With all due respect, the idea that games should last between 40 and 60 minutes is complete ■■■■■■■■. It’s okay for some games to be that long, but competitive players, for the most part, don’t want an “Age of Boom” or “Farming Simulator”.
For a 4v4 I think it’s expected considering the size of the map. Perhaps a different story for 2v2 and 3v3.
I think casual team games offer a different experience you don’t normally get in the shorter 1v1 or 2v2 competitive games. I feel the longer 4v4 games are fun by researching tech upgrades you wouldn’t necessarily get to try out in a sweaty competitive match, or trying out a rarely used siege unit like the Ribauldequin.
1 Like
Play teatry in custom games.
If you like to play long casual games and booming with four town centers is totally fair, play custom treaty games, modifying the game like this makes the meta of competitive games totally unbalanced, boring, long games and destroys the experience.
Before the changes there were maps that according to their characteristics had open possibilities. Right now all the games are exactly the same, boring.
With all due respect, even 1vs1 ends in the imperial age.
Some bronze players can win in feudal because unbalanced ranks.
If:
- teams quite balanced
- almost every game is mirror
How you can finish game faster?
yes. i know you make a game mechinic, where with luck you can win or resign if attack failed.
Want faster games? Focus to “improve speed for 1vs1”.
because i still do not understand, how 4vs4 can be faster when 1vs1.
I have not said that 4v4 should be equal to or faster than 1v1.
From my point of view, the ideal 1v1 in average time should be between 20-25 min and 4v4 can be 30-35 min (with shorter games and longer games), but the rush should be viable in Feudal, I don’t want that they make this game like AoE2 (where you can only finish off Castles forward).
1 Like
it was said 40-60 mins. It’s not, at least for my rating.
It’s viable, Depends on map.
Large map == no rush.
Close maps == rush every game.
Pit == you have to fight for food in the center.
Why not just play 1v1/2v2 if the changes are making you upset?
Rather than tell the 4v4 player base to play custom games. Putting the cart before the horse here.
1 Like
The battering ram is already a meme in teamgames. The meta of the Feudal game is a few raids here, a few raids there and transitioning to Castles (or booming TCs earlier), like AoE2.
1 Like
Basically what you are saying is that deal with the changes just because some % of the community like yourself find these changes alright? What about the rest of us who are unhappy about those changes we just need to accept it?
How about come to a common ground where the majority can be happy instead of these over dramatic changes that has changed TG to the worse for a lot of people?
I gathered data from my 2v2s and 3v3s.
In 3v3, my median game time is 28min, the longest so far was around 68min and the shortest was 25min. This is going to be map specific as closed maps tend to go a bit longer, but generally something relatively open like the pit is done by 30min.
The average time will be longer since game time has fatter tails and tends to pull up the mean with a small number of long games, so it’s better to look at median time as it’ll tell you what 50% of your games are under.
In 2v2 median game time is around 26min, shortest was 12min (rnjesus gave me HRE so went FC into burgrave rush) while the longest was around 45min.
Ive had some pretty bad luck with maps, most games so far have been on french pass and Mongolian heights which both tend to be more closed / boomy. If I got more open maps in team games, the average times would probably come down a bit more.
So in my experience, I’m typically done a game in under 30min, but depending on map it can sometimes go up to around 1h.
That’s perfectly reasonable IMO. I’m already spending 3-4min queuing which is around 10% wait time on top of game time. If games were shorter than this, I’d be queuing for more than 10% of total time played.
4 Likes
Basically what you are saying is that you want to change it just because some % of the community like yourself find these changes unacceptable? What about the rest of us who are happy about those changes?
2 Likes
Because I’m talking about competitive games! And if I want to play competitive 3v3 and 4v4, I don’t need you to tell me what I have to play. And if you like that the game becomes a farming simulator and that there is no possibility that the games end before the fourth age, go play farming simulator.
You are happy with the changes because you don’t know how to adapt to the conditions of the map and the rival’s strategy, you only want to make your boom strategy all games. There are many maps where the boom strategy is much more viable and others where it is not, now you can ban maps, ban if you want the maps where rushing is viable but let the rest of us play AOE4, not Farming Simulator.
If you go all in on one player and let the other 2 or 3 boom up, isn’t it your fault?
If you have the better team and you want to play aggressive, wouldn’t it make more sense to try to destroy the eco of more than one player than just doing an all in landmark push?
2 Likes
The problem is that the second age troops are no match for the third age troops, even if you manage to destroy an opponent if the other two or three players are in third age and with a higher economy than you they can easily beat you.
The problem with landmarks, in my opinion, is the sniping, so I would set a countdown of, for example, 100 seconds to repair a landmark so that you don’t get kicked out of the game. This can also be applied to 1vs1 and would be a good solution that I think should look fine to most people.
Just adapt bro.
Give it a week and the competitive scene will find a new rush meta to fit team games.
RK/LongBow rushing randos down in team games may not be so much of a thing anymore but you just have to adapt. This isn’t farming simulator where you can just do the same thing over and over, babe 
1 Like
I’ve typed and discarded several replies to this thread in the last 24 hours. I’m not thrilled by the change, I’m happy to say that. Where I’m struggling a bit is with what to suggest as improvements.
It’s possible it should behave differently for humans vs humans, and humans vs ai. I’ve only played humans vs ai team games. Here are the ways I’ve seen my teams win since the change:
-
Sacred sites. I find this boring due to the 10 minute wait. If you have a competent team, you’ve pretty much won as soon as you take and hold all the sacred sites. Anything the opponents can do in those 10 minutes is cancelled by the fact that you have 10 minutes to surround each site with defensive structures and military. I have never seen a game lost in those 10 minutes with remotely competent teammates. I think there is an argument for sacred site victories being made a lot quicker, e.g. 2 minutes. This would require people to re-think their approach to the game to defend against sacred site victories, it would become essential to try to secure at least one site early on. I’m not saying I 100% think this would be a great change, it would take time to see the effects of it, I’m just saying it’s possible it could make games more interesting earlier on, as well as less boring due to providing a quicker way for a team to win if it’s well ahead.
-
The wall of keeps grind. You start off with a keep at the edge of an enemy base, and attack the base. You keep building another keep a bit farther into the base each time you can safely do so. This way, when you have destroyed a base, the keeps prevent it from being rebuilt. I quite enjoy this sort of thing every now and then, but I don’t think it’s interesting enough to keep players engaged if it’s one of the main ways to win team games.
-
Concurrent 1v1. Each player 1v1s an opponent, and remains at their base after they’ve killed them. Once all players have won their 1v1, the team wins. I find this unsatisfying compared to players being able to move on to the next opponent until every player is jointly crushing the final opponent.
As I said, in terms of solutions, I’m really not sure. If sacred site victories were made so quick that it becomes the obvious meta for a better team to beat a worse team, that would itself get tedious.
People have suggested a time limit for rebuilding landmarks. Another option could be to not allow rebuilding landmarks at all once all of a player’s landmarks have been lost. The player could still carry on playing, they could make new production buildings including TCs, could keep gathering resources, could keep making military. But you wouldn’t have to secure their base if they could never rebuild their landmarks. As of right now, I think that’s my preference for where to go next from here.
are you just going to repeat yourself until you get what you want?
This change has improved the quality of team games immensely. Before the patch, if a teammate was under early aggression and surrendered, then it was a domino effect. Games were won mentally in 8-12 minutes because people felt like they were wasting their time. Now if someone wants to end the game from aggression, they actually have to work for it due to the threat of potential comebacks.
The only real argument against this change is that it’s not as viable to 3v1 players as a strat, and I think that’s absolutely a win.
2 Likes
Yeah makes no sense that they changed this in custom games. I get the 3v1 online landmark snipe can be annoying. But what has that to do with the custom games with AI. AI rebuild like crazy in 10 sec. Now me and my friends can’t enjoy playing against them, cuz games take forever and we have to do wierd unenjoyable stuff like placing keeps in ALL their bases so they can’t help each other rebuild. Boring gameplay that takes more than an hour now… MAKE A TOGGLE BUTTON IN CUSTOM GAMES OR REVERSE THE PATCH THX <3