. It looks like you’ve got huge pride in what you have done (rightfully) and I really respect that. But with balancing in RTS, it’s a different story to being creative. Have you played multiple RTS games at a high level? when you listen to balancing ideas from pro players, of course some times you may disagree, but most of the times what they say is the go to. Obviously they can be biased towards their favourite civ/race etc so we need to consider that.
Should we dismiss what low level players say in terms of balance? in most cases, yes. “This is too strong, that is too weak” from low level player is not really credible. One way the low level players can contribute towards is the creative side of the game though.