The Water Thread !

[CuCkO0]

BSOP, space comes after a comma or period, not before.

Preach it brother

[[Armag] diarouga]

Dia, most of us know water isn''t OP. Not sure where you''re getting the "nobody" from. There are maybe 3 people in this thread calling water OP.
BSOP, space comes after a comma or period, not before.

OK. I don''t think I need to re say that many people find water funny, let''s stop here^^.

[Qulala]

I want to see water battles
yes land is ok etc.. but nothing beats a spectactaculair water fight.. even your 'crazy' land micro cant beat a nice water fight.
And people arguing water is OP or lame if you win that way... if its so strong, use it .. you want to win, dont you? or complain afterwards that he didnt win fair because he abuses the water?, its survival of the fittest.

And maybe make it for a tournementall fixed: like a Dutch vs Dutch water or Spain vs spain or portugal, i missed these civs too in this tournement. then you have already 2 things who were not in the last one, to make it more interesting for the viewers.

I am one of the many i think who rediscovered his love for AoE 3 through this tournement. i found it by accident on Youtube via veni's and inters channel, and followed the whole tournement, i never knew it was still alive, good Job all keep it up

[Garja]

[quote source="/post/6213/thread" timestamp="1430315551" author="@blasdg"]Water is broken. Full stop.

1st argument: Some civs have schooners, others dont. Wait, what? Water boom without schooners is NEVER viable unless you are so far ahead of your opponent that it doenst matter what you do. Strictly speaking: Some civs are just infinitely stronger on water maps as others - which is a complete flaw.

2nd argument: Ships are WAY too good vs land units and vs their counters. Especially when you consider monitors SLAUGHTERING cannons and buildings.

3rd argument: Water gives you food AND gold which is completely crazy, because you dont need a land economy then. Either remove whales and increase the gathering rate for normal fish or simply make whales give food - infinitely! That way water still makes sense in the late game!

4th argument: Some civs have BETTER upgrades than others, and by better I mean SO MUCH BETTER. Aztec water dance is just INSANE! Sioux Siege dance also affects boats and their dmg - wtf? Japan water, ever seen that? Now compare that to say Russia on water. Hahaha ... :/

5th argument: Ship micro is insanely stupid. Who the hell had the idea that ships have to stand still for shooting? Much micro, so skill, many shoots - WOW! Then the random fire rate - what a design flaw AGAIN!

6th argument: The playstyle is incredibly boring. Sure, its something different, but we shouldnt emphasize boring playstyles just because they are different. Non-interactive gameplay ist something that should not be viable.

7th argument: Its SO frustrating to play against. Let me tell you something: I was playing on great Lakes and played vs Ottoman fish boom from as early as age 1, I was Russia. I rushed him, killed his TC, had all 6 TPs and still couldnt finish the game because his explorer had built a TC on the island, he was age 3 and had MAX amounts of ships. I had to go to age 5 (!!!) to build frigging IMPERIAL HOWITZERS to deal with this bullshit. I saw a stream of Soldier like 4 weeks ago vs some idiot who played Japan and was PURELY on water on Patagonia, walled the entire map and did NOTHING except for shooting stuff with ships! Twitch chat was like "what a parasite play style", I couldnt have said it better.


tl'dr:
I will surrender every single time when I see a water map and I dont use QS cause you cant surrender there without taking a loss. Thats how pissed I am.

EDIT: One funny game vs Samwise12 (Like 5 years ago, rec should be somewhere on ageS): He was portugese, I was dutch. Map was Saguenay. He played schooners age 1 and wanted to build docks with his villagers. I had my Envoy sitting there with my explorer and had my minutemand ready (on 1 HP). Killed 3 vills total and delayed his docks, forced a TC next to his 1st TC, all out pike rushed him and won under 6 minutes. Man I was so proud, haha 111[/quote]

I'm not denying water has some issues, but you're just exagerating.

1) some civs don't need schooners boom due to their land power. French and Germans essentially. Sioux and Iros are also kind of the same.

2) Not entirely true, cannons beat boats per cost, it's just a matter of micro. Yes boats have more cards but cannons have that arsenal tech that also affects buildings. Land unit also beat boats in small ponds. Boats do fine for their cost, they become quite good with some ups, just like every unit.

3) Ye the resource aspect is perhaps the one that is a bit off. Infinite gold is too good when you can gather with too many boats. It just makes the whole water strat too viable and harder to counter.

4) True, but that's only with civs that have offshore support. And it's not even that huge of a difference if there is other stuff to compensate. Btw biggest ups for ships come from the dock. People barely research them. Russia have great navy.

5) Not true, ships are micrable. It's not random, most ships have ROF 2.0 and 0.05 with broadside attack. Actually the micro in ship vs ship is one of the most rewarding in the game due to the repair ability.

6) It depends on the map and the MU really. Also on the player. If one guy makes 5 layers of wall don't blame the water mechanic, blame the player.

7) Yes it may be frustrating to have to play for 30 mins for games that are over in 10, but I can tell you that once you know how to properly deal with it is much less frustrating.

[Kynesie]

And people arguing water is OP or lame if you win that way... if its so strong, use it ..

+1000 !
Just to say, on water map u can play brit, jap, port ( for boom) and azteck , india and spain vs boom. 6 civ are ok / 12 ( consider oto ans iro unplayable, but they are good on water ).when i read that only 2or 3 civ are viable on water... -_-'' How many civ are viable on siberia ? not more than any water map...


And i forget china ! they are really effective vs a water boom... 7/12 are ok

[bart331]

Also if u scout opponent on water there are effective counter measures, so i dont see problem.

Everyones agree water aint OP but people dont agree on allowing them :S

[jono]

Sorry but if the water map has say more than 4 whales, and Jap goes full out wall crazy (looking at you Kynesie) then it's pretty hard to play against. Japan can get to age 3 before you've got through 7 layers of walls, and we consistently say that the best way to beat Japan is a timing push of around 8-10 minutes, which isn't possible with too many walls. With water and some wood within walled off area, Japan isn't too dependant on map, so the map control helps if you try to boom but is unlikely to counter the water & Japan strength late game.

Sure maybe it's not unbeatable with certain strategies and in certain match ups, but it's certainly hard to play against. Feel free to test it out and post some recs...

[Garja]

If jap doesn't shrine boom the timing push thing doesn't really apply. Basically jap on water is an average civ with good units.
You just go for the water in this case because he has nothing on land.
And it's not you don't see it coming when he will have hardcore sea deck and barely andy shrine up in transition.

[deleted_user0]

I feel you crying inside gs :/ i can feel it

[purplesquid]

In my personal (and probably uneducated) opinion the real problem is the schooners card. 40 wood for a vill? That is just stupid. I agree with gs that it should supplement the land eco not replace it. If boats always cost 100 wood whales would not be as big of a deal and harder to lame with 4 docks (aka 200 wood tcs). Now in return i think that maybe docks/warships should be slightly cheaper giving more of a military reason to go water

[Kynesie]

In my personal (and probably uneducated) opinion the real problem is the schooners card. 40 wood for a vill? That is just stupid. I agree with gs that it should supplement the land eco not replace it. If boats always cost 100 wood whales would not be as big of a deal and harder to lame with 4 docks (aka 200 wood tcs). Now in return i think that maybe docks/warships should be slightly cheaper giving more of a military reason to go water

If water is just a supplement, most people don t use it, as we saw in last tourney...
For schooners..., already both player have schooners. And if you don t want use it, it s not really a disadvantage but u need to push fast (push land + water is probably the best way).

[glorious_]

I don't enjoy wmats too but I think it's a nice alternation to the land maps where actually everybody makes the same strats.

[Veni_Vidi_Vici_W]

Ok, so this is for now my last comment regarding the whole water issue. I really hope Im wrong with the fact that water is too strong, but so far I have yet to be proven wrong other than some theoretical comments. If its fair enough, then sure lets bring some more water strats/battles.

So, take the following into account:
- Blackstar, if water "generally shouldnt work in 1v1" and "is perfectly beatable", then please explain the following. You are seen as one of the best 1/1 players atm, which i agree with. You played vs Kynesie who (no offense) is far from being equal with your skill level. In the game on hudson bay you choose India (Top 3 strongest civ many would say) where he had Ports (not even Japs). The map was Garja's version of Sagenuay, so water is not as strong as before. Some even think Kynesie made some mistakes in how he played this out. Yet, it still took you 26 minutes to win the game (I realize it needs time vs this strat, but imagine if it was Japs or normal water map).

- We have discussed water before, and there you basically agreed that its too strong (for some civs), mainly because most of the water maps have enough resources to win before land eco superiority gets the upper hand. Most of this based on the fact that you hide near the water, ranged cards for ship defense and get monitors out in the 4th age. I remember you even told me you might do similar strats if not for the adjusted maps.

- Why did water get nerfed in the FanPatch 1.2 where like 20 of the best players in the community agreed on that?
I have had my fair bit of water laming too long ago, but I decided not to anymore, because i dont think its good to and dont like to win by abusing unbalanced aspects of the game, similar to unbalanced units like BR.

- With "too strong" im not referring to the fact that it might be 100% unbeatable. If, say, 3 players here are able to beat water barely (if thats really the case), even then you can still wonder whether its too strong and giving an unfair edge in like 99% of the other games. If you need to be much better than your opponent and/or use a generally considered stronger civ and/or not allowed to make as many mistakes as your opponent, is that how it should be?

(and @skyrunner, that there are similar strats is because many of the maps were similar. It will be fixed for next time to get more variety in strats.)

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ok, so this is for now my last comment regarding the whole water issue. I really hope Im wrong with the fact that water is too strong, but so far I have yet to be proven wrong other than some theoretical comments. If its fair enough, then sure lets bring some more water strats/battles.

So, take the following into account:
- Blackstar, if water "generally shouldnt work in 1v1" and "is perfectly beatable", then please explain the following. You are seen as one of the best 1/1 players atm, which i agree with. You played vs Kynesie who (no offense) is far from being equal with your skill level. In the game on hudson bay you choose India (Top 3 strongest civ many would say) where he had Ports (not even Japs). The map was Garja''s version of Sagenuay, so water is not as strong as before. Some even think Kynesie made some mistakes in how he played this out. Yet, it still took you 26 minutes to win the game (I realize it needs time vs this strat, but imagine if it was Japs or normal water map).

- We have discussed water before, and there you basically agreed that its too strong (for some civs), mainly because most of the water maps have enough resources to win before land eco superiority gets the upper hand. Most of this based on the fact that you hide near the water, ranged cards for ship defense and get monitors out in the 4th age. I remember you even told me you might do similar strats if not for the adjusted maps.

- Why did water get nerfed in the FanPatch 1.2 where like 20 of the best players in the community agreed on that?
I have had my fair bit of water laming too long ago, but I decided not to anymore, because i dont think its good to and dont like to win by abusing unbalanced aspects of the game, similar to unbalanced units like BR.

- With "too strong" im not referring to the fact that it might be 100% unbeatable. If, say, 3 players here are able to beat water barely (if thats really the case), even then you can still wonder whether its too strong and giving an unfair edge in like 99% of the other games. If you need to be much better than your opponent and/or use a generally considered stronger civ and/or not allowed to make as many mistakes as your opponent, is that how it should be?

(and @skyrunner, that there are similar strats is because many of the maps were similar. It will be fixed for next time to get more variety in strats.)

kynesie''s water boom is far better than bs water boom.
Sure bs is far better on land, but I don''t see why he should be better on water too...

[Garja]

Ok, so this is for now my last comment regarding the whole water issue. I really hope Im wrong with the fact that water is too strong, but so far I have yet to be proven wrong other than some theoretical comments. If its fair enough, then sure lets bring some more water strats/battles.

So, take the following into account:
- Blackstar, if water "generally shouldnt work in 1v1" and "is perfectly beatable", then please explain the following. You are seen as one of the best 1/1 players atm, which i agree with. You played vs Kynesie who (no offense) is far from being equal with your skill level. In the game on hudson bay you choose India (Top 3 strongest civ many would say) where he had Ports (not even Japs). The map was Garja''s version of Sagenuay, so water is not as strong as before. Some even think Kynesie made some mistakes in how he played this out. Yet, it still took you 26 minutes to win the game (I realize it needs time vs this strat, but imagine if it was Japs or normal water map).

- We have discussed water before, and there you basically agreed that its too strong (for some civs), mainly because most of the water maps have enough resources to win before land eco superiority gets the upper hand. Most of this based on the fact that you hide near the water, ranged cards for ship defense and get monitors out in the 4th age. I remember you even told me you might do similar strats if not for the adjusted maps.

- Why did water get nerfed in the FanPatch 1.2 where like 20 of the best players in the community agreed on that?
I have had my fair bit of water laming too long ago, but I decided not to anymore, because i dont think its good to and dont like to win by abusing unbalanced aspects of the game, similar to unbalanced units like BR.

- With "too strong" im not referring to the fact that it might be 100% unbeatable. If, say, 3 players here are able to beat water barely (if thats really the case), even then you can still wonder whether its too strong and giving an unfair edge in like 99% of the other games. If you need to be much better than your opponent and/or use a generally considered stronger civ and/or not allowed to make as many mistakes as your opponent, is that how it should be?

(and @skyrunner, that there are similar strats is because many of the maps were similar. It will be fixed for next time to get more variety in strats.)

The truth is in the current meta most of players don''t know how to deal with water. It''s not they are bad or anything, it''s just that they ignore how to deal with unconventional strats. Water guys, on the other hand, clearly know how to abuse it and the weakness points.

Water is indeed strong if doesn''t get punished but so is a TP boom for example. Most of people play standard vs water and claim to win, that''s of course a bad claim, isn''t it?

[Kynesie]

Totally agree with you (everything can happen^^) ! Generally people just do a wrong strat vs water boom...
Most people rarely plays water,therefore they are inexperienced in this particular meta game.

[benj89]

The truth is in the current meta most of players don''t know how to deal with water. It''s not they are bad or anything, it''s just that they ignore how to deal with unconventional strats. Water guys, on the other hand, clearly know how to abuse it and the weakness points.

Water is indeed strong if doesn''t get punished but so is a TP boom for example. Most of people play standard vs water and claim to win, that''s of course a bad claim, isn''t it?

thats it
how many time i heard people saying they dont play water because they find it cheated, while in reality they just don''t know how to water/adapt their play style (to the point they refuse to make a water deck >'<').
(not talking abt anyone in this thread)

and as kynesie explained, several civ can deal with water boom

[princeofkabul]

Good players talking here Like it's easy to beat water. You just do realize we're talking about map which is hardcore water map? Abusing waterplay is meant also of some civs. So civ viarety comes less wide on these heavy water maps. And who claims warships aren't "lame" is just completely retard who haven't ever played vs these waterclowns in hispaniola and lose to monitors and frigs with range card. No land units in the first 20 mins or so.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Good players talking here Like it''s easy to beat water. You just do realize we''re talking about map which is hardcore water map? Abusing waterplay is meant also of some civs. So civ viarety comes less wide on these heavy water maps. And who claims warships aren''t "lame" is just completely retard who haven''t ever played vs these waterclowns in hispaniola and lose to monitors and frigs with range card. No land units in the first 20 mins or so.

Well, I was talking about sag... On hispa, water is indeed lame.

[Garja]

Ye of course on hispaniola or even borneo water is the main theme. And yes offshore support has been an issue since TWC. Then again the whole water laming is often overrated. I mean if you look at a rec game from the water lamer POV you realize how bad and counterable it actually is.

[Hazza54321]

Water is interesting to watch but is lame as hate how they can make no units but boats and just turtle along the coast and then get an unstoppable army (20 range goons hc for example).
Even though culvs are good the opponent can just make culvs against yours and then their ships can do crazy damage to land units. You could do almost do everything right as a land player but still lose the game and its very frustating.
Thats just my opinion though.

[boneng]

As a player who plays water quite often, let me voice my opinions about some of the discussions in this thread.

Firstly I will make it very clear that my opinion is that viable water maps should be featured in tournament maps, in fact it should be featured in about half of the map pool. The reason for this is, it adds another level of strategic depth to the game, and it also makes some of the weaker land civs like Spain and Portugal playable in tournaments meaning more variety of matchups. We all know that since the map pool in the last tournament was rather similar, it ended up with same civs and matchups like Germany, France, Britain, India, japan being played way too much.

Now, there has been many arguments against sea on this thread, most notably the following, so i have written my opinion against these

1. It is too OP (or you need to outclass your opponent to win)
As blackstar and Garja, some of the best players who are better at macro have pointed out, it is not OP. It is just that most people don't know how to counter it. The people who have tried booming on water know that it is not overpowered, so it is clearly this is not a valid point. Let me point out one example about me vs Nayuki on QS. As most people know who watch my stream, I win 80% of games where he waterboom since i know how to counter it, whatever civ i use. You just need some good macro skills to overcome water. Obviously, people who blindly do the same strategy and do not adapt to the opponents strategy will lose. Sometimes reading some of the opinions on this thread makes me think that the opinion of some people is, if you cant beat your opponent using "the one best tactic" such as a flawless musket hussar with France of Semi-ff with Germany, it is OP. Why? because I have executed my build perfectly so if I deserve the win. Absolute Stupidity! Of course you lose if you dont adapt to different situations, there is no "one best build" for each civ. After all this is a strategy game!

2. You can win purely by taking the water. (or it can replace land economy)
Yes there are some extreme water builds like what Nayuki does all the time. Yes they can win games if you let them do it. But this is true for everything. If you let Japan or China FI then they will be obviously be OP. If you let Britain hard boom they are "OP". Thats why you dont let them do it. People understand that you need to counter land booming to win, but as soon as the topic changes to water booming, people tend to stop thinking about countering the tactic and say, "if i cannot win by going pure land its wrong." Let me repeat again, this is a strategy game. Much like you dont give a heavy land boomer free control of resources, you simply dont let a heavy water boomer free access to water. Also you have to get the idea out of their head that the person with most control of land should win games. There is no viable reason why winning on land should equate to victory.

3. Not fun
Well since most people think sioux mirror is not fun should we ban this matchup from the next tournament?

Lastly let me say that I dont think water is perfectly balanced, but neither is land. Too many people have an allergic reaction playing against water booming, but looking at the facts, there is no viable argument for having little or no heavy water maps.
Also my opinion is that the water maps made by Garja on the last tournament (which were of excellent quality) had way too little resources on water to make it viable to go boom on water, so by water maps, I am referring to maps from the standard map pool like Yucatan and sagunay etc.

[Goodspeed]

3. Not fun
Well since most people think sioux mirror is not fun should we ban this matchup from the next tournament?

I would probably say yes here if I knew what a Sioux was.

[princeofkabul]

[quote author="@boneng" source="/post/8094/thread" timestamp="1431446060"]As a player who plays water quite often, let me voice my opinions about some of the discussions in this thread.

Firstly I will make it very clear that my opinion is that viable water maps should be featured in tournament maps, in fact it should be featured in about half of the map pool. The reason for this is, it adds another level of strategic depth to the game, and it also makes some of the weaker land civs like Spain and Portugal playable in tournaments meaning more variety of matchups. We all know that since the map pool in the last tournament was rather similar, it ended up with same civs and matchups like Germany, France, Britain, India, japan being played way too much.

Now, there has been many arguments against sea on this thread, most notably the following, so i have written my opinion against these

1. It is too OP (or you need to outclass your opponent to win)
As blackstar and Garja, some of the best players who are better at macro have pointed out, it is not OP. It is just that most people don't know how to counter it. The people who have tried booming on water know that it is not overpowered, so it is clearly this is not a valid point. Let me point out one example about me vs Nayuki on QS. As most people know who watch my stream, I win 80% of games where he waterboom since i know how to counter it, whatever civ i use. You just need some good macro skills to overcome water. Obviously, people who blindly do the same strategy and do not adapt to the opponents strategy will lose. Sometimes reading some of the opinions on this thread makes me think that the opinion of some people is, if you cant beat your opponent using "the one best tactic" such as a flawless musket hussar with France of Semi-ff with Germany, it is OP. Why? because I have executed my build perfectly so if I deserve the win. Absolute Stupidity! Of course you lose if you dont adapt to different situations, there is no "one best build" for each civ. After all this is a strategy game!

2. You can win purely by taking the water. (or it can replace land economy)
Yes there are some extreme water builds like what Nayuki does all the time. Yes they can win games if you let them do it. But this is true for everything. If you let Japan or China FI then they will be obviously be OP. If you let Britain hard boom they are "OP". Thats why you dont let them do it. People understand that you need to counter land booming to win, but as soon as the topic changes to water booming, people tend to stop thinking about countering the tactic and say, "if i cannot win by going pure land its wrong." Let me repeat again, this is a strategy game. Much like you dont give a heavy land boomer free control of resources, you simply dont let a heavy water boomer free access to water. Also you have to get the idea out of their head that the person with most control of land should win games. There is no viable reason why winning on land should equate to victory.

3. Not fun
Well since most people think sioux mirror is not fun should we ban this matchup from the next tournament?

Lastly let me say that I dont think water is perfectly balanced, but neither is land. Too many people have an allergic reaction playing against water booming, but looking at the facts, there is no viable argument for having little or no heavy water maps.
Also my opinion is that the water maps made by Garja on the last tournament (which were of excellent quality) had way too little resources on water to make it viable to go boom on water, so by water maps, I am referring to maps from the standard map pool like Yucatan and sagunay etc.[/quote]
What do you mean by macro skills? Stockpiling 1k food and gold? XD
Playing vs water is Like ticking clock, if you want to win u have to do it fast. Otherwise you will get molested by ships and infinite water eco. This waterstyle is more harder to beat than china FI's and so on. Cause engaging vs town which is build near sea is just stupid and not Cost effective ever. Later on game killing ships with their "counter" unit becomes impossible. How can you say there's nothing wrong with water and it's easily countered?
Also if you want to beat water with ur own waterplay, you need to have better upgrades on your ships. If you don't manage to destroy ur opponents water early on before upgrades comes to play it's game there already cause you invested so much on your waterplay.

[Goodspeed]

He wants you to counter it by fighting water.

Yay balance! ')