I thought other games were bad, but man this one is horrible.
If you disagree with the following statement you clearly aren’t paying any attention to the meta/tournaments.
“Play X civ on X map because it is the best on that map period”…
I have yet to play a game above 1500 elo where the other player picks a civ to just play it or test it out,
NO they go for the STRONGEST civ on that map and you have to beat that stupid strong civ when your just playing a normal civ… talk about civ diversity am I right?
(this excludes the horrible cheese meta that is 90% of games this is the other 10%).
There was once a game called Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. The meta there was more broken, but the game was saved by having 100x the micro & buggy unit capabilities that players discovered over time; this game lacks the most basic projectile micro, and there aren’t many bugs that can be exploited to improve balance.
That is an interesting point
Im sorry but I think you haven’t stated any point about why it’s the worst meta .
I also think that some civs needs massive buffs like Delhi for example . and Rus needs a slight nerf.
If this is the point of your topic then you are right , we need a rebalance asap, but they are on holidays and they need to rest , we will see how the meta evolves with the new patches and updates
Poor Delhi needs bug fixes and buffs. There are some researched I’ve never seen finish in multiplayer games.
every game is a cheese/TR even from civs that aren’t tower rushing civs it still good if you do it vs someone lol… this game has to be made by the dumbest dev team in history. It’s like they wanted this game to be purely cheese fest. And if you think anything about this meta is “fun” or think it isn’t the worst you are one of the re-re’s on QM tower rushing and cheesing lol it’s just that simple, this guy legit told me that I shouldn’t even play any civ besides french rus and mongols otherwise I am just going to lose, which is true. It is an auto loss vs mongols and other civs if you get TRed you just get so far behind lol but hey the player count for this game went from 60k to 30k to 25k now its down to 17k. I expect this decline in playerbase to grow for a while. Unless they fix this crazy cheese meta and dog trash “pick the best civ or lose” meta. Which is Rus French and Mongols. They are so much stronger than the other 3 you basically pick a different civ besides that and your asking for a loss or the biggest uphill battle of your life when all you want to do is play a different civ… But hey you don’t think this meta is that bad lol have fun buddy!
Just so you know, this is the nature of online competitive games now. Competitive people are going to do everything that they can to stay updated on the most powerful meta strategies. Why? Because they want to win.
You can complain all you want about X strategy being considered “Cheese,” but I guarantee you that even if they nerf these strategies, a new Meta will emerge and you will likely once again complain about this new Meta strategy being “Cheese.”
It’s a vicious cycle. There is NO WAY that them fixing the Mongol tower rush or Rus Horse Archer meta that the population is magically going to go from 17k back up to 30k or even 60k. People have video game ADD in this day and age. There are hundreds of games being released every year, and that allows people to switch games quickly and easily. The best that they can do is fix the plethora of bugs, and try and get some balance patches in the game to appease people. But again, it’s not going to take long for a new Meta to develop that gives you the best possible chance of victory. Perfect balance is a pipe dream when there are assymetrical factions. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try, but I’m just forewarning you in case some changes establish a new “WORST META EVER.”
Yep! Some people play the game to win, others play video games for fun. Min-maxing every little detail to get an advantage and spam X and only X.
Now that would make sense if it was a 20k tournament, but it gets boring when the average player does it.
i’m bored of these ppl who win by
- STACKING CA
- STACKING FIRE LANCER
This happens because the game is extremely simple with it’s mechanics, there is no deep game play features, is a sub version of age 2, you can’t event dodge a mangonel shot…Relic used to be a top studio with a lot of innovation, playing on water is the most boring thing to do with the game… just spam demo ships, I cannot understand how this game even with almost 0 new mechanics and with one of the most simplest game play for an RTS has so many difficulties with balance and game breaking bugs…
I am waiting for homeworld 3 made by truly Relic former devs…you will see 100x times more quality and passion on that game…
I imagine having the power to dodge projectiles would add such a level of difference to the current gameplay as to change all sorts of balance complaints in the forums, like how much worse English would be.
The difference is, these new powerful meta strategies will become weaker over time and hopefully to a degree where the majority consider them annoying to deal with, but manageable.
I think they failed their game philosophy. The map being the nr1 indicator on what civ to play just screams incompetence. Who thought that’s a good idea? People want to identify with a civ not with a map.
Maps always played a role in what Civ you wanted to play. If a particular Civ gets a big bonus, and it’s a map that will give him the advantage as a result of his bonus, then it stands to reason that thát Civ in particular is going to become a slightly more popular choice among players on that map.
They simply made a few Civs credibly superior on certain maps, to the point at which you are definitely not better off picking your favorite and just trying to play your best to work around the disadvantage.
Is it wrong that it looks a bit more like Aoe2 than other games?
When you can veto maps and choose your favorite, you will see that each person will identify better with their civilization, as long as you do not play tournaments where you know that you should vary, that this is not Starcraft.
This is why I told the devs to NOT SHOW THE MAP before civ select. This was a terrible decision. Its obvious this is going to lead to more mirror matches and boring games because players are going to select the strongest civ for each map. Its also going to skew winrates heavily depending on the map.
If the maps were hidden before you pick your civs, just like in any real RTS, then the winrates should even out as players will select their preferred civ and get good or bad maps. But instead, players are choosing the civs depending on the map. This is not how RTS should be played and never has been. Age of Empires 3 doesn’t have this. Starcraft 2 doesn’t have this. Warcraft 3 doesn’t have this. Company of Heroes 2 doesn’t have this. Why would you ever make such a terrible decision?
The only hope we have is when ranked is released, the devs will finally hide the map when you pick your civ for all game modes. Otherwise, this is going to get even worse and players are only going to pick Mongols or Delhi on Hybrid maps or Rus/French on Boulder bay.
I don’t care if games looks similar to other age game, what I care is game quality, a finished game with good mechanics, what I don’t like is a studio that is afraid to innovate so they made one of the simplest RTS ever.
Rage because ppl min max above 1500? Lol. Play what you want and you’ll drop to the elo that fits. If you want to always win play the meta. If you’re a real beast you could change the meta. I’m guessing their is no answer for you, you just lost a game and feel cheated.
I’m playing abbasids abit right now, they’re fun.
The comment for hiding maps during civ selection is a cool idea.