First of all by most things you say I think that you are not “high Elo” and by this have no rel Idea.
As said before Iam 1600 1v1 Elo and talk from my experience about laming.
At this Elo its broken, because its no skill (anyone can lure back a Boar if he is 1400+).
At this elo a difference of my calculated absolute resource difference generated of 200 Food absolutely decides a Game, because it means that basicly one Player fight 5 Scouts with 2, snowballs then advantage and win of this snowball (same with any other Unit).
Simple said ofc high Elo players are good at switch army comps at mid Game, but at high elo the Game is already decided before you reach mid Game if you got lamed a lot of the time. Ofc some might survive until the mid Game, but the early advantage of lets say 3 Scouts can snowball by idle Vil time into 4 Scouts, then into a Faster Castle Age, then into a whole clear up of your army with early Knights, as well as an eco lead with faster Tcs. The Game might still be going on in mid Game, but the lame could have snowballed by then into a 10 Knights Advantage and snowball even more from there.
Higher Elo players dont afk their army and let their lead stay around, they use their lead to snowball it.
Laming can decide Games pretty hard and even inflate elo a lot. Had it often that players who failed a Lame against me played super bad, showing that they really dont belong in this elo, indicating that they probably won Games because of Lames they shouldnt have.
And as said, if Lame would be a balanced mechanic then winning of Lames would be fine, but atm its a mechanic that has no counterplay for the defender because its to luck based, as well as no risk for the attacker. If your Scout doesnt find sheep you lose nothing. A Villiger or Drush lame on the other hand would be an investment to take and by this balance out the potential gain of a lame with an actual investment. RTS Games are all about potential gains and risks. If you kill a Vil with a Knight you invested into a Knight and have taken the risk that this Knight wont kill anything, but the risk paid of when he did. Its with all like that, just not with Lame.
You take this out of context.
A Game designer also Designs in a way of what looks nice, and Dear cant kill a Man normaly, so you cant attack it, but a real life Boar is strong and could kill a Man, so they gave the Boar an attack bonus, didnt they? Can we agree they did.
Now please let us think about why they gave an Attack Bonus which is strong enough to kill a Scout 1v1 and let you spawn with only 1 Scout, not 2 or 3.
What you forget is that this Game was made over 20 Years ago, back then were no patches to take stuff out and most importantly, players were much worse. No player at all 20 years ago was able to lure a Boar back to his Base, people didnt even thought about this posibility.
RTS Esport was still pretty new and only in the form of Starcraft 2, which has no Boars.
All in all its very reasonable to assume that the Devs didnt thought about the possibility that a Scout could lure a Boar over a map and just thought about a Scout killing the Boar like they did with the Dear, and for realism reasons they made the Boar strong enough to kill the Scout if a Player would try to deny his enemys Resources by killing them. So your argument of the Dear not being attacked having a the meaning that the Devs didnt wanted you to lame them is one I share, but the same applies for the Boar killing an unmicroed Scout, because Micro wasnt a thing back then.
Ofc they could have taken it out back later with the expantions like the Forgotten, Rise of Rayas and so on,
but first these expantions came much later when the Game already keept a lot of other Bugs like scanning (and yeah, its most likely scanning was a bug, not a feature because it would be weird to want something like that from a Game Designers perspective)
and secondly they were not the Devs of AoE2, but hobby modders who made these expantions.
He does this all the time. He also wrote texts to me in which he argued about stuff I basicly had given arguments against for like the third time and he just ignored all arguments and keept repeating the same stuff over and over.
I guess he is just some Troll who doesnt even read most stuff and/ or just ignores any argument given that would conflict with his repeated stuff. (which he also repeats without any arguments. I have given math equations and reasonable explanations, havent seen much like this from someone like him sadly, and an argument without an argumentation is sadly just a stated opinion.)
Never claimed to be a high level player. 800 I just watch a bunch of high level games at no point am i seeing anyone insta quit once a boar or sheep is taken. People push through. If you all fell this way we should just code each food source to the corresponding player fixes the problem. I am arguing that its not as bad as you stand no chance of coming back. You do you just have to change up and work a bit more to get the win. Just like i have said before whats the difference between towering a forward gold and stealing a boar. Nothing. Both suck and you can recover from both. Yes you will be behind thats the point of the move.
Ofc people dont quit in the Games you see, because they are most likely Tournement Games if you watch them so whats this argument. Also when i get lamed on the leader I also dont quit most of the time because i wanna beat that dirty Lamer in my mind. The argument “they dont quit” makes really no sense.
Fact is that at the elos I mentioned its no skill to lame and basicly only luck because anyone can pull of the micro, but not anyone can be lucky enough to find the resource before the enemy.
About how big an impact it is i talked a lot already. Its proven by Math a flat 200 Resource advantage to get 1 Boar/ 3 Sheep and also has more abstract values like faster Age ups, resulting timeig attacks etc.
(the Math that gets to my mentioned 200 Resources is there: To make the Game more competitive Laming should be adjusted/ removed - #21 by Sylne4r)
Most importantly the question if 200 Res is a Game changer would be the to argue with you:
→ put simple, by your experience it might not be, because at 800 elo having 2-3 more scouts isnt important, but at the elos i mentioned such an advantage is massive, will most likely snowball pretty hard and decide the Game.
Ofc this doesnt mean the lamer always wins, there are different factors like Player skill, Civ match up etc.
But the fact that 2,5 more scouts is massive stands still, meaning in an even match up of 2 players with equal Skill and no civ Advantage Lame will be a very big deciding factor , which sadly is luck based and has no risk in doing.
As said Iam all for Vil or Drush laming, because it has an actual cost as multiply times explained before in detail. Look some of my older posts in here for more detail if you want.
And please I dont try to make this stupid kind of argument of “IaM ahIghEr pLaYeR so lIstEn to mE”, iam just trying to say that laming might not impact your Game experience as much as it does for Players on my Elo, and it would be nice if we try to make the Game fun for all Players no matter the skill. And I doubt that adjusting laming would negatively impact your Game experience a lot because you said yourself most people probably cant even do it, but for 1400+ Players the frustration to face a luck based disadvantage in a ranked Game in a supposedly competitive Game can impact the Game enjoyment a lot.
(ofc not saying all 1400+ Players hate laming. Some love to make their enemys frustrate and to get a luck Based advantage. I know Players who proudly post in discord Channels that they managed again to make an opponent rage quit by laming, but I dont think we should focus on what people want that enjoy to frustrate other players of the community and instead focus on more positive approaches)
You can attack and kill sheep with your scout, this arguments holds no water whatsoever.
Because multiple scouts are a serious threat even in dark age with 3 attack against unloomed villagers and with multiple scouts you could very easily kill an opponent or set them so far behind it’s lethal. Again, this is a terrible argument.
Proving that it’s a skilled adaptation, not a luck-based effect. Which makes my point.
But you can’t attack a deer. You can attack a boar. The deer is the exception to the rule (you can attack sheep, and wolves, and boar, just not deer) so again, nothing you are saying has absolutely any weight to it. It’s hard to argue with you when you aren’t making a point, just spitting out pure conjecture. Conjecture is fine, but it’s hardly enough for you to change a mechanic that rewards active play just because you don’t like it.
At least I didn’t resort to name-calling because I didn’t like what you have to say. Maybe you should learn to agree to disagree as opposed to calling the other kids on the playground a doo-doo-head. I didn’t ignore a single one of your arguments, I read them all, I just don’t have to say “No, this is wrong, and here’s why” to every single word of your five-paragraph argument on the subject of 700 free resources as the result of a boar steal. Once you’ve thrown yourself into the river like that I hardly find it necessary to beat a dead horse.
I’m against the perception of seeing free food as property.
All ressources spawn to be taken by any player. It’s the game to fight over the ressource access.
And yet the math of sylne is still wrong, cause he hasn’t even understood why laming has such a high influence at HIGHER ELOS. It’s the need to make more/less farms early on what brings the advantage. Not the “more ressources”, it’s because food is so much more valueable in the early to mid game. You don’t get more ressources from laming, just food instead of wood.
And how can you argue about a mechanic if you haven’t even understood how it works? It makes no sense.
You are talking to a guy who believes that’s a war crime, and picking civs is a unforgivable thing, also is exactly same guy that was also banned at Aoezone due to that behaviour…
The funny thing is he says nothing about using military units to attack civilians and burn down houses. Both of which would be war crimes. Double standards much?
The point of saying people dont quit after being lamed is to point out that you can still win. It doesnt create an instant win.
Right here if you all have the “skill” to lame its not just luck. It comes down to being faster then your opponent at scouting. Which is skill and requires choice.
This is more reasonable and agreeable in comparison to some one who was saying losing a boar is equal to 800 seconds of vill idle time.
No one is saying its not game changing. What is being said is that you can still win. Its not the amazing game endingpure luck no skill strategy everyone says it is.
Believe it or not even at that low of an elo we still understand number advantage. We also understand counter units and defense. Its more so the multi tasking and being slower. Im 33 years old and just got back in the game in december. I use to play in late 1999 and early 2000s. Im just slow and old not dumb of game mechanics.
Adjusting laming wouldn’t bother me in the least. I think its lame to lame. However there are a large portion of the community that enjoys it. Is it better to put your fun before theirs by taking away something that has been around for quite a long time? I don’t think it is.
It is mostly luck-based if you pick one single game, but luck evens out over the course of multiple games. People just tend to remember when they were unlucky and think they lost the game due to that sole reason even though there seem to be much more important variables that decide the game as stats seem to show.
Maybe once in a while you will get lamed without being able to do anything against it, but sometimes you also win because your opponent had 2 forward golds, lost his scout to TC fire, picked Mayans vs Goths on Arena, got very unlucky conversions etc. I think the way randomness is handled in the game is fine.
how are you guys able to afford 6 farms right after getting lamed? comparing the food from sheep/boar to farms doesn’t paint the whole picture, since you can’t send 6 villagers to one farm, and you wont have enough wood to seed a ton of farms at once
don’t you guys remember the nerfed tatar extra sheep? people severely underestimated it by only considering it as just a bit of saved wood
as someone who continuously preached the tatars were underrated, I never even once considered their buff to the sheep in feudal to be necessary, and was happy to see it go.
as someone who is familiar with the math, you only need to lay down those farms by the time your food would run out and then it’s not an appreciable loss of food, just a cost in wood for the farms.
I remember. There was a completely broken build with it cause it was 650 (!) extra free food.
equivalent of 7 sheep. You could abuse that for an absurd archer build, but that build was also very tight. It worked because you got just the exact amount of free food to make that 20 pop 2 fu archery ranges build, no other civ could do.
But, the big difference is, that you can’t make a build like this with laming, as you don’t know how successfull you can be with your lame. And I wish you luck by trying to lame 7 sheep from your opponent.
The build worked that well because it allowed to delay even the mill (and then farms) until mid feudal and invest all your ressources into archers. It only worked because you knew you would have that extra sheep from the beginning of the game. It’s a different story to use lamed sheep to your advantage. There are no builds for extra sheep/boar through laming.
And Tatars have still an advantage equal of laming 2 sheep. Let’s look at their winrate.
46.39 %
Even at 1650+ elo, tatars have just 48 % winrate. And this with adjusted builds, that are specific to use the extra food to their advantage.
The difference for tatars before the sheep bonus (== 2 sheep laming) and now is about 1 % winrate overall and about 2 % in 1650+ elo. And this with the knowledge of having the extra food.
Of course laming has an influence in winrates, but what some people do here, is trying to exaggerate the influence. It’s far from being a free win.
Tatars stats before and after the buff show that it isn’t as impactful as people try to make it.
Nobody says that it isn’t influencial, but the impact is proven much lower than often stated.
You assume something without any claim. Also I think I already said before that the Food difference you get is huge in the early Game.
Also you only understand it partially. Food and Wood are both just Vil work times, so what makes it so strong isnt that its food, its the fact that you get more food for the same work time you would get with Farms. I talked about he 200 Food because its the Number that in the end somewhere in the Feudal Age is the absolute number you missing, but ofc Resources are more valuable earlier on, but if we would want to account for the fact that you might have (in short term) 50 more res from a Sheep or maybe even 100 from a boar because they collect faster then a Farm, then we get to much into details noone cares about.
In the end what makes Laming so strong at higher Elo is that you miss Resources at important timings like when you have to Age up or build a Stable/ Archery, as well as the fact that the value of Resources (Vil working time) is depending on your Vil Number, and ofc in Dark to Feudal Age with 15-20 Vils losing in the end a total of 200 Resources worth of Vil working time is more impactful then the same would be in Castle Age.
In other words Food isnt more Valuable because its food, but because Dark Age farms have a very bad work rate compared to animals. If Sheep and Boars work rate would be under the workrate of Dark Age Farms i concluded of 0.249 then they would be useless and everyone would make Farms instead of taking Sheep / Boar. (ofc not if its a close call, because the farm gets its work rate of 0.249 when it is finished, before that the work rate is effectively worse, because the wood already has been paid but the food not yet collected)
I do the exact same you do. You mentioned that Dear cant be attacked but Boar can and assumed of it that Devs wanted you to be able to lure Boar.
I stated the fact that back then the Devs couldnt have thought about the possibility to lure back a Boar because the skill for that wasnt needed yet, but they made the Boar able to 1v1 a Scout, which leads me to the assumption that the Devs didnt wanted you to kill the Boar the same way they didnt wanted it for Dear, but found a different solution that just “looks better”.
In the end we both assume a thought of the Devs with the same argumentation principle. So how can you say mine makes no sense but yours?
And about your sheep thing, well sheep can be placed under your TC because the player can control it. And about the skill i already talked. Ofc the Skill increased over 20 Year, but we are talking about the possible negative impact on the Game now, not 20 Years ago.
I never got this argument. Ofc you can still win, because statistically you can still win with any disadvantage. You could also still win if your Enemy starts with 100 more Vils, its just much harder and not very fair.
The question isnt if you can win, the question is how much harder is it and if an advantage of this size, which has because of its luck based nature (especially for Sheeps, but at higher elos also Boar) no real effective counterplay, is a fair mechanic.
Its also possible to win against an enemy who can press a Button and with 20% he gets 3 more Vils, the question isnt if you can win, the question is if having such a button is fair.
Thats also why Iam all for Vil and Drush laming because it has an investment.
Compared to my analogy Scout laming as it is atm is like having a button that by 20% gives you lets say 3 more starting Vils, while Vil laming is a Button that gives you for 25% 3 more Vils, but to 75% lets you lose 1 Vils, which lets it look much more fair. (because with Vil laming or Drush you actual have an investment and by that lose something if your Lame fails.)
(and guys please dont start to argue now about if the 20% or 3 Vil is realistic, its an analogy)
