In the beginning, it seemed like a nice idea to make the games shorter.
Now, landmark snipes are a thing and I strongly feel like they shouldn’t be. It pretty much makes it impossible to have games where sometimes your old base is destroyed so you migrate and set up a new base elsewhere and get back in the game (sometimes with help from teammates etc). Some players may be playing well but enemy sends a couple of bombards in a sneak attack and the game is gone.
I’m not saying this because I’m salty. I don’t even play any MP games, but looking at Viper’s videos I started missing the old Age of Empires games which didn’t have landmark snipes.
Losing a landmark should be a big blow - maybe make it so that once a landmark is destroyed you lose it forever. But Losing the game just because someone Fire lanced them when you went off to retask some villagers, or because some elephants went all animation-cancel on you, or some bombards turned astronomical is just so silly.
This may well be an unpopular opinion, and I understand some people truly like this way of winning and surely it can be an interesting game mode almost like regicide. But I think classic conquest should be a default so that the better player wins.
This is one of the reasons I gave up the game so quickly, and is something I hope they change soon. it especially puts the Abbasids at a massive disadvantage, as they only have 1 wonder rather than the normal amount, and it gives China a massive advantage considering the sheer number of landmarks China can build.
I can’t believe the developers didn’t think of that when they implemented landmark victories.
I’m also not sold on the current iteration of landmark victories. What I appreciate about them is that it prevents annoying situations where griefers hide villagers around the map and go AFK, and allows situations where a game is clearly won not to drag on longer than it should. The tradeoff, however, is that it opens possibilities for surprise wins based on sniping landmarks with units like fire lancers, which to me seems bad (Do others disagree?), particularly in multiplayer games.
To me it seems like the ideal solution retains the first while preventing the second—something like destroying all of a player’s landmarks initiating a countdown of a minute or two, during which they can either fully repair a landmark or be eliminated.
In quick match there’s no way to change it, but something you can do, in custom games, it to remove any victory condition. Building a custom game doesn’t take all that much time, even if you’re going to play vs random players.
Anyway, for quick match and future ranked, I believe Landmark victories must exist, as they put yet another thing for players to care about. Considering is an RTS, I believe it’s a good thing. Except for Abbassids, I must add.
This is not exactly true. Its very true that they do have 2 landmarks, but at same time their landmark is way tougher landmark than anyones else. Yes in terms of hiding etc its not possible.
As someone who does FL rushes and landmark snipes frequently. Even scout landmark snipes. I can say that abbasids are only civ that I refuse to landmark snipe. Especially with units that are not bombards.
Having 2 landmarks is somewhat disadvantage depending on the situation but it also can be advantage because its easier to defend 2 landmarks with keep(s) than its multiple landmarks. Also when it comes down for sniping its very straightforward path so it also means enemy is there so you know where to position your units especially in case its scout / FL landmark snipes
So its very situation dependable if its disadvantage or not and lot of times game is already over if you got your core base stormed by such army that can take down landmarks.
Having 2 landmarks is an absolute disadvantage. The buff to the House of Wisdom as you age up is not nearly enough to counter the disadvantage of having only 2 landmarks.
No scouting necessary. Opponents always know where to target.
Landmark snipe is always on the table for Abbasid opponent.
Wonder victories are weaker/not viable for Abbasid in 1v1 and team games.
No need to move your bombards to re-target other landmarks, b/c TC and HoW are right next to each other.
Do I even need to read rest of this? Scouting is always required no matter how many landmarks civ got…
Its always table on any civilization.
How many wonder victories there is in 1v1?
This is actually your only good point so far, but then again I doubt u have been in many scenarios where you lost because of this. I can bet that most of games that abbasid players play they lose because of something else than they got only 2 landmarks. If the amount of landmarks were the reason for winning then china should be above mongols or par with them
I was being facetious - it does have way more health to compensate.
Not only that but you don’t need to build anything in aging up - your villagers are freely gathering resources the whole time and if the game goes long enough they can effectively go to Age 5 by researching all the House of Wisdom wings. I don’t think Abbasid having the worst win rate in 1v1 is related to House of Wisdom design. Maybe with Rus and Mongol nerfs tomorrow, that will indirectly help them though.
You don’t have to think it because its not. In very rare cases it can play a part why abbasid player lost but this is like one in hundred or thousand games or something similar.
Lol, no please don’t do that.
Build it next to your TC so you can protect it.
I don’t remember the numbers but just check by selecting it when in game - its health goes up with each age up/wing added.
Team games? I see - I’ve only ever played 1v1 or 2v2. From what I’ve heard the meta in 3s and 4s sounds terrible. Maybe the changes to firelancers and all factions having spears that brace will help that a little?
