I love the new team games. Much better than before. Rushing still works. Just going 4on1 is much worse now which is highly appreciated. Now it can actually be a good strat to sack one teammate to enable the others to boom.
The game is a lot more strategic this way because you are not forced to defend anymore. Outside of a few select maps I rarely see wonders, but I tend to look for damage in feudal or castle age.
The fact that you no longer need to defend your own base in a team game just proves the fact that this change is a bad one.
The only ones who likes this changes are the ones who donāt want to learn how to defend themselves while also helping your allies, now instead you will be a burden for your team mates.
I really hope they change this back to how it was before, seriously worst change yet for this game.
I still thinking that the issue is the worse ram.
if you do not defend than you loosing eco. Very very simple rule.
If you can win game without Eco. Probably your ooponent went for coffee.
Change is 10/10, finally no more useless rush 4vs1 into resign. I was sick of ābuild base and resign cause itās 3vs4ā or āresign cause on 35 min someone in pocket lost his landmarkā
Players should provide rating to learn on what ELO they have these difficulties.
On my 1300elo - everything is fine.
Well we then agree to disagree because I find this change terrible and the more time people play around with it, the more people I think is going to realize how stupid it is.
I just played a co-op game where we won with sacred sites, basically itās easier to simultaneously secure the sacred sites than it is to simultaneously secure every landmark building in every opponentās base.
Funny all these landmark snipe ppl complaining about TG?? Yall know other games non AOE4 games play like current AOE4? You have to destory the TEAM to win
You should probably think about walling zones that you took. Map control helps a lot in these situations.
WC3 you can kill everything from opponent and they canāt rebuild even with help of allies. Only thing they can bring to table is their hero if unit is close by to tavern. SC2 I have no idea cuz never played teamgames.
Aoe3 you can rebuild from 1 villager or TC
you say exciting and you complain about the distribution of the sacred sites, that was your argument as to why it is not worth going through the sacred sites and because the games are lengthened
Sure u can do it in Sc2 or Wc3 if u got 1 worker alive, but realistically speaking its rarely even happening. At lower elos where players idle and donāt act it can happen more frequently but at higher it wont because opponent aināt gonna sit 15mins in their base and letting dead player catch up.
I had already plenty of games where opponent had 1 landmark alive less than 10 villagers and his ally already taken considerable amount of economic dmg and sticking in game and building keeps around final landmark. _Its just making the matches more tedious time to time when ppl dont want to quit and think they can come back
In my opinion they should convert back to the old landmark victory for quick matches & ranked games (later when TG is available) and make it an option that can be turned on/off in custom lobbies between the old way & new way, so people can decide in what way to play each TG game.
Yeah, the more I play team games the more I like the change. In 3s and 4s, have the two players on outside play aggressive and try to deny eco while the one or two players in the pocket focus on boom. Then once the pocket booms up, itās a done deal.
Of course, itās map specific, but thatās the general playstyle that I found to be very effective and you can usually win in 20-30 min.
If they are turtling for a long game, drop down a wonder (if sites arenāt available) or if sites are available, go for the sacred site victory.
I play few TGs today and like the new way. The cons is the game goes a bit longer than before, but atleast people donāt leave after first raid in their base with some vills killedā¦
The problem are not the sacred sites, the problem is that you NEED to kill all landmarks of all players to win. One can just put villagers on farms and spam horsemen or scouts to burn castles and kill siege, itās ridiculous.
And in the case I mentioned, the sacred sites were that bad distributed because it was nomad.
No need to defend your base if the base of your team mates is protected, just move the villagers and continue your economy.
No more feudal rushes are worth it. You spend A LOT of time and resources to literally get NOTHING. Because you donāt get any advantage destroying the base of one of them if they just move their villagers when getting raided.
The point is, if you donāt get any advantage of rushing, the only alternative is to boom, getting to imp as fast as possible and spam imperial units, OR turtle and make a wonder. The game returns to the state of months ago, where everyone just put stone walls and play sim city for 30 minutes, trying to be the first in build a wonder.
It was you, who only play team games, who asked to nerf the siege, therefore the battering ram was also weak. Well, as I was saying, if you canāt knock down all the landmarks, then go to the sacred places and thatās it.
So you literally are saying that removing a complete way of play (rush and feudal action) from the game is ok.
As I said, thereās no point in feudal war if you get nothing for it (talking about 3v3 and 4v4 games). And feudal war is by long the funniest of the game.
Castle age and imperial are siege fest. And I am not saying that siege needs to be nerfed, I really donāt care about siege right now, itās just that dark age and feudal age right now is about who passes to castle fastest.
You can very easily push in feudal age and do enough damage to effectively outnumber the opponents with an eco advantage. We literally did this in 3v3s at-least 4 times last night.
Have your flanks push early aggression against their respective player and then the pocket does a boom. The pocket can then come in with a strong military force (preferable) or sling the flanks up if your pushes werenāt effective.