AOE3 players in AOE4.

[Mitoe]

hahaha don just shows up and takes out aoe2 legends for fun whenever there's a tourney. first daut now viper, don just doesn't care

Can't be. Viper is the GOAT. @Goodspeed said so, right?!?!?

Viper is the AoE2 GOAT. I don't think he will be the AoE4 GOAT as well. Tbh, the game isn't good enough to keep pro AoE2 players interested. They will all leave, sooner or later

I’m sure you’ve discussed this in another thread to an extent, but I’m curious to hear what you think its biggest weaknesses are

[Goodspeed]

1. Balance
2. Balance
3. Balance

As the meta settles it will become clear that there is very little strategic flexibility in the match ups, and it will start to feel repetitive. To me, as a viewer, it already does. Most civs are good at one thing so they will do that thing and most match ups feel like the players are just going through the motions.

To be fair, because of this I'm already not really watching anymore so I could be completely off on how things are currently. But regardless of that, it's almost certainly going the direction of a settled meta with very limited strategic flexibility, which players will get bored of and frustrated by especially considering most match ups will be one-sided.

[Victor_swe]

This is exactly what i thought aoe2 was without knowing it.

Very few strats that are hard to pull of but the best player wins.

Maybe i was just unlucky the few times i wathced it.

[Goodspeed]

The difference is that AoE2 achieved very good balance between play styles, if not unit compositions. Indeed, for most match ups you will know before the game what the players' unit compositions will be but importantly, no one is forced into a certain play style, or at least to a much smaller extent than in AoE4. There is more interaction between the civs' power spikes due to smaller differences in scaling. With smaller differences in scaling, players can to a larger extent (relative to AoE4) choose to set themselves up for whichever "game stage" they want, as opposed to being forced into a certain strategy because that's the only way to stop the opponent from outscaling them. This leads to greater flexibility and strategic variety.

Consider Brits vs Franks in AoE2 and the interaction between their power spikes. Franks have the possibility to do damage with early scouts, but they aren't forced to try. Brits have a nice pre-castle archer power spike, but they aren't forced to try to do damage with it. Then in early castle age, Brits have another power spike after their archer upgrades, but again they can just choose not to attack and boom at home. Franks in mid-castle have a strong knight mass which they can try to win with, but can also boom into imperial. Brits have a power spike in early imperial after their upgrades come in and before Franks have a chance to fully upgrade their knights, and they can try to kill Franks there but again they don't necessarily have to (it is starting to become questionable not to try to be fair, unless they outboomed Franks by a lot). Then in mid-imperial Franks get their paladin power spike. If they don't kill Brits there, you end up in the semi-trash war where I don't really know who has the advantage, but probably Brits since Franks' good units are more gold-heavy. Then the full trash war which, idk.

Because you have all these power spikes where players aren't forced to attack, both sides of the MU have a lot of flexibility in how to approach it. This is missing in most of AoE4's match ups, afaik.

[chronique]

AoE4 can be very good but the current balance is worst than RE (iro and india had "only" 57% winrate and was considered super broken, mongol with 62 % at 1500+ is beyond OP), Mongol is probably like the 2008 version of japan, and when you already play others well balanced RTS, the only reason to play aoe4 is for the $$$.

I don't understand why they take that much time to fixe some obvious things.

[iNcog]

hahaha don just shows up and takes out aoe2 legends for fun whenever there's a tourney. first daut now viper, don just doesn't care

Can't be. Viper is the GOAT. @Goodspeed said so, right?!?!?

viper is also dicking around doing bad strategies for fun on stream instead of practicing the best builds. viper is definitely goat in aoe2

[iNcog]

1. Balance
2. Balance
3. Balance

As the meta settles it will become clear that there is very little strategic flexibility in the match ups, and it will start to feel repetitive. To me, as a viewer, it already does. Most civs are good at one thing so they will do that thing and most match ups feel like the players are just going through the motions.

To be fair, because of this I'm already not really watching anymore so I could be completely off on how things are currently. But regardless of that, it's almost certainly going the direction of a settled meta with very limited strategic flexibility, which players will get bored of and frustrated by especially considering most match ups will be one-sided.

well that's just to be expected with release. there was no game the game was going to be properly balanced from the get go.

it's kind of the same thing with aoe3. bad maps, RI-dominated unit set, 250w TPs, etc. they all made aoe3 a shadow of the game it actually was. 2005 AOE3 was bad compared to 2010 AOE3 where they made all the big changes that shaped the game into something good. even then, we still needed good maps and the EP to make the game as good as it's ever been.

it's no surprise to me that there's a bunch of broken strategies for every civ. but there's more to Rus than just doing the FC horse archer build for instance, honestly the civ can be played in any which way and it still works. the current meta is stale right now because everyone is copying/practicing the supposed best builds.

idk, I'm quite interested/optimistic about the game. people are being silly atm but that's fine. and we also need a better map pool which was 100% going to be mediocre/average upon release as well

[Goodspeed]

This problem was never solved in AoE3 due to civ asymmetry. And it will never be solved in AoE4. The game can still be great without solving it, don't get me wrong, but I don't see it holding the attention of (most) pro AoE2 players

[iNcog]

That makes sense to me, I suppose it's fine either way as long as the scene is healthy, which I do believe it to be.

[chronique]

This problem was never solved in AoE3 due to civ asymmetry. And it will never be solved in AoE4. The game can still be great without solving it, don't get me wrong, but I don't see it holding the attention of (most) pro AoE2 players

Probleme is not asymetry, SC2 and WC3 have a very good balance and a way more asymetry, the probleme is the fan service behind some civ. Like, in what kind of world someone may think a civ can be diverse when you give them the best archer and a landmark to produce them 100% faster lol.

[Goodspeed]

The problem is asymmetry combined with the amount of civs. SC2 and WC3 have much fewer civs/races. They are able to balance every match up individually (SC2 has only 3 match ups), so they can afford much more asymmetry. With each civ added, the amount of match ups grows exponentially. AoE4 released 8 highly unique civs, which created a virtually unsolveable balance problem.

See also: viewtopic.php?f=1031&t=22744&start=50

[chronique]

I agree, that's why AoM seem much better from a competitive point of view (less civ and you don't care about historical accuracy)

[Garja]

Aren't civs all relatively similar aside from Abbasid and Mongols?

[princeofcarthage]

The problem is asymmetry combined with the amount of civs. SC2 and WC3 have much fewer civs/races. They are able to balance every match up individually (SC2 has only 3 match ups), so they can afford much more asymmetry. With each civ added, the amount of match ups grows exponentially. AoE4 released 8 highly unique civs, which created a virtually unsolveable balance problem.

See also: viewtopic.php?f=1031&t=22744&start=50

If a civ has one or two very tough match ups that is perfectly acceptable. The issue is again players. If you are persistent on playing x against y when y clearly counters x it's not a balance issue, it's a you issue.

[gibson]

It’s not the players lol. The game is just very unbalanced with only 1-2 civs really being viable on any given map.

[iNcog]

I'm just not seeing what asymmetric problems are created with the way the design of the civs are. They're unique but not in a way that actually messes with balance [from a DESIGN perspective]. Mongols are definitely overtuned at the moment, as is China's late game.

I think what's interesting to me is that if you tune in to streams like Hera's, Marinelord's, Viper's, etc. You NEVER hear them talk about the topics being discussed in this thread. It's just not on their radar that the match up is lost before the game starts. Marinelord definitely tends to talk about what should or shouldn't be done in many circumstances but he's always nuanced in the way he approaches it. Mostly it's like "oh, he's making this decision right now, I'm not a fan of that but we'll see how it works out for him"

the idea that the game is lost or won depending on the civ match up and that a match is a foregone conclusion is a very aoe3'ish take that I only ever hear from aoe3 players. In the mean time, the players actually sitting at the top of the ladder and discussing the game don't even approach the idea of match ups being asymmetrically imbalanced. right now, all the sc2 players with their mechanics, and armed with better builds, are the ones standing at the top of the game.

[iNcog]

it's also weird because in aoe3 itself, there weren't really that many bad match ups. spain vs dutch is one of them, sure

but if you look at something like brit vs india, there's no clear consensus that it favors one civ or the other. but anyone who does have an opinion on the match up is quite convinced that they are right about it.

edit: either way this topic is an interesting one. imo true balance in an RTS cannot be achieved and games thrive in the gray areas where there is an impression of balance even though there isn't

[gibson]

I'm just not seeing what asymmetric problems are created with the way the design of the civs are. They're unique but not in a way that actually messes with balance [from a DESIGN perspective]. Mongols are definitely overtuned at the moment, as is China's late game.

I think what's interesting to me is that if you tune in to streams like Hera's, Marinelord's, Viper's, etc. You NEVER hear them talk about the topics being discussed in this thread. It's just not on their radar that the match up is lost before the game starts. Marinelord definitely tends to talk about what should or shouldn't be done in many circumstances but he's always nuanced in the way he approaches it. Mostly it's like "oh, he's making this decision right now, I'm not a fan of that but we'll see how it works out for him"

the idea that the game is lost or won depending on the civ match up and that a match is a foregone conclusion is a very aoe3'ish take that I only ever hear from aoe3 players. In the mean time, the players actually sitting at the top of the ladder and discussing the game don't even approach the idea of match ups being asymmetrically imbalanced. right now, all the sc2 players with their mechanics, and armed with better builds, are the ones standing at the top of the game.

Thats not because the game isnt badly balanced, its just a difference in attitude and approach. They know when they play vs a good mongol player its gonna be a tough game to win, but they go into the game with the attitude of what can I do to win instead of the aoe3 attitude of blaming the game from the getgo, because at the end of the day blaming things outside of your control accomplishes nothing and only sabotages yourself.

[iNcog]

Ofc the game isn't balanced. But I think we're discussing whether it's going to be impossible to balance because there are 8 civs. Mongols and Rus are better because they're overtuned, not because their design gives them inherent advantage over other civilization design per se.

Time will tell. Maybe different civ design will give us horribly imbalanced match ups. But I do believe that most civilizations have the options to do whatever suits the situation. I think Feudal play and Fast Castle are on the table for every civ for instance.

It's not like AOE3 where a Brit cannot competitively do a Fast-Fortress (unless you're aiz doing blackwatch) or something.

[duke mustache]

Show hidden quotes

hahaha don just shows up and takes out aoe2 legends for fun whenever there's a tourney. first daut now viper, don just doesn't care

Can't be. Viper is the GOAT. @Goodspeed said so, right?!?!?

Viper is the AoE2 GOAT. I don't think he will be the AoE4 GOAT as well. Tbh, the game isn't good enough to keep pro AoE2 players interested. They will all leave, sooner or later

I’m sure you’ve discussed this in another thread to an extent, but I’m curious to hear what you think its biggest weaknesses are

what about the lack of fun simply..

[RefluxSemantic]

This problem was never solved in AoE3 due to civ asymmetry. And it will never be solved in AoE4. The game can still be great without solving it, don't get me wrong, but I don't see it holding the attention of (most) pro AoE2 players

You seem to imply that pro players think that a balanced game is extremely important. Interestingly enough, there is quite a bit of precedent of professional gamers switching to games that have worse balance, as well as precedent of pro players playing very poorly balanced games. It might be a deciding factor for some of them, but I think it's silly to project your own ideas of fun onto these pro players.

[RefluxSemantic]

I'm just not seeing what asymmetric problems are created with the way the design of the civs are. They're unique but not in a way that actually messes with balance [from a DESIGN perspective]. Mongols are definitely overtuned at the moment, as is China's late game.

I think what's interesting to me is that if you tune in to streams like Hera's, Marinelord's, Viper's, etc. You NEVER hear them talk about the topics being discussed in this thread. It's just not on their radar that the match up is lost before the game starts. Marinelord definitely tends to talk about what should or shouldn't be done in many circumstances but he's always nuanced in the way he approaches it. Mostly it's like "oh, he's making this decision right now, I'm not a fan of that but we'll see how it works out for him"

the idea that the game is lost or won depending on the civ match up and that a match is a foregone conclusion is a very aoe3'ish take that I only ever hear from aoe3 players. In the mean time, the players actually sitting at the top of the ladder and discussing the game don't even approach the idea of match ups being asymmetrically imbalanced. right now, all the sc2 players with their mechanics, and armed with better builds, are the ones standing at the top of the game.

Thats not because the game isnt badly balanced, its just a difference in attitude and approach. They know when they play vs a good mongol player its gonna be a tough game to win, but they go into the game with the attitude of what can I do to win instead of the aoe3 attitude of blaming the game from the getgo, because at the end of the day blaming things outside of your control accomplishes nothing and only sabotages yourself.

Is this attitude that specific to aoe3? I feel like this is simply more of a 'scrub' mentality, where you're not really approaching the game in a very mature manner. I've had plenty of fun with others trying to 'solve' some of the worst match ups that aoe3 had to offer. Actually, that has arguably been more fun to me than trying to play fair match ups. The idea of the very heavy constraints that some civ can put upon another civ is somehow fun to me, and I've seen many people enjoy that same aspect of the game. But when egos are on the line, it's always easy to start getting angry about everything.

[Goodspeed]

This problem was never solved in AoE3 due to civ asymmetry. And it will never be solved in AoE4. The game can still be great without solving it, don't get me wrong, but I don't see it holding the attention of (most) pro AoE2 players

You seem to imply that pro players think that a balanced game is extremely important. Interestingly enough, there is quite a bit of precedent of professional gamers switching to games that have worse balance, as well as precedent of pro players playing very poorly balanced games. It might be a deciding factor for some of them, but I think it's silly to project your own ideas of fun onto these pro players.

Pro players do think balance is important. Not the only factor, but important. And the thing is, AoE2 players have a well-balanced alternative they can get back to whenever they want and make more money to boot.

[gibson]

I'm just not seeing what asymmetric problems are created with the way the design of the civs are. They're unique but not in a way that actually messes with balance [from a DESIGN perspective]. Mongols are definitely overtuned at the moment, as is China's late game.

I think what's interesting to me is that if you tune in to streams like Hera's, Marinelord's, Viper's, etc. You NEVER hear them talk about the topics being discussed in this thread. It's just not on their radar that the match up is lost before the game starts. Marinelord definitely tends to talk about what should or shouldn't be done in many circumstances but he's always nuanced in the way he approaches it. Mostly it's like "oh, he's making this decision right now, I'm not a fan of that but we'll see how it works out for him"

the idea that the game is lost or won depending on the civ match up and that a match is a foregone conclusion is a very aoe3'ish take that I only ever hear from aoe3 players. In the mean time, the players actually sitting at the top of the ladder and discussing the game don't even approach the idea of match ups being asymmetrically imbalanced. right now, all the sc2 players with their mechanics, and armed with better builds, are the ones standing at the top of the game.

Thats not because the game isnt badly balanced, its just a difference in attitude and approach. They know when they play vs a good mongol player its gonna be a tough game to win, but they go into the game with the attitude of what can I do to win instead of the aoe3 attitude of blaming the game from the getgo, because at the end of the day blaming things outside of your control accomplishes nothing and only sabotages yourself.

Is this attitude that specific to aoe3? I feel like this is simply more of a 'scrub' mentality, where you're not really approaching the game in a very mature manner. I've had plenty of fun with others trying to 'solve' some of the worst match ups that aoe3 had to offer. Actually, that has arguably been more fun to me than trying to play fair match ups. The idea of the very heavy constraints that some civ can put upon another civ is somehow fun to me, and I've seen many people enjoy that same aspect of the game. But when egos are on the line, it's always easy to start getting angry about everything.

No it’s definitely not specific to aoe, there are people like that in every game, it’s just on aoe3 that they’re people like that at the top due to small player base.

[blackwidow]

The amount of pro sc2 players constantly whining on stream/twitter is hilarious for how balanced the game is. It's not an aoe thing no ^^.

Asked hera about it. He said he'd prefer the game to get more civs and hopes better maps will fix strategy diversity. Personally I don't see it, every map already has 1-2 civs that have to be picked on it or you're behind from the get-go, even on the "balanced maps" like arabia.

It actually got to the point where most series are decided by civ picks and matchup advantages in current tournaments (or mirrors). This + the fact that ladder is 2 strategies or dodge makes the game really unattractive atm. People that give high praise to aoe4 like DemusliM, vortix and marinelord all expressed that they fear for aoe4's future with its current balance.

With the current game design I think their focus should be pumping out new patches to keep the game fresh. Tournaments being decided on adaptability, skill and meta reads is way more interesting than the draft win city it is and will always be in it's current state.