Noone is able to do it, you go first with more on Berries, hard on Wood etc. Thats also why depending on the size of the Lame you wont have enough Resources to click to Feudal Age and then are forced into a Drush FC.
In hidden Cup 3 f.E. the caster talked about the fact that if a Player loses 1 Boar he must go Drush FC because any other strat isnt viable anymore.
So in short your answer, you cant slam down 6 Farms. You go on wood and get them 1 after another and delay your Feudal time by it.
I mean, you ignored the rest of the things I said to counter the things you said to support your argument, soâŠ
I guess youâre a hypocrite?
Anywho-
No, I am inferring based on all the information we already have. Of all the things the scout could attack, the deer is the only exception to the rule of âIf itâs not yours, you can hit it.â They were clearly aware of laming as a possibility (maybe even a probability) as itâs represented with the Celts tech tree.
They could have made sheeps unconvertible once they were turned from Gaia faction, but they didnât. That would have been easily done if they had any reservations about the principle of laming. They didnât, so clearly were fine with the idea of laming sheep. It is you who is trying to make the case that they thought about boars any differently than they did sheep.
Regardless of whether or not the skill for the lure was possible, Laming was possible and the theft of sheep was a factored part of the design process. You have nothing to support your argumentation that they would have made a different call on boars if they were making the same decision about laming with todayâs game skill. Their decision on the readily accessible, skill-less food source of sheep is instructive to explain their position on Laming: âItâs war.â It is your job to make the argument, somehow, that they would have thought differently today, or that they did think of it then, and decided against it. Your argument, as of now, is:
⊠that they wanted to give the boar extra HP not, to mandate group-hunting of the boar for safety (which is what the tutorial campaigns specifically teach you to be the case) but because without it someone could kill the boar with a scout. Your explanation fails Occamâs Razor. So itâs unconvincing to say the least, given how there are specific reasons explained by the game, that has nothing to do with your claim.
Many things to pick here.
Stats and tournaments show itâs not that much of an advantage. Iâm not too much into stats and I think people over-rely on them (for example, you could argue that a laming player gains undeserved Elo, so he climbs the rating and ends up playing better players, hence not having better winrate than people who donât lame - that would explain the stats shared in the thread), but still, weâve seen the same players end up always at the top of the ladder, and there has never been a big upset in tournament due to laming, so either itâs not luck-based, or it must not be too big of a difference. You picked Hera vs Viper as an example, but during the year both of them have beaten each other without laming. I could also pinpoint some Hera vs Viper games where one lost due to âluckâ.
It is a fair mechanic, no question about this, both players can do it. Same as your button analogy, if both players had access to the button then itâs not unfair. In the case of AoE itâs fair because both players are affected by RNG, and while the RNG can punctually be unfair for one player, it evens out over the course of one game.
Ironically, one part about laming that is unfair is that some players are more sensitive to being called âlamersâ and as a result some players will be less inclined to lame/counter-lame not because of skill/RNG but just because they are afraid of being called bad players. Now that polls show most people are fine with laming, it should be considered as a valid strategy and the ones that call âlamersâ are the one being unsportsmanlike.
Viper recently twitted a guy who was defending laming and he wrote some points that no one could argue, stealing boars needs some skills(Imo any 1300 can steal successfully so meh), but stealing sheeps doesnât cause it is merely luck based, stealing a boar doesnât mean to sacrifice scouting since the guy who got stolen has to look twice and needs to lure deers meaning he is also not scouting and in fact he might actually explore less than the guy who stole it.
Scouts shouldnât be able to hit boars, just like with the deers, the minority that defends such mechanic cause of few maps that no one plays is not a representative sample compared to all the guys being affected by that bad mechanic.
We could just do a poll through the game as to should it should be removed or not. If you do remove it there is zero point to having sheep and boar spawn away from tc. It does nothing and serves no purpose. The should continuously spawn coded to the player and not able to change sides.
Tbh I would like to know how the overall community thinks, the problem is that Pools are not very good at resembling the community, because only a fraction of the Players is active in the Forums. Basicly depending on who sees the Pool you will get very different results, especially if a Person who sees it sends it to his friends with a similar opinion.
Well I said before Sheep should spawn closer to avoid missing them by luck, but I still think they should spawn so that in theory they could be stolen from a greedy Player. As mentioned before Iam not against laming at all, just against unfair and luck based parts of it like sheep laming of bad spawned sheeps that were impossible to find or Boar laming which really cant be countered if your Scout is actively scouting and by this even a few seconds away from your boar (and to idle your scout to âprotectâ a boar shouldnt be a âthe solutionâ for competitive reasons)
So I think just spawning Sheep close and not attack Boar with Scout does the deal.
At the moment Sheep can spawn so far out that you need 3 circles around your TC, if they spawn at a max of 2 then if you wouldnt found them on your second circle you know you missed a spot, giving you enough time to get them before the enemy instead of trying the 3th circle and not finding them.
Also if you dont have to scout at all then you could instantly go for Dear pushing which would also make the Game pretty greedy.
Overall no Attack vs Boar and 2 Circle Sheep should be fine to still enable fair forms of laming like punishing greedy non scouting Dear pushs as well as investing into Vil/ Drush laming which has an actual investment compared to the Scout.
You still have not responded to the reasons given to you as to why these solutions are bad/not viable.