ive come to a conclusion that the game values offense more than defense and i think this is wrong and unrealistic.
walls r too easy to penetrate for normal units etc etc. ok for siege units but normal units? cmon.
i think this game has to change its philosophy a bit and buff defensive strategies more.
That holds true in AoE: I but it doesn’t in AoE: II.
Which directly counter what current meta all about: rush, aggression and action. Defensive play style is boring and uninspiring to watch. People playing too defensively are generally considered noobs or very new to the game.
well we have different opinions.
What’s better to watch, a couple of units fighting in quick skirmishes or a giant army with hundreds of cavalry, infantry and siege charging at each other?
No. We don’t need boring games. Prefer Arena if you want to boom for 30 minutes.
That’s not necessarily my opinions, but more like how games are played right now. Actions on top of actions on top of actions. This is not determined by me, but by the silent majority.
What’s better, half a dozen archers shooting arrows at a single unit or a rain of arrows from afar?
Both. Skirmishes are exciting because an error can swing the fight and gain advantage or lose the ground. Massive battle feels more immersive and impactful, and predicting the outcome is part of the fun.
I don’t think you grasp the vision the devs had in 1999.
That’s the vision in 1999.
We are in 2020 now. You can try to ask those professional players who wants to play defensively and wait until imperial age to attack during tournaments? The game itself has changed a lot since 1999, From campaign having 75 pop cap (a pita) to 200, from max pop 200 to nowadays 500. What’s worked in 1999 may not work in 2020. It is really what it is.
I agree offensive play is more fun to watch but it would be cool some civs could play full defensively and have an advantage with this kind of playstyle.
Byzantines described as a defensive civilization but if you try to turtle up with them you end up getting punished in most cases.
While maybe yes, the sad reality is people agree more on “best defence is offence”. Palisade wall being nerfed 3 times in total is the clear indicator that people hates defenders gaining uncanny advantage through quick walling and playing defensively while booming behind. If you wonder why defensive play style is unpopular, look no further than palisade wall nerfs.
And yes, byzantines is designed to be a defensive civ, and its 1v1 win rate never go above 50%. Cataphract is good, but too expensive to upgrade and field, preventing them from being very effective in typical 1v1.
In modern rts, map control is key to secure resources and establish tactical and strategic advantages. Playing defensively is against this idea, and one major reason why it is not popular among high level players.
wtf just place one castle and no one can push ur defence
or place stonewalls and no one will raid u
or u questioned palisade walls but it’s wood (palisade)
the same number of army behind walls, and any opponent never “brokes” that walls
but if u do the other will have more eco and new techs
That’s not a flaw: that’s a deliberate game design choice. Otherwise every game would be like playing black forest and most people wouldn’t really like that.
Most people play the game to, well, play the game and have fun; not to entertain watchers. And who cares what the watchers’ opinions are?
I’m not sure how these points are relevant?
Many people just prefer to play a more defensive or turtling strategy, rather than non-stop Call of Duty fragfests. Which has nothing to do with watchers’ incorrect and irrelevant observations or assumptions.
Well, fair. But defensive play is not where the balance goes, and certainly not how most people would play on ladder.
All I’m doing the whole time is to simply elaborate the reason why current offensive play style is not “a fundamental flaw”, but just how people in MP understands the game.
There is nothing wrong to turtle and boom until imperial age and throw a massive army to the enemy to enjoy the fight. But calling the game not being played this way as “fundamental flaw” is a bit over the top.
what? walling is literally the meta right now because its so easy and most units can’t easily break through it.
they’ve literally been trying to make the game less defensive, why do you think walling got nerfed and a woodline got taken away on Arabia?
both are great options, anything is better then sitting behind walls until castle age and doing nothing.
the vision of 1999 was great in 1999 but gaming has evolved. RTS was and is a niche market for a reason.
I am not a walling or defensive play fan or even meta or standard player, i am always go all in crazy strats (do or die), but i totally agree with you. Last patch they nerfed walls even after they made Arabia more open and more harder to wall, defense is a strategy like offense and the game should have the good balance between them.
and yet everyone still walled anyway.
good news, both strategies are very viable in the current meta.