ESOCommunity

It’s clearly well-known that rush is the most popular way to play AoE 3, especially in terms of competitive players. I will admit that rush games are easier to watch because they are so much quicker, and they can be very diverse due to the number of different strategies that can be employed.

A consequence of this is a lack of endurance on the part of competitive players. Obviously people who play “esports” are going to have less endurance than those who play regular sports, and 99% of the time they will be in worse physical shape. But the difference in endurance between rush and treaty players in the community is quite striking to me. You often see rush players complaining about games going on too long, even when the games themselves are barely over an hour, and people will do whatever they can (vetoes in tournaments, changes via the patch) to make certain gameplay styles (walls, fishing) less viable in an effort to keep games short.

As a long time treaty player I know that endurance can be an extremely useful trait. When a large-scale Basement game can go on for 3 or 4 hours (that’s game time, not even including the lag) the people with less endurance will inevitably start to slip up, dragging their teams down. I don’t even need to talk about evilcheadar’s famous 6 hour game.

Do you think that endurance is something competitive AoE 3 players should work on? Well, thoughts?

You'd have to provide an argument as to why endurance is something we should care about.

It is tested somewhat in later stages of supremacy tournaments when you can play up to 9 games in a series, and in the past even 11 games. We've seen a number of 3 hour series recently. This would constitute the main argument I guess?

However let's not kid ourselves here, I expect 99% of top supremacy players have put in a number of 6/7/8hr+ days at some point in the past. I don't think most are strangers to endurance.

Post pics of current mile times

deleted_user wrote:Post pics of current mile times

Dawg you tryin' to be the new ear/cheddar?

WickedCossack wrote:You'd have to provide an argument as to why endurance is something we should care about.

It is tested somewhat in later stages of supremacy tournaments when you can play up to 9 games in a series, and in the past even 11 games. We've seen a number of 3 hour series recently. This would constitute the main argument I guess?

However let's not kid ourselves here, I expect 99% of top supremacy players have put in a number of 6/7/8hr+ days at some point in the past. I don't think most are strangers to endurance.

Well yes, endurance can help in a series of many games, but at the same time they do get a break between each one, and sometimes that break can go on for quite a bit. There is both a physical and mental endurance that goes into several hour long treaty games. If players were accustomed to such situations, they may be more willing to deal with maps/strats in rush games that lead to longer games.

WickedCossack wrote:

deleted_user wrote:Post pics of current mile times

Dawg you tryin' to be the new ear/cheddar?

No; I'd rather be lobotomized.

WickedCossack wrote:You'd have to provide an argument as to why endurance is something we should care about.

It is tested somewhat in later stages of supremacy tournaments when you can play up to 9 games in a series, and in the past even 11 games. We've seen a number of 3 hour series recently. This would constitute the main argument I guess?

However let's not kid ourselves here, I expect 99% of top supremacy players have put in a number of 6/7/8hr+ days at some point in the past. I don't think most are strangers to endurance.

Just having a few moments between games I think is enough reset. When I play rush or any game that has short rounds it feels nowhere near as taxing as a long treaty game. I think just being able to clear your mind of the map and start a strategy a new can go a long way.

deleted_user wrote:

WickedCossack wrote:

deleted_user wrote:Post pics of current mile times

Dawg you tryin' to be the new ear/cheddar?

No; I'd rather be lobotomized.

Let's not start drama, plz.

Ear and I get along great actually

I just can't imagine being anyone but me. It'd feel too foreign. I wouldn't like it.

Well, to begin with I'd like to aknowledge that stamina on e-sports is a thing, people tend to have reduced performance after playing for too many hours. The stamina of the player depends on two different things in my opinion: the player's physical health (you might experience discomfort in your eyes, lower back or hands for example) and the player's mental health (mood). It is possible to work on the first one, but you can not work on having a better mood while playing. What I mean by that is that if you are not having fun because you you are losing/winning all the games, there is lag, you dislike the players you are playing with/against ect but also external factors you are not gonna be able to play for a long time because it is against your will. It is a known fact that treaty players have higher endurance than rush players. I am gonna try to explain why that is happening. First of all, treaty players are usually playing more hours on a row, that is because since their games last longer, they don't have an option to quit when they are feeling a bit dizzy. Therefore their physical endurance is being increased. Also, treaty games usually demand lower apm since the economies require little to no attention and the fights do not take place at many fronts most of the time. As a result, treaty players consume less energy by reducing the amount of clicking. Last but not least, it is a well known and accepted fact that treaty players have on average a higher IQ than supermacy players. Because of that they can "tame" their mood better than supermacy players can, and also be smart enough to play aoe3 when they are in a better mood. As a conclusion, I believe it is fair to assume that playing treaty increases your IQ and therefore your stamina.
As to wether competitive players should work on their stamina, I believe they should, but then supermacy wouldn't be a thing because they would realise that treaty is the better gamemode and therefore migrate to treaty. Maybe they can work on their stamina by playing low treaty time games, like no rush 10 or no rush 20, which are still very similar to rush games for the most part.

I should concede there is an energy element to it. The furious clicking of rush can expend a lot of energy, and a long, laggy treaty often provides you with the opportunity to eat pizza to "refuel" yourself

Another part of this is rush players willingness to resign so soon. If rush players had more endurance we might see longer more competitive games. I don't like watching streamz where people quit due to silly thinks like crates not being What they hope.

gustavusadolphus wrote:Another part of this is rush players willingness to resign so soon. If rush players had more endurance we might see longer more competitive games. I don't like watching streamz where people quit due to silly thinks like crates not being What they hope.

Not having a starting hunt is a good reason to resign.

yemshi wrote:

gustavusadolphus wrote:Another part of this is rush players willingness to resign so soon. If rush players had more endurance we might see longer more competitive games. I don't like watching streamz where people quit due to silly thinks like crates not being What they hope.

Not having a starting hunt is a good reason to resign.

Makes you a weaker player tbh

yemshi wrote:

gustavusadolphus wrote:Another part of this is rush players willingness to resign so soon. If rush players had more endurance we might see longer more competitive games. I don't like watching streamz where people quit due to silly thinks like crates not being What they hope.

Not having a starting hunt is a good reason to resign.

But a win against the odds is satisfying. Also your enemy could have a couple bad shots and mis heard away from there base.

yemshi wrote:

gustavusadolphus wrote:Another part of this is rush players willingness to resign so soon. If rush players had more endurance we might see longer more competitive games. I don't like watching streamz where people quit due to silly thinks like crates not being What they hope.

Not having a starting hunt is a good reason to resign.

Only if you want to appear weak, pulling off the win especially in a tourney with bad hunt secures you more respect and perceived IQ by peers

A loss because you age up at 5:04 as Spain is with no second hunt anymore is not satisfying.

Dev team should make a auto resign mod.

No ones watches a full marothon, people like sprint. There is no contest like "how much you can stand up/ or go sleepless". I admit it is some kind of skill but it shouldnt be the main skill effects game. For example blackstar said in the last tourney, i am so tired looking minimap and thinking/macro/micro is muchh harder and a valuable skill in rts. Than i tought about newbies who only click a few times and watch the atmosphere, and looking my play: damn ü dont play this game. If you play competively, after your games you should be tired both phsyically and mentally, that is the improvement. So its kind of a stamina.

Actually Id argue a back to back BO7 or BO9 requires much more stamina than a treaty game. Treaty has at least 20 minutes of extremely low action game time in between the game that allows you to actually sorta rest.

yemshi wrote:A loss because you age up at 5:04 as Spain is with no second hunt anymore is not satisfying.

You'll keep losing because you don't put yourself in a position to practice in less than ideal conditions.

Jerom wrote:Actually Id argue a back to back BO7 or BO9 requires much more stamina than a treaty game. Treaty has at least 20 minutes of extremely low action game time in between the game that allows you to actually sorta rest.

Your doing it wrong if your resting.

Jerom wrote:Actually Id argue a back to back BO7 or BO9 requires much more stamina than a treaty game. Treaty has at least 20 minutes of extremely low action game time in between the game that allows you to actually sorta rest.

It doesn't, there's often huge chunks of time people waste between games picking and changing civs, trash talking, etc.

HUMMAN wrote:No ones watches a full marothon, people like sprint. There is no contest like "how much you can stand up/ or go sleepless". I admit it is some kind of skill but it shouldnt be the main skill effects game. For example blackstar said in the last tourney, i am so tired looking minimap and thinking/macro/micro is muchh harder and a valuable skill in rts. Than i tought about newbies who only click a few times and watch the atmosphere, and looking my play: damn ü dont play this game. If you play competively, after your games you should be tired both phsyically and mentally, that is the improvement. So its kind of a stamina.

Actually I'm fairly sure there has been competitions and world record set concerning things like that. I don't know if Guinness will recognize new sleep deprivation high scores anymore for health concerns.

It's mostly likely a case of what we are most comfortable with. Sup players might find TR draining because it recruits different mechanics over a single longer period of time. TR players might find long sup series draining because of the higher amounts of improvisation and strategy and that aren't apparent in TR. we like to settle into comforts.

Stamina in general is important when it counts - in competitive scenarios - in series. Here staying mentally sharp can be a challenge. I find it difficult to play for more than an hour and a half in simple ESO lobbies. If for whatever reason I made it to a series which was a bo7 or greater I would obviously suffer. Note most players who do make it that far are already extremely conditioned because they generally practice the game much more than others which requires those 8,10,12 hour days.