I have been noticing that sometimes my opponents are blessed with berries that are in range of their TC. Since when has this been a thing in AOE? I just played a game where we both went scouts but I could not raid his berries cuz his TC fire could actually range them…
I’ve got games where berries where as far as the secondary gold, too. That only happened once, tho.
Problably something with map generation seeds. Shouldn’t be a problem, if the problem is not common enough.
Variety is the spice of life
3 Likes
Variety is the spice of life
Says the guy that only plays vs Ai. What do you know about online balance?..
Enemy players are enemy players. Multiplayer is multiplayer. I know it’s randomness and I love it. If you get dealt a ‘bad hand’ or unexpected hand, you live with it and are hopefully skilled enough to overcome any early misfortune.
To not be able to feast upon someone else’s berries or hit their berry gatherers early because the berries are too close to the TC? Meh. I applaud the devs for that, actually.
Sure, I primarily play AI, but also play ranked on occssion.
I don’t believe in civs being OP, but I like map and terrain randomnization, as it help makes the game world feel natural, and you sometimes have to overcome early disadvantages. As long as the random distribution of resources is fairly even and fairly evenly placed, I’m good and am not going to nitpick, whine, or complain. If resource distribution is aggregiously imbalanced, then, yeah… that’s a problem. But a player having berries near TC, sounds good to me. Guess you’ll have to adapt and find a different way to win.
PS: If having perfect balance is more your thing, you might enjoy playing chess and checkers instead. Or devs could make a checkbox in lobby, “Make this map a perfect mirror world, with cloned animals, trees, and berries living in a perfect mirror world, too. With berries outside the range of TCs.” Wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but have at it online MP extraordinaire.
3 Likes
If one has berries under TC while the other doesn’t, then this is an added unbalance. This did not used to happen, so it is created by DE. Definitely worth opposing.
Your skill is reflected in your opinion, anyone that is somewhat decent at pvp would not enjoy to keep cheezing AI’s.
1 Like
Which maps have you seen this on?
Your skill is reflected in your words, as it’s clear you struggle immensely to adapt to any unexpected variable, such as your enemy’s berries occasionally being one tile closer to their TC than you are to yours. Wow, if you can’t overcome that variable (let’s call it, “The Berry Conundrum”) then I don’t know how we can help you in this game, lol. Are you also worried when they have beautiful jumping fish a tile closer to their TC than you? Or what if you have a tree between you and your closest boar and they don’t? Quick, complain about it on the forum?
I enjoy cheezing AIs cuz I don’t have to play with or against people who complain about berries being too close to TCs 
How’s auto-scouting treating you these days?
3 Likes
It’s called map generation. If you only want to play the same equal map because you can’t play according to the circumstances, I’m afraid this game is not for you.
2 Likes
Exactly. Far too few of games do random map generation.
I hear Pac-Man is a really great game for those who need to play the same cookie-cutter levels every time. And power pellet postions are the same for everyone, so you’re safe in knowing if your High Score gets beat, it wasn’t because that person got a power pellet two pellets closer to the starting position than you did. Oh, darn… ghost pathing might be somewhat random, though. I better go write on the dev’s forum about this unfairness and how hard it is to adapt to randomness 
1 Like
I like to think: Considering the difference in the maps starts, could you beat YOURSELF in an 1v1? I mean, exactly same skill level.
If i’m playing vs myself and one side of the map is harder to wall/has all gold forward/has 2 sheeps locked in woods, i know that side would lose. Just like you have decision making to overcome issues, your opponent has desicion making to exploit issues - like you tower your foward gold expecting agression, but get flanked due to lack of good walls.
So, in an game where both have same skill - one could test it with AI in an handmade map - the one with more advantages should win. It’s almost logical. (maybe not with berries unless the same circuntances allow).
Sorry about wall of text. Woke up 5 mins ago.
1 Like
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re trying to say or what point you’re trying to make; and your having just woke up likely explains it 
EDIT: oh dear satan that’s an giant wall of text. I guess i got a little aristotelic on the way…
Ok so i will try to explain better. Please, keep in mind that i’m not talking only about the berries, but general configurations of resources - gold, wood, food.
Also, i’m using arbitrary suppositions of what is a “good map” or a “bad map” for each player.
Consider two AIs: Red and blue.
Blue is really unlucky. All of the games resulted in him getting “bad maps” - ranging from really open landscapes that disfavor walls, to forward gold mines and sheep locked in wood lines.
Red on the other hand, has access to TheViper’s map hacks, and thus has wonders in his side of the diamond - a really “good map”: Gold mines in the perfect spot, easy-to-lure board, sheep and deer, and wood lines that make walling really cheap.
It’s important point out: blue an red are robots, coded by the same person/group and without deep learning stuff, they don’t adquire knowledge about what their opponent will do next game. Also, they don’t know that the map is rigged - and can’t even deduce that.
Now, these two go to face each other in an series of one hundred 1v1 battles on arabia, going random mirror civs. Each battle presents the configuration mentioned before: Blue with “bad maps”, red with “good maps”.
Again, blue and red have the exact same skill. In an perfect mathematical world, the match has 50% chance of having blue win, and 50% chance of having red win. (I’d suggest SOTL video on how elo works - could shed some light in here). But, the “map is rigged” for red, and blue is presented with an harder time.
SOTL mentioned in his video about elo in aoe2 that everyone can have “good” or “bad” games. SOTL also mentions how a player with lower elo in a “good” game can beat a player with higher elo who is having a “bad” game. What defines good or bad games? Emotional factors and physical factors play an important role on that - if red’s arms started to hurt, he won’t micro as good. If blue went through a recent loss, he will be stressed during the game. But both players were considered robots in the last assumptions, all of the mentioned factors won’t apply.
It is important to note that a “good game” does not mean victory, and a “bad game” does not mean defeat. I’ve had some really bad games that i’ve won - “bad games” in the sense that i had physical (hunger, thirst due to long game) and emotional (i don’t want to talk about her) limitations. But i’ve also lost countless matches i lost having these same “bad games”. “Good games” follow the same recipe, but won’t be mentioned because it’s 1:00 of the ■■■■■■■ morning.
If we assume that the map plays an effect at whether the bot is having an good or bad game, we should define how much. Again, “bad maps” will be related to “bad games” and “good maps” related to “good games” - in an arbitrary way. A discussion whether if this should be considered true can happen in an later moment.
Red and blue have the same set of skills. But, due to the map generation “fraud”, blue will always have a bad game, while red will always have a good game. Empirical test should be the way to go, but the dawn comes close.
Now that possible misconceptions are cleared out of the way, the following could be considered:
- A) “An worse player having a great game can beat a better player who is just not having a good one”. Logically:
- B) “Two equally matched players in equal conditions have 50% chance each of winning”.
- C) “An average player having a great game can beat an average player who is just not having a good one”.
Logically, this would change the balance from 50/50 to the following numeric interval:
(0-50) / (50-100). It is showed as chance of winning / chance of winning
Let me explain it. The first interval is the guy having a bad game. We consider that bad games influence victory rates, but not how much. So he can have almost 50% chance of winning, but NEVER exact 50%. If the bad affects a lot, his chance will be close to zero - but never zero, in theory.
The second player has an chance of winning ranging from 50 to 100%, NEVER touching these limits due to effects of bad and good games. Considering closed intervals would say that good and bad games can play no effect at all.
Now, consider the following:
- C) “both red and blue are equally matched in terms of skills”
- D) “Blue will always have a bad game, red will always have good game”
Considering the ABC results, we can deduce that blue will always have a lower chance of winning than red. But how much? Just like that girl affected my good/bad games way more than thirst, some maps features are likely to change the “good/bad map” way more than others. This, of course, would allow we to categorize then:
Amount of impact: “bad feature”, “good feature”
- barely impactful (berries 3 tiles closer to TC, 3 tiles further from tc)
- a bit impactful (secondary stone in a bad spot to gather, like besides a cliff, or close to an wallable position)
- impactful (forward gold, protected gold);
- extremely impactful (boars locked inside a forest, deers besides berries).
These are categorized accordingly to earlier posts and discussions in the forums. We could also categorize then using their rarity, but it’s almost 2am in here.
All impact is impact and can’t be denied. Some have low impact, but in and equally skilled average game, they still apply influence on the result. They also deny each other: If both players have and “impactful” map feature, both would have an “bad game”. Since the sum of winning probabilities must always be 100%, it plays no effect in the chances.
Returning to red and blue sets of 1v1, red (presented with good extremely impactful features) should beat blue (presented with bad extremely impactful features) more than 50% of the time - specially in really long sets, where the sample size of games is so big that error factor doesn’t play an important role like in sets of 10/12 games.
Barely impactful features could also impact, as mentioned earlier. Barely impactful good features (berries closer to tc) for red give him an higher chance to win than blue with extremely impactful bad features.
Logically, this also applies to red with barely impactful good features facing blue with no impactful features at all. The formula says that if a player has something that makes him have a good/bad day, it will affect the chances of victory. Berries close to tc have an small impact, but still, and impact.
But in an 1v1, who should win: red or blue?
One game cannot decide - a big sample is need. In 10 games, red should win 5, and blue should win 5. That’s the elo math. But impacts on the map will change it - the “fraud” can make it 4/6, 3.5/7.5, or even 1/10. If blue was better than red, the A proposition would apply, making the game more “even” statistically. Red didn’t necessarily won because he was better - his elo/skill is lower - but because the map made things more even.
So, should SorryHaah have won or lost the game? I don’t know about his life, or if he had 8 hours of sleep, or his opponent elo. But it seems his opponent had a “good game” - even if it was an barely impactful map feature. If SorryHaah and his opponent rematch 100 times, without the berries, and SorryHaah lost more than 50, then the what make him lose was not the berries: his opponent is better than him. If the opponent elo was a bit lower yet he got the 50+1 victories, then one could say he didn’t had the right elo for him yet.
But if SorryHaah proved to dominate on the sets of rematches, then he lost due to “bad game” motivated by bad map features, thus motivated by RNG. An enthusiast could assign that to “luck”, and mention how an ranking system can never be based on luck of participants. But my brain is barely working anymore, and i’ve been typing for around one hour…
Quarantine is really getting into me. And i guess i should text her again…
1 Like
Whoa! That might beat all of my text walls 
Nicely done! Thanks for spending time clarifying! I will read tomorrow. Now it is me who is tired 
So I cant read now, Im afraid
1 Like
You don’t understand the nuance of the issue one bit, if you think this can just be shrudded away as map generation. Previously at least we could be sure that no resources were in TC range, apparently you have no issues with a degradation in mapgen. But what do you know. Your speciallity is delivering the cringe each day.
We should really play an 1v1 Arabia and then you tell me again who is bad at adapting 
@SorryHaah hopefully this is a map bug like the one with bad stone placements(typical on palisade walled map, forgot the name atm) , cows too far from tc or too close to enemy
If we played 1v1, I certainly know it would be game over for you from the start if my berries were within range of my TC; it’s clear you would have no idea how to overcome that huge disadvantage. Plus, you’re basically saying Arabia is the only map you play and know how to win at. Another fine example of your adaptability skills? Play some other map and you’d probably get confused and flustered and delete your Town Center at the very start of the game. Word of the day: “shrudded” lol.
PS: Sorry, @HerianB. I didn’t get to read your post today… but I will SOON! I appreciate your thought and effort.
1 Like
As long as you believe it, ignorance is bliss. Again you added nothing to the conversation, you can only bash those who notice the unfair mapgen that is apparently occuring since DE.
You could select any standard map, Arabia skills translate very well. Don’t worry about that. I invite you on HD, come send me a PM
Lol maybe shrudded is not a real word, but it sounded appropriate 11. Clearly I am not a native speaker.
No, you misunderstand 
I, actually, like hearing and learning of others’ opinions on this topic and others. I understand the berry issue and plight of others, and am cool with the game getting updated to address it. I just don’t appreciate your negative, inflammatory tone and dismissiveness as soon as I or anyone has some opinion you dislike; so I was just being dismissive of you and your thoughts for fun, in return You add little value to the conversation when you dole out personal jabs about people or how they play, or infer skill levels or abilities based on who they play (AI vs. Human) or what maps they play, unless you’re just trying really hard to start flame wars?
We’re all in this together and want updates that make the game enjoyable for us. Keeping the focus on the game and debating that as opposed to personal jabs would be most awesome! Do I really need to open this forum and read your cyber-bully’esque words continually trying to shut down and oppress opinions rather than having a good, positive discussion about them? Maybe others are cool with it, but when addressing me, please bring less condescensing personal jab dialogue (which is unproductive) and more discussion directly about the game itself.
Regarding the berries, let’s get 'em fixed! 
2 Likes
It’s what you get when you make a nonsensical argument that goes along the lines of; variety for the sake of variety. You started all the way back during the beta when you kept critisizing my topic that I put a lot of time in, since then you have continued making irrational comments on things you know little about. I respect any map or playstyle, just don’t start going out of line.
Seems like you have done a 180deg turn compared to your earlier comment.
To not be able to feast upon someone else’s berries or hit their berry gatherers early because the berries are too close to the TC? Meh. I applaud the devs for that, actually.
Yeah let’s open the option for added imbalance and directly remove raid opportunities and reduce the game options, applause.
I don’t believe in civs being OP, but I like map and terrain randomnization, as it help makes the game world feel natural, and you sometimes have to overcome early disadvantages. As long as the random distribution of resources is fairly even and fairly evenly placed, I’m good and am not going to nitpick, whine, or complain. If resource distribution is aggregiously imbalanced, then, yeah… that’s a problem. But a player having berries near TC, sounds good to me. Guess you’ll have to adapt and find a different way to win…
Your arguments make no sense, do not adress the issue and contradict themselves. You are just projecting your nonchalance and justify this change as “others struggling to adapt”.
PS: If having perfect balance is more your thing, you might enjoy playing chess and checkers instead. Or devs could make a checkbox in lobby, “Make this map a perfect mirror world, with cloned animals, trees, and berries living in a perfect mirror world, too. With berries outside the range of TCs.” Wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but have at it online MP extraordinaire.
Not to mention this piece of text that is a gross generalization of the issue that ignores all the nuance and is only meant to misportray my views.