Town Center Design Sucks

[n0el]

Town Center Design Sucks..............and is one reason that AoE3 quickly transitions into a very stale metagame even with various changes to units and unit design. Why? Because the lack of being able to rapidly expand your economy leads to less comeback potential and severely limits variations in eco style openers. I would love to see the EP team try something more radical along the line they've already approached with the TC cost reduction. Make them available earlier, remove the build limit, and cheapen them more. Of course this would require some other changes in order to prevent extreme turtle play....but it would be the biggest freshening of the game since the RE patch changed TP's to 200w. #FreeTheTC

P.S. I wrote a really long post about this, that somehow went missing and @duck couldn't help me retrieve it, so instead this poorly written garbage is what you get.....thanks duck.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well, TC obviously suck in aoe3, but nothing can be done unless you totally change the game.
They suck for the following reasons:
1) By the time you have enough resources to build a 2nd TC, you don't need more eco (I mean in 1v1). That's big the maps are too small and you don't have enough resources in base, so it's always better to invest in units. The biggest issue with aoe3 is that all the civs don't have the same booming/agressive options. Like Otto can't boom as well as brit, dutch can't rush as well as otto. As a result, most MUs are stale, with one guy trying to rush, and the other trying to defend.

2) TCs are too strong. Their attack is way too high, and you can send minutemen, and considering a good player can herd his food correctly, it shuts down every early agression possible.

[gibson]

It would be cool if it was like sc2. Can't use it for anything but teching and training vils, and recieving shipments I guess.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It would be cool if it was like sc2.

Yes, definitely.

[fei123456]

it takes a year to build a new TC.

[jesus3]

Yeah, the TC is too powerful. True that.

But I'm very much against EP making bigger changes as I like the premise of EP to not touch major game mechanics. Many people (including myself) still play this game because of how it worked originally and considering how little play the latest EP even now, it would mean the death sentence for EP as it grows too different from the original.

[Goodspeed]

Town Center Design Sucks..............and is one reason that AoE3 quickly transitions into a very stale metagame even with various changes to units and unit design. Why? Because the lack of being able to rapidly expand your economy leads to less comeback potential and severely limits variations in eco style openers. I would love to see the EP team try something more radical along the line they've already approached with the TC cost reduction. Make them available earlier, remove the build limit, and cheapen them more. Of course this would require some other changes in order to prevent extreme turtle play....but it would be the biggest freshening of the game since the RE patch changed TP's to 200w. #FreeTheTC

P.S. I wrote a really long post about this, that somehow went missing and @duck couldn't help me retrieve it, so instead this poorly written garbage is what you get.....thanks duck.

Agree with all of this. But I think if any changes like this are attempted, CM should be removed from the game or at least significantly nerfed.

[n0el]

Would have to be for sure.

[Gendarme]

@duck and @H2O_ are the two real martyrs of ESOC.

[Garja]

In another game ye, it should be reworked.

[n0el]

In another game ye, it should be reworked.

Good thing there’s another game coming

[Garja]

Well, I think the way it was in AOE:o was ok.
But in general, it depends on all the other features of the game. If AOE is based on a progression of ages then it makes sense to unlock TCs as the player ages up. It could be 1 extra TC per age for example.
In AOE3 even if given for free it is hard to utilize it when you want to spend everything in units instead. Generally the max you can afford early on without losing the game is the production from 2 TCs + units. Ports are an exception but just because of the cheaper vills.

[momuuu]

This is beating a dead horse, but have you considered how these problems with the TC are a symptom of an overly greedy meta?

Too easy to defend? Wouldnt be so if there were fewer natural resources!
No booming options? If the meta wasnt full greedy there would be meaningful booming decisions!

If the meta is max greed it becomes stale either way. Even if more eco options were available, it would still be a stale meta if it turned out 4 TC before units was optimal. If the norm is to be averagely greedy, then there will be variety in greed and strategy involved. If the norm is to go full greed, and going even more greedy than possible would be optimal, then you wont see variety.

[Aykin Haraka]

use russia as heroes do, pop instant tc no regret

[Amsel_]

Rise of Nations had a neat feature where if you "destroyed" an enemy city, you could capture it. It probably wouldn't work well in aoe3, but it's an interesting way to off-set the OPness of spamming TCs.

[n0el]

This is beating a dead horse, but have you considered how these problems with the TC are a symptom of an overly greedy meta?

Too easy to defend? Wouldnt be so if there were fewer natural resources!
No booming options? If the meta wasnt full greedy there would be meaningful booming decisions!

If the meta is max greed it becomes stale either way. Even if more eco options were available, it would still be a stale meta if it turned out 4 TC before units was optimal. If the norm is to be averagely greedy, then there will be variety in greed and strategy involved. If the norm is to go full greed, and going even more greedy than possible would be optimal, then you wont see variety.

There's definitely some truth to that. But like I said, changing the way TC's work includes balancing them. Like for example, limited how many vils can be garrisoned. Or changing attack, etc... Means if you want to play greedy, there's realistic ways to be punished, but similarly, it can work with solid defense.

[Goodspeed]

This is beating a dead horse, but have you considered how these problems with the TC are a symptom of an overly greedy meta?

Too easy to defend? Wouldnt be so if there were fewer natural resources!
No booming options? If the meta wasnt full greedy there would be meaningful booming decisions!

If the meta is max greed it becomes stale either way. Even if more eco options were available, it would still be a stale meta if it turned out 4 TC before units was optimal. If the norm is to be averagely greedy, then there will be variety in greed and strategy involved. If the norm is to go full greed, and going even more greedy than possible would be optimal, then you wont see variety.

This is a bit off topic but actually the meta is not even close to max greed. People rarely reach the industrial age in 1v1s, and that's not even the final age. 1v1 decks sometimes contain economic upgrade cards but they are almost never used. And, on topic, people rarely build extra TCs in fortress age. If you want to see what max greed looks like, look at teamgames. 1v1 builds are very different.

I also think we aren't in a place of "optimal" builds yet. The meta still has room for growth. Rather it looks to me like current top players are unable or unwilling to innovate.

I'm not into changing TCs this much though. I think it has significant impact on balance, and makes some other very impactful changes necessary like removing CM or even removing minutemen. While these may be good changes (minutemen are bad design imo) it would mess up balance and change the game too much. I don't think that's what people want.

[Hidddy_]

2 tc colonial japan sounds op

[[Armag] diarouga]

This is beating a dead horse, but have you considered how these problems with the TC are a symptom of an overly greedy meta?

Too easy to defend? Wouldnt be so if there were fewer natural resources!
No booming options? If the meta wasnt full greedy there would be meaningful booming decisions!

If the meta is max greed it becomes stale either way. Even if more eco options were available, it would still be a stale meta if it turned out 4 TC before units was optimal. If the norm is to be averagely greedy, then there will be variety in greed and strategy involved. If the norm is to go full greed, and going even more greedy than possible would be optimal, then you wont see variety.

Not really. Honestly, it's impossible to have an interesting meta in aoe3 because the game design is just bad.

1) If there were fewer natural resources, people would just rush every game which would be dumb. At this moment the issue is that you have to boom, with bad maps the issue would be that you have to rush. Besides, we would need to change every civs, like nerf Russia/Aztecs/Otto, and buff Brit/China, and that would make the agressive civs totally unplayable on high resources maps.
That's the point GS and I wanted to make about the maps, but people couldn't understand it (which is normal, AOE3 is the only strategy game they've played). You have to balance civs, now if you balance them around defensive maps, defensive civs are going to be trash on agressive maps, and if you balance them on agressive maps, defensive civs are going to be imba on defensive maps. The issue is that aoe3 is the only RTS I know where all the civs don't have similar booming options, which is an issue.

2) You don't get it. We're not at max greed at all. Max greed would be brit players aging at 6min with 15 manors, People going age 3 and sending 8vills/1000w into 3 TCs, or fast industrial. We're in a greedier meta than on the RE but it could get greedier. Now, if you make less resources on the maps, people are going to timing earlier, and the meta will still be stale.

[Kaiserklein]

@momuuu who even said the meta is max greed?

[Goodspeed]

aoe3 is the only RTS I know where all the civs don't have similar booming options, which is an issue.

Quite true. Basically this is why we can't have nice things.

[Gendarme]

Near-optimal play just seems to be too easy to figure out, but I suppose it is more due to the game being too old rather than a flawed game.

[Jaeger]

Near-optimal play just seems to be too easy to figure out, but I suppose it is more due to the game being too old rather than a flawed game.

If it is optimal play right now... I know right now it feels like there is nothing new to discover, but that's how it always feels, no matter if it's true. So many things have changed in the past few years:

French mirror used to be omly samwise vs samwise

TP's

China was considered bad

Sioux wouly only BR age 2

Etc

[Garja]

It this true that not all civs have same booming options or same options in general, but that's exactly the cool thing about this game.
Also it is a matter of number of civs. Within each expansion civs ar relatively similar in available options

[[Armag] diarouga]

Near-optimal play just seems to be too easy to figure out, but I suppose it is more due to the game being too old rather than a flawed game.

I used to think that but that's wrong. I'm pretty sure that we don't even play half of the civs correctly.