This comes as a reflection on ranked ao2 multiplayer games after more than 400 games in ranked. I have gathered sufficient material and have already sufficient experience to have some opinion on the playability of those games.
I notice that most ranked multiplayer games are lately just a race game and just that. A race of who is the fastest, not who has the best play. Literelly, race race race race race. No thinking. Just click click click very fast. And castle drop castle drop castle drop. Then quick imp, treb and bombard. Rush rush rush even faster… All in 10 minutes? Seriously? How come gamers come to this??? Clown-world show at his best. Congratulations.
I’m sorry. But that is not elegant. That is not strategy. If this procedure (which I do not even call strategy) gives you light-speed victories by not allowing opponents to play is your usual play, and if for you the end justifies the means, you’re not playing by the rules. In real world, the means are even more important than the end, so I suggest you reflect on it. You want to be respected as a player? Allow the enemy team to play and don’t steamroll them before they don’t enough time to have their things set up.
That is not even what real strategy looks like. It’s disgusting and anti-play. You don’t let opponents be strong enough to face them, you just race to finish the game as fast as possible and that is not clean game. It’s not good game, so stop folling or trolling. This is why I say further rules need to be established in game, ortherwise you will only get a disgusting rat race of 15 minutes-40minutes, and not a game where players need to think for a long time.
In real strategy, militarily speaking, when adversaries confront, it’s not about who gets the base built the fastest, who gets everything done in a Usain Bolt race style. This is unrealistic and completely fake. When armies confront, the armies are generally “size-comparable”, and when one attacks the other is not still building up. Technically, adversaries are more or less prepared for confrontation when it comes. It’s not "I’m 1’ seconds faster than you so I win because I’m 9.564574683657653848886 milliseconds first than you.
Yes. Ranking has comes to this. And it looks ridiculous. Because you are playing fast and furious at 500 mph and not a strategy game where players are supposed to have a sufficient enough time to prepare before attacking (consider this as pre-war state, which has to be the same for every player and allowing a decent enough time to prepare, not some ridiculous 5 minutes!).
Rushes will no longer work, but in military strategy is rush the norm? No. You may have “surprise attacks” - which are not completely unexpected - but even after that, the enemy has its time to react and you have to expect a counter-strategy.
Oh, but that is no longer a 100 meter race game. So I logically understand, where the “critics” for that may come from. Just like Caesar’s wife, it’s not enough for those critics to be honest, they need to appear some sort of honesty. I’m not sure how creating hundreds of new profiles for a same player with 0 games played makes a gamer serious… As serious as the players who early quit on game-start, after 5-10 minutes (to not be that obvious), or who verbally insult/bully team players (I witnessed that lovely experience too).
Where there is only race game, there is no strategy possible.
This is why sufficient treaty time must be introduced.
40 minutes of treaty
- to advance through the last age. (there is no age disparity)
- to have comparable economies (allowing for every team member to mass troops with similar economy)
- prevents dirty steamrolling of opponents early on (anti-gaming strategies stopped)
- prevents dirty rush procedures (castle-dropping or tower-dropping)
- forces team players to have more advanced strategies to win a game (you will no longer win by racing to attack your opponents before they attack you, you will alway need to display some tactics to counter enemy team)
But treaty time alone is just a starting point.
Considering all the problems explained, ranked games should start with sufficient treaty time or players will be continuously be steamrolled under 15-30 minutes by hyper-aggressive racers who continously trash the game by stopping players from even having a chance to build armies and face them.
Players shoud also not be able to build near the vicinities of enemy bases in treaty time, and for that there should be a grey zone frontline(see the end) where no one can build or move in treaty time.
Basic also. Castles should not be able to be built in enemy territory. Why? This comes from reality. When you move deep into enemy territory, logistics always ends up somehow disrupted so you should not be able to harvest your usual manpower there. Castles, such a complex defense structure, shouldn’t be possible to build in war territory where there is fierce fighting. If it’s enemy territory, you should not be able to farm, build troops or even set a base! You should have to bring your forces there, conquer the territory (I will give my ideas of what is “owned territory” in the end) and only then you should be able to unlock those buildings. I think this is a major flaw in the game. You can build anything pretty much anywhere and it shouldn’t be the case…
I think that towers and walls could be built in war areas, as these are considered frontline infrastructure (i.e. think like towers, palisades, gates and walls) but castles should fall ## ### #### of an army, because they are like army bases and army bases are not in the frontlines! So you should be able to build castles in your base and not anywhere you want. Houses and anything economic or civilian should not be buildable on the frontlines (outside base area)
Also a limited number of castles per player should be established (i.e. 3-4). Because every army has not infinite forts available, all armies generally have a few and that’s it. Forts work like army bases, and if they act as key military infrastructure, they should be costly and you should have only a few. General headquarters are supposed to be centralized and few not a series of n-forts built like houses. You should not be able to build 60 farms and 60 castles… To make up for this, nothing should be buildable by enemy player/enemy team in castle radius area (i.e. 20 range, since trebs can go to 17, as siege area should be a bit away from base area).
The last issue I can think of, in treaty period, is malicious building by enemy team. Aware that they can’t attack you in treaty time, they would try to build/place troops or villagers in enemy territory expecting to strike as soon as treaty time ends. This is why no one should not be able to move units or build any structure in enemy territory before treaty ends. No sneaky castle or sneaky dirty tricks no player can’t defend from. Period.
As for the “owned territory”, meaning territory that is virtually controlled by the player/team, only in territory such as this would you be able to build everything. If the territory is not controlled by the player/his team, only frontline buildings should be buildable by the player/his team. The logic is that you can’t make a key infrascturure or complex buildings in a territory you do not fully control. How to make a territory controlled? You have to eliminate enemy castles and town center in the area and build first your own town center there. Only then, should you be able to build anything else, even a castle.
The “owned territory” should incorporate a certain radius-area from the town-center, which would be the same for all players. Castles should have a radius-area too, that prevents enemy player/teams from building near there.
As for the “grey area frontline”, it should be any area that is not directly controlled by a player. This should include: 1) areas where two enemy town center/ castle radiuses collide; 2) areas outside of any player town center/castle, not controlled by anyone; 3) areas where a player/team town centers and castles have been destroyed by enemy but where the enemy has not build a town center in the place.
If good game (gg) is the goal, then this is a list of key issues to look for. That is, if you don’t want “gg” to be an empty word. In any case, I’ve underlined aspects and loopholes that still need to be improved by strategy game developpers. These aspects would considerably improve the playability of the game and would make it more realistic.