AoE3's "Stale Meta"
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
Memeotto not mentioned? I've been trying to do some meta for them cause otherwise they suck and I get only flame/people refusing to play me :(
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
@Mitoe :
The perfect balance would be to make every civ alike but no one wants that monotonic game. But in limits of reason and justification some things could be addressed or addressed better.
First, I want to explain few points and I am sure that you will be aware of the concept.
1. When we say aggressive, we mean the civ that puts pressure early on right after you can build military i.e. age 2. If you have some other definition of aggressive then please share. It depends on MU mostly, one would be aggressive in one mu while defensive in other. The usual rule is the civ with sustainable advantage will try to prolong the conflict and go on defensive while other tries to break it before some critical point.
2. The concept of unit upgrades follow a general rule except a few exceptions i.e. they all based on a units' base stats. So in other term, changing base stat of a units effects all such upgrades too. The concept of upgrade is to give enhanced stats with same cost (few exceptions). The more upgrades a units has , the more better it perform with same cost.
3. The map do effect the play style but when we opt to create our own maps the reverse is also true. The Re maps have some flaws mostly with fair spawns but ppl still don't like them that do spawn alright. The reason being the resources in TC range. On a good RE map, you can get lot of hunts or mines but not within a short range of TC except 2 hunts or mines etc. One particular example is Yucatan, it spawns reasonably fair, good hunts/mines, double side water , lot of tress but it never got to see any play as far as I have seen.
4. The general player mentality is a thing. Everyone like to win and they try to go for the strongest civs or strongest options. This is the very reason you have got new favorites after every major EP change. The only exception is perhaps @Aizamk who usually doesn't do that and choose less stronger civs/options even in tournaments. And there is a reason for that because he feels an obligation to prove something all the time and for entertainment purposes. I can see how many games in tournaments he have thrown away by this behavior and let himself be mocked by lesser players but the choice is his ofc.
And now to your points:
a) Dragoon is an age 3 unit and it has practically nothing to do with aggressiveness. ( as I have mention above. )
b) Wall nerf only needed bcz of map changes, in RE wall doesn't matter much in 1v1 bcz you don't have ample resources inside the walls. It can give you a momentarily edge but if you are not gathering you are practically dead ,( a few mins later in actual). But on EP you can get2-3 hunts and mines inside the walls and you are set for age 3 combat and to contest the map with tech advantage.
c) The Iro and Otto nerf are two fold, they were good bcz map and civs and you havechanged them both to make them practically unplayable except few niche situations. Jans got nerfed to the point where they are not usable. Otto units already scales poor and with these changes they bad late game and mediocre mid game is turned into worst and bad respectively. And now they are not effective to put an early pressure and geared toward a semi-ff meta.
d) Sepoy , Idk what to say. There are an improvement on Jans from nilla with the same cost (approx), they have high hand attk like jans and x3 (improvement), they even fight with swords like jans unlike other musketeers. Higher attack than jan but fewer hp and very much better than jans.
e) I think Japan yumi nerf is reverted?? The china livestock nerf is a bit too much. Old Han nerf is debatable bcz they have to go to age 4 (unlikely 1v1) and second china units are difficult to work with??
f) Ports vil change is unreasonable, they got tc wagon with age up already. Dutch XP increase is okay but default 5 bank limit is overkill.
g) German Uhlan were already fragile and you not only decrease there HP , you reduced there 4 upgrade cards and many more in different buildings. Given that the WW are slow to catch up with dragoons.
h) 3 more strelet is a joke , it is a practically one time send only and there important things before taking advantage of 3 stretlets .
i) Sious teepee eco is ridiculous , they meant to have a weal eco while best cav for compensation.
(Just a thought, Ep changes the base stats of some units e.g. jans/ uhlans while he changes other things reluctantly of other units e.g. dragoons. Why not reduce the hp of dragoons rather than range resist? Which also a step to semi-ff meta.)
As a conclusive comment that why meta is this particular way is my points 2,3,4: the maps , the unit stats and finally the player mentality they all effect each other and effect the meta. I will not say it is always semi-ff but it usually is bcz its the strongest option. In some situation, ppl like to do a sepoy rush bcz thats strong for now and they don't do a jan rush bcz thats not working. And the reason is we changed the "maps" , "units" "other things" and which ultimately changed a meta. Just an example, remove the penalty from German Inf speed tech (Church) and see how many ppl will have fun with ultra fast dopps.
We are the initiator of change and we are effected by it like a vicious cycle.
P.S. thanks for your detailed reply and there are some ppl here like diarouga who think your can only say things when you are pr-35+. I think there should be a detailed post about different civs strengths and weakness. If it is there then I haven't seen it.
The perfect balance would be to make every civ alike but no one wants that monotonic game. But in limits of reason and justification some things could be addressed or addressed better.
First, I want to explain few points and I am sure that you will be aware of the concept.
1. When we say aggressive, we mean the civ that puts pressure early on right after you can build military i.e. age 2. If you have some other definition of aggressive then please share. It depends on MU mostly, one would be aggressive in one mu while defensive in other. The usual rule is the civ with sustainable advantage will try to prolong the conflict and go on defensive while other tries to break it before some critical point.
2. The concept of unit upgrades follow a general rule except a few exceptions i.e. they all based on a units' base stats. So in other term, changing base stat of a units effects all such upgrades too. The concept of upgrade is to give enhanced stats with same cost (few exceptions). The more upgrades a units has , the more better it perform with same cost.
3. The map do effect the play style but when we opt to create our own maps the reverse is also true. The Re maps have some flaws mostly with fair spawns but ppl still don't like them that do spawn alright. The reason being the resources in TC range. On a good RE map, you can get lot of hunts or mines but not within a short range of TC except 2 hunts or mines etc. One particular example is Yucatan, it spawns reasonably fair, good hunts/mines, double side water , lot of tress but it never got to see any play as far as I have seen.
4. The general player mentality is a thing. Everyone like to win and they try to go for the strongest civs or strongest options. This is the very reason you have got new favorites after every major EP change. The only exception is perhaps @Aizamk who usually doesn't do that and choose less stronger civs/options even in tournaments. And there is a reason for that because he feels an obligation to prove something all the time and for entertainment purposes. I can see how many games in tournaments he have thrown away by this behavior and let himself be mocked by lesser players but the choice is his ofc.
And now to your points:
a) Dragoon is an age 3 unit and it has practically nothing to do with aggressiveness. ( as I have mention above. )
b) Wall nerf only needed bcz of map changes, in RE wall doesn't matter much in 1v1 bcz you don't have ample resources inside the walls. It can give you a momentarily edge but if you are not gathering you are practically dead ,( a few mins later in actual). But on EP you can get2-3 hunts and mines inside the walls and you are set for age 3 combat and to contest the map with tech advantage.
c) The Iro and Otto nerf are two fold, they were good bcz map and civs and you havechanged them both to make them practically unplayable except few niche situations. Jans got nerfed to the point where they are not usable. Otto units already scales poor and with these changes they bad late game and mediocre mid game is turned into worst and bad respectively. And now they are not effective to put an early pressure and geared toward a semi-ff meta.
d) Sepoy , Idk what to say. There are an improvement on Jans from nilla with the same cost (approx), they have high hand attk like jans and x3 (improvement), they even fight with swords like jans unlike other musketeers. Higher attack than jan but fewer hp and very much better than jans.
e) I think Japan yumi nerf is reverted?? The china livestock nerf is a bit too much. Old Han nerf is debatable bcz they have to go to age 4 (unlikely 1v1) and second china units are difficult to work with??
f) Ports vil change is unreasonable, they got tc wagon with age up already. Dutch XP increase is okay but default 5 bank limit is overkill.
g) German Uhlan were already fragile and you not only decrease there HP , you reduced there 4 upgrade cards and many more in different buildings. Given that the WW are slow to catch up with dragoons.
h) 3 more strelet is a joke , it is a practically one time send only and there important things before taking advantage of 3 stretlets .
i) Sious teepee eco is ridiculous , they meant to have a weal eco while best cav for compensation.
(Just a thought, Ep changes the base stats of some units e.g. jans/ uhlans while he changes other things reluctantly of other units e.g. dragoons. Why not reduce the hp of dragoons rather than range resist? Which also a step to semi-ff meta.)
As a conclusive comment that why meta is this particular way is my points 2,3,4: the maps , the unit stats and finally the player mentality they all effect each other and effect the meta. I will not say it is always semi-ff but it usually is bcz its the strongest option. In some situation, ppl like to do a sepoy rush bcz thats strong for now and they don't do a jan rush bcz thats not working. And the reason is we changed the "maps" , "units" "other things" and which ultimately changed a meta. Just an example, remove the penalty from German Inf speed tech (Church) and see how many ppl will have fun with ultra fast dopps.
We are the initiator of change and we are effected by it like a vicious cycle.
P.S. thanks for your detailed reply and there are some ppl here like diarouga who think your can only say things when you are pr-35+. I think there should be a detailed post about different civs strengths and weakness. If it is there then I haven't seen it.
#trainableSpahi
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 970
- Joined: Mar 6, 2016
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
somppukunkku wrote:Memeotto not mentioned? I've been trying to do some meta for them cause otherwise they suck and I get only flame/people refusing to play me :(
I appreciate your efforts to make an improvement with their play even though they are in worst spot in ep rm. Your 3TC slow revolt is kinda cool. Patent it before diarouga claims it his invention.
#trainableSpahi
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
I said he was one of the more innovative players recently. He was one of the only top players to expand on build orders that weren’t just niche mu/map builds that people practice for tourneys. Everything new is his build after all.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
aqwer wrote:3. The map do effect the play style but when we opt to create our own maps the reverse is also true. The Re maps have some flaws mostly with fair spawns but ppl still don't like them that do spawn alright. The reason being the resources in TC range. On a good RE map, you can get lot of hunts or mines but not within a short range of TC except 2 hunts or mines etc. One particular example is Yucatan, it spawns reasonably fair, good hunts/mines, double side water , lot of tress but it never got to see any play as far as I have seen.
People don't like them because it's a meme to go against RE maps. With that said RE maps usually have a number of layout problems that goes beyond the amount of resources close the TC.
b) Wall nerf only needed bcz of map changes, in RE wall doesn't matter much in 1v1 bcz you don't have ample resources inside the walls. It can give you a momentarily edge but if you are not gathering you are practically dead ,( a few mins later in actual). But on EP you can get2-3 hunts and mines inside the walls and you are set for age 3 combat and to contest the map with tech advantage.
Wall nerf is just a good design change in the first place. 3k for a wooden wall is not realistic not desired for balance. It provides more cover than actal buildings which cost way more and are supposedly stonger than a palisade. In general RE walls can substitute units for defence and that's not coherent with the game logic.
Even when they don't cover any resource they can be very annoying.
c) The Iro and Otto nerf are two fold, they were good bcz map and civs and you havechanged them both to make them practically unplayable except few niche situations. Jans got nerfed to the point where they are not usable. Otto units already scales poor and with these changes they bad late game and mediocre mid game is turned into worst and bad respectively. And now they are not effective to put an early pressure and geared toward a semi-ff meta.
Iro are in good shape actually. And by that I mean really competitive if all maps are considered. Otto are still ok. They can totally be played like on RE with the only difference being that units are not so OP anymore. This means that those strats won't be as competitive as before in optimal play. given how dominating they were I wouldn't be surprised if they would still work if executed optimally. On top of that now you can play Otto differently using 500w TCs and cheaper mosque techs. And actually combined with pre-existing advantages (fast age up and TP play) that Otto style is quite strong and potentially OP.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
it's the RE water play (10 layers of wall + 35 range insane frigates + 100 vills in 10min + very bad balance) that makes players hate water maps.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
By the way, being creative doesn't depend that much on maps.
Although it's true it's easier to go for unstandard play on unstandard maps (low hunts/no TP/sea), there will always be a "meta", a right way to play. For example, on no TP maps you should play in age 2 and not in age 3, on low hunt maps you should take the map control and be agressive.
There's a big low hunt/no TP map hype atm because it hasn't been played a lot, but if people started to play these maps more often, top players would just figure out the best civs/best strats on each maps, and it would be always the same MUs again.
Actually, the players who are creative on weird maps, are the ones who are creative on standard maps. We're in a "semi ff" meta atm, but that doesn't mean that agressive timings can't work, I have some in mind that should be strong enough to kill a semi ff.
Furthermore, even in a meta were rush wouldn't be viable, one could always be innovative by going greedier than his opponent: FI for example, or 1000w first and make canons, that's just some random ideas but you can always play differently, you never have to go 3sw/700w/700c/8skirm/9uhlans every game.
Although it's true it's easier to go for unstandard play on unstandard maps (low hunts/no TP/sea), there will always be a "meta", a right way to play. For example, on no TP maps you should play in age 2 and not in age 3, on low hunt maps you should take the map control and be agressive.
There's a big low hunt/no TP map hype atm because it hasn't been played a lot, but if people started to play these maps more often, top players would just figure out the best civs/best strats on each maps, and it would be always the same MUs again.
Actually, the players who are creative on weird maps, are the ones who are creative on standard maps. We're in a "semi ff" meta atm, but that doesn't mean that agressive timings can't work, I have some in mind that should be strong enough to kill a semi ff.
Furthermore, even in a meta were rush wouldn't be viable, one could always be innovative by going greedier than his opponent: FI for example, or 1000w first and make canons, that's just some random ideas but you can always play differently, you never have to go 3sw/700w/700c/8skirm/9uhlans every game.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
I've always found it very annoying that people complain about water or refuse to play water maps. They are actually really fun, especially because it's like an entirely different game and strategy. If you understand the water boom well, it is very interesting and challenging to play the "shut down water" build.
Just the other day I had an awesome game vs tit on indo where I was German vs his india water boom. And for the most part, all civs can compete on water maps, some, like French and ger, can mostly just try the "shut down " stray, rather than water boom, but they are still capable of hitting the right timing to win.
Just the other day I had an awesome game vs tit on indo where I was German vs his india water boom. And for the most part, all civs can compete on water maps, some, like French and ger, can mostly just try the "shut down " stray, rather than water boom, but they are still capable of hitting the right timing to win.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
Meta is about game changes, in Aoe3 it includes different maps. It's actually good to have semi ff meta, games last longer than 15+ and it has more variants, it's better than jan rush.
Water is fun to play, but honestly some mechanics are broken, (ship micros) and it is too one sided. If one side wins water once, i have never saw a game where other side manages to contest it again.
One interesting tourney format would be to predetermine map and civs to play, and let players switch civs after game. If civs are selected balanced and off-meta on the map, it can lead to really interesting games. Like MU of the week thing.
Water is fun to play, but honestly some mechanics are broken, (ship micros) and it is too one sided. If one side wins water once, i have never saw a game where other side manages to contest it again.
One interesting tourney format would be to predetermine map and civs to play, and let players switch civs after game. If civs are selected balanced and off-meta on the map, it can lead to really interesting games. Like MU of the week thing.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
I feel as though a lot of people are misunderstanding my claim in the OP. I actually don't think the meta is as "stale" as most other people do. Like Diarouga (who is an innovative player, btw) and Garja have pointed out, there are plenty of options and opportunities even in the most standard of games or matchups.
But there's also whole other side to the game that's just avoided by the majority of players.
No, we definitely have the same definition of aggressive play. I'm not really sure how anything I said contradicts this.
There are plenty of ESOC maps that favour more aggressive or otherwise dynamic play: Tibet, Thar Desert, Cascade Range, Klondike, etc.
Yes, the maps we create can also affect the common meta playstyles, but if you look at the long list of ESOC maps Garja and Riki have created, you rarely see half or more of them in 1v1s unless they're forced to in a tournament. There are plenty of ESOC maps that favour or encourage playstyles other than the current "standard," but the majority of players just don't want to play it, or even say that those maps are bad and poorly designed.
Like you pointed out yourself, there are some RE maps that do spawn fairly most of the time--like Yucatan, Deccan, Texas, Borneo, Mongolia, and Northwest Territory--are treated like this as well. Despite being reasonably well balanced, people still dislike them and often refuse to play on them. It's very clear that although the community claims this macro-oriented semi-FF meta is stale, or even boring, this playstyle has always been preferred by players, regardless of whether they want change or not.
Just look at how popular Great Plains and Siberia are despite how consistently imbalanced the resource spawns are. They just spawned so many resources that the fact that your opponent has 2 extra mines or hunts on their half of the map doesn't really change your gameplan much, you can still just sit in your base until 12 minutes most of the time and do your thing.
If I'm trying to hold some kind of rush or timing while I'm FFing, you can bet dragoons are going to be my go-to unit once I hit Fortress. Just because you define "aggressive play" as something Colonial, that doesn't mean that changes to the Fortress age or Fortress units don't affect Colonial play. If things in Fortress are weaker, then age 3 becomes less desirable or easier to punish with Colonial play.
While there is some truth to this, there were RE maps where walling was still just as effective or even more effective despite in the number of resources. Look at maps like Hispaniola, or Deccan, or Saguenay. These maps have lots of very easily wallable choke points, and walling them can often deny aggression altogether simply because it takes so long to siege down a 3000 hp wall, especially if the opponent adds even just a few ranged infantry behind it. The wall nerf helps compensate for the fact that there was little to wall on RE.
I have to respectfully disagree. Iroquois and Ottomans are far from unplayable; in fact, they are quite strong in a lot of situations. I helped compile some civilization statistics from past tournaments a while back, and if I recall correctly, Ottos actually had a very high winrate, as well as the highest % of upsets of any other civ--meaning that lower ranking players were much more likely to win against a higher ranking player if they were playing Otto.
If you look at some recent casted games too, you can find plenty of games where Otto succeeds. I lost to PrinceofKabul's and BlackStar's Otto a couple of tournaments ago. In that same tournament, Kaiserklein won with Otto against LordRaphael. In the last major tournament, I lost to Kaiserklein's Otto--albeit a very close game where I may have misplayed a bit and resigned a bit early. H2O and Dicktator_ recently played a BO27, and each player won convincingly with Otto.
Iroquois is also very close to being balanced at the moment, I believe. It's hard for me to really say if they're slightly below average or above average right now, but they don't seem to be terrible. They do require a very different playstyle from RE, however, as their insane all-in rush is now significantly weaker without the early TP.
This is a matter of opinion. I don't see a lot of Port play recently, do you? They're a solid civ at the moment, but I don't think the vill change has pushed them over the top. Maybe they're just unpopular at the moment because they don't do so well vs Dutch or British. I'm not sure.
The problem with dragoons, I believe, was more that they overperformed vs the units that are supposed to counter them (bows & skirmishers), but are mostly fine vs other units. The RR change makes it easier for ranged infantry to deal with dragoons, while leaving melee units unaffected.
Yes, this is more or less what I've been trying to say this whole time. Well, not so much unit stats, but players definitely chose this meta. If players disliked playing on the current "standard" maps and preferred maps with fewer resources the meta would be very different, and the balance changes on EP would most likely be very different in light of this.
But there's also whole other side to the game that's just avoided by the majority of players.
aqwer wrote:1. When we say aggressive, we mean the civ that puts pressure early on right after you can build military i.e. age 2. If you have some other definition of aggressive then please share. It depends on MU mostly, one would be aggressive in one mu while defensive in other. The usual rule is the civ with sustainable advantage will try to prolong the conflict and go on defensive while other tries to break it before some critical point.
No, we definitely have the same definition of aggressive play. I'm not really sure how anything I said contradicts this.
3. The map do effect the play style but when we opt to create our own maps the reverse is also true. The Re maps have some flaws mostly with fair spawns but ppl still don't like them that do spawn alright. The reason being the resources in TC range. On a good RE map, you can get lot of hunts or mines but not within a short range of TC except 2 hunts or mines etc. One particular example is Yucatan, it spawns reasonably fair, good hunts/mines, double side water , lot of tress but it never got to see any play as far as I have seen.
There are plenty of ESOC maps that favour more aggressive or otherwise dynamic play: Tibet, Thar Desert, Cascade Range, Klondike, etc.
Yes, the maps we create can also affect the common meta playstyles, but if you look at the long list of ESOC maps Garja and Riki have created, you rarely see half or more of them in 1v1s unless they're forced to in a tournament. There are plenty of ESOC maps that favour or encourage playstyles other than the current "standard," but the majority of players just don't want to play it, or even say that those maps are bad and poorly designed.
Like you pointed out yourself, there are some RE maps that do spawn fairly most of the time--like Yucatan, Deccan, Texas, Borneo, Mongolia, and Northwest Territory--are treated like this as well. Despite being reasonably well balanced, people still dislike them and often refuse to play on them. It's very clear that although the community claims this macro-oriented semi-FF meta is stale, or even boring, this playstyle has always been preferred by players, regardless of whether they want change or not.
Just look at how popular Great Plains and Siberia are despite how consistently imbalanced the resource spawns are. They just spawned so many resources that the fact that your opponent has 2 extra mines or hunts on their half of the map doesn't really change your gameplan much, you can still just sit in your base until 12 minutes most of the time and do your thing.
And now to your points:
a) Dragoon is an age 3 unit and it has practically nothing to do with aggressiveness. ( as I have mention above. )
If I'm trying to hold some kind of rush or timing while I'm FFing, you can bet dragoons are going to be my go-to unit once I hit Fortress. Just because you define "aggressive play" as something Colonial, that doesn't mean that changes to the Fortress age or Fortress units don't affect Colonial play. If things in Fortress are weaker, then age 3 becomes less desirable or easier to punish with Colonial play.
b) Wall nerf only needed bcz of map changes, in RE wall doesn't matter much in 1v1 bcz you don't have ample resources inside the walls. It can give you a momentarily edge but if you are not gathering you are practically dead ,( a few mins later in actual). But on EP you can get2-3 hunts and mines inside the walls and you are set for age 3 combat and to contest the map with tech advantage.
While there is some truth to this, there were RE maps where walling was still just as effective or even more effective despite in the number of resources. Look at maps like Hispaniola, or Deccan, or Saguenay. These maps have lots of very easily wallable choke points, and walling them can often deny aggression altogether simply because it takes so long to siege down a 3000 hp wall, especially if the opponent adds even just a few ranged infantry behind it. The wall nerf helps compensate for the fact that there was little to wall on RE.
c) The Iro and Otto nerf are two fold, they were good bcz map and civs and you havechanged them both to make them practically unplayable except few niche situations. Jans got nerfed to the point where they are not usable. Otto units already scales poor and with these changes they bad late game and mediocre mid game is turned into worst and bad respectively. And now they are not effective to put an early pressure and geared toward a semi-ff meta.
I have to respectfully disagree. Iroquois and Ottomans are far from unplayable; in fact, they are quite strong in a lot of situations. I helped compile some civilization statistics from past tournaments a while back, and if I recall correctly, Ottos actually had a very high winrate, as well as the highest % of upsets of any other civ--meaning that lower ranking players were much more likely to win against a higher ranking player if they were playing Otto.
If you look at some recent casted games too, you can find plenty of games where Otto succeeds. I lost to PrinceofKabul's and BlackStar's Otto a couple of tournaments ago. In that same tournament, Kaiserklein won with Otto against LordRaphael. In the last major tournament, I lost to Kaiserklein's Otto--albeit a very close game where I may have misplayed a bit and resigned a bit early. H2O and Dicktator_ recently played a BO27, and each player won convincingly with Otto.
Iroquois is also very close to being balanced at the moment, I believe. It's hard for me to really say if they're slightly below average or above average right now, but they don't seem to be terrible. They do require a very different playstyle from RE, however, as their insane all-in rush is now significantly weaker without the early TP.
f) Ports vil change is unreasonable, they got tc wagon with age up already. Dutch XP increase is okay but default 5 bank limit is overkill.
This is a matter of opinion. I don't see a lot of Port play recently, do you? They're a solid civ at the moment, but I don't think the vill change has pushed them over the top. Maybe they're just unpopular at the moment because they don't do so well vs Dutch or British. I'm not sure.
(Just a thought, Ep changes the base stats of some units e.g. jans/ uhlans while he changes other things reluctantly of other units e.g. dragoons. Why not reduce the hp of dragoons rather than range resist? Which also a step to semi-ff meta.)
The problem with dragoons, I believe, was more that they overperformed vs the units that are supposed to counter them (bows & skirmishers), but are mostly fine vs other units. The RR change makes it easier for ranged infantry to deal with dragoons, while leaving melee units unaffected.
As a conclusive comment that why meta is this particular way is my points 2,3,4: the maps , the unit stats and finally the player mentality they all effect each other and effect the meta. I will not say it is always semi-ff but it usually is bcz its the strongest option. In some situation, ppl like to do a sepoy rush bcz thats strong for now and they don't do a jan rush bcz thats not working. And the reason is we changed the "maps" , "units" "other things" and which ultimately changed a meta. Just an example, remove the penalty from German Inf speed tech (Church) and see how many ppl will have fun with ultra fast dopps.
We are the initiator of change and we are effected by it like a vicious cycle.
Yes, this is more or less what I've been trying to say this whole time. Well, not so much unit stats, but players definitely chose this meta. If players disliked playing on the current "standard" maps and preferred maps with fewer resources the meta would be very different, and the balance changes on EP would most likely be very different in light of this.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
HUMMAN wrote:Water is fun to play, but honestly some mechanics are broken, (ship micros) and it is too one sided. If one side wins water once, i have never saw a game where other side manages to contest it again.
This is the main point for me; if EP wants more people to integrate water play, then water combat needs a complete overhaul on the patch. Probably things like removing RNG firing, changing some stat cards, looking at warship pop limits, changes to movement of ships, total rebalancing of some ships is necessary before the majority of the playerbase will actually want to play water maps. Once warship combat actually works then we can introduce things like archipelago based maps that complement water-heavy playstyles.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
The RNG firing is pretty dumb.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
IAmSoldieR wrote:I've always found it very annoying that people complain about water or refuse to play water maps. They are actually really fun, especially because it's like an entirely different game and strategy. If you understand the water boom well, it is very interesting and challenging to play the "shut down water" build.
Just the other day I had an awesome game vs tit on indo where I was German vs his india water boom. And for the most part, all civs can compete on water maps, some, like French and ger, can mostly just try the "shut down " stray, rather than water boom, but they are still capable of hitting the right timing to win.
I can say without checking your elo that you must have won that game.
Otherwise would have been bg and water op bullshit
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
I've never been bothered by the rng shooting of warships. Besides it's not completely rng. The rof is defined then shots may be not consistent within that time frame.
Water heavy maps have never been competitive in any aoe. Maybe in tourneys where you can pick a map or tourneys with specil settings. But definitely not tourneys that use overall standard conditions.
Water heavy maps have never been competitive in any aoe. Maybe in tourneys where you can pick a map or tourneys with specil settings. But definitely not tourneys that use overall standard conditions.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
somppukunkku wrote:IAmSoldieR wrote:I've always found it very annoying that people complain about water or refuse to play water maps. They are actually really fun, especially because it's like an entirely different game and strategy. If you understand the water boom well, it is very interesting and challenging to play the "shut down water" build.
Just the other day I had an awesome game vs tit on indo where I was German vs his india water boom. And for the most part, all civs can compete on water maps, some, like French and ger, can mostly just try the "shut down " stray, rather than water boom, but they are still capable of hitting the right timing to win.
I can say without checking your elo that you must have won that game.
Otherwise would have been bg and water op bullshit
While that is true, that doesn't change the fact that I enjoy water ever since I embraced it. It's like a fresh game style that most people avoid to even understand.
It's still bizarre to me when people complain about losing to water when they don't contest it...you literally ignore half the map, you should lose.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
Garja wrote:I've never been bothered by the rng shooting of warships. Besides it's not completely rng. The rof is defined then shots may be not consistent within that time frame.
Water heavy maps have never been competitive in any aoe. Maybe in tourneys where you can pick a map or tourneys with specil settings. But definitely not tourneys that use overall standard conditions.
Ok, but it does bother many people, so why not just make it consistent if you're not bothered either way? It's not like it's taking away a skill mechanic.
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
Garja wrote:It is hardcoded.
Eh, now that we have integration between EP and the aoe3 unhardcoded team this isn't an impossible barrier anymore.
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Feb 2, 2018
- ESO: OstiferButthole
- Location: USA
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
i've been protesting the stale meta since 2014 when I started playing again. It seems the stalest at above PR30. I guess maybe that is because tried and tested strategies are just so much more likely to work than weird ronin FFs or other exotic builds, and at that level you are sure to get punished for exiting the optimal play. But I don't know if that's true since I never played above pr 30. I feel like there are still some cheeses that would work possibly even better than vs a noob because as a high level player you don't prepare to face stupid shit as much mentally.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
The game can be exciting outside of cheese and ronin FFs ya know.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
jgals wrote:i've been protesting the stale meta since 2014 when I started playing again. It seems the stalest at above PR30. I guess maybe that is because tried and tested strategies are just so much more likely to work than weird ronin FFs or other exotic builds, and at that level you are sure to get punished for exiting the optimal play. But I don't know if that's true since I never played above pr 30. I feel like there are still some cheeses that would work possibly even better than vs a noob because as a high level player you don't prepare to face stupid shit as much mentally.
Well that's because you need to understand the game first to improve and get to pr30+, and the easiest way by far to do that is to play "standard". At high level, (top tournament level), it becomes possible to play differently but most players just stay in their comfort zone because it's safer.
It's not necessarily stronger though, blackstar_op broke the stale meta and succeeded really well.
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
Re: AoE3's "Stale Meta"
Get this: so and so collected 95 gold INSTEAD of the normal 75 gold in transition
Now that is a meta changer D:
Now that is a meta changer D:
c0ns!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests