What would AOE3 look like if it had a serious pro scene?

[momuuu]

Maybe the discussion should be more about how different AoE3 would look at the highest level if it was large enough to have a competitive scene; as whether or not AoE3 could even be an esport is too controversial. Although I find it funny that the people who say there's no chance AoE3 could ever be an esport are also the ones who claim that current top players would not even be able to comprehend how much better they would have to be at the game in order compete.

I don't see how it's possible to claim that the skill ceiling in the game is large enough that we can't even comprehend of a player good enough to compete at the moment, while simultaneously claiming the game is uncompetitive. It's contradictory.

The point is that real pros are so good/play so much that they will for a big part solve aoe3. And when aoe3 is solved and the best players also have 400 apm, then I feel like everything will be trivialized and thus become boring.

[Garja]

It is not so easy to solve. There are lot of builds, especially aggressive builds, that can counter specific strats. And for each one of them there is probably a way to defendo or counter it. It's just that it requires some next level execution and game sense.

[edeholland]

I would love to see a tournament (maybe a weekend tournament or invitational) played on fast mode. If it allows more aggresive or alternate strategies that would be quite refreshing.

And make a second chance tournament in slow mode

[[Armag] diarouga]

I would love to see a tournament (maybe a weekend tournament or invitational) played on fast mode. If it allows more aggresive or alternate strategies that would be quite refreshing.

And make a second chance tournament in slow mode

Yes, the meta would definitely be different. One would have to be crazy to go for VC with brits.

[edeholland]

I would love to see a tournament (maybe a weekend tournament or invitational) played on fast mode. If it allows more aggresive or alternate strategies that would be quite refreshing.

And make a second chance tournament in slow mode

Yes, the meta would definitely be different. One would have to be crazy to go for VC with brits.

Would civs like Russia or Ottoman be better because you don't have to manage vill production so much? Or would that not be significant? I can image Brits would be very hard.

[Garja]

You have to keep in consideration the usual aoe3 lag. RI units would be almost unusable and ye the easier the civ the great the advantage.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I would love to see a tournament (maybe a weekend tournament or invitational) played on fast mode. If it allows more aggresive or alternate strategies that would be quite refreshing.

And make a second chance tournament in slow mode

Yes, the meta would definitely be different. One would have to be crazy to go for VC with brits.

Would civs like Russia or Ottoman be better because you don't have to manage vill production so much? Or would that not be significant? I can image Brits would be very hard.

Yes, Russia and Otto would be better because it would be a lot harder to hold a rush (harder to not lose vills, harder to hit and run etc). I wouldn't say that the macro would be significant though. It would be for Brits/Jap, but civs like France are just as easy.
Actually France might be top civ again, because the civ is so easy.

[supahons]

I think there would be definitely an additional PR41+ and ~PR47+ premium league (atm there are 500 players PR26+, a lot players of the top1000 list are inactive), some of the current top players PR30-35+ would move up or stay at this level. More players = more differentiation. atm there are 4 tiers imo -> conscript to serg, ms-1st lt, captain-lieutenant colonel and PR35+ (+inactive top players). There would be more competition and no more ez-lazy games for sure.

[princeofkabul]

Also AOE3 has like skill caps where its impossible to do anything better. Since res gather kinda slow and units train in batches. For example when players start a game and drop a stable at age 2 and train 5 cav. at that point in the game if you get 5 cav out and same eco ups then there was nothing more you could do better then the best player in the world. It's just the game wont allow it, its not like if you macro bettter you could of got a 6th cav out. you and the best player ever would still each have 5 cav out and same vils and eco at the exact same gametime.

and that basically says aoe 3 is not meant for competition.

[princeofkabul]

And unlike how mitoe said, I find it funny that people even considers the chance, that aoe3 could ever be a competitive game. If you made it to be one, you'd had to tweak it so much you don't even recognize it anymore from the original one.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea, aoe3 can't be a competitive game because the macro is too easy, and the meta is too stale.

[giveuanxiety]

The competitive game argument doesn't really make sense. It's more how popular games are that drive them to esports. I've heard people say in fornight the hitbox can be really imbalanced, and make for large luck. Yet that is becoming a huge esports game. You can probably say the same about league. Esport games are just games that have very large communities where people can compete vs each other.

[bwinner]

Yea, aoe3 can't be a competitive game because the macro is too easy, and the meta is too stale.

Macro is much easier in Hearthstone and that's a competitiv game.
I would even say that any competitiv game but SC2 doesn't require a good macro, you just focus on one game you like and think it need to be the same but no.
You will say that Hearthstone is just different, but SC2 aswell. Aoe3 is very enjoyable to watch and I think that's very enough to be competitiv. It would just need to be more popular.

[Garja]

And unlike how mitoe said, I find it funny that people even considers the chance, that aoe3 could ever be a competitive game. If you made it to be one, you'd had to tweak it so much you don't even recognize it anymore from the original one.

AOE3 was actually competitive back then despite all the imbalances and shit. All it took was a larger playerbase and the chance to remove lag with LAN event (WCG). If you think that all happened with one very dominant civ every time you realize that balance and game play are kinda secondary.

[[Armag] diarouga]

And unlike how mitoe said, I find it funny that people even considers the chance, that aoe3 could ever be a competitive game. If you made it to be one, you'd had to tweak it so much you don't even recognize it anymore from the original one.

AOE3 was actually competitive back then despite all the imbalances and shit. All it took was a larger playerbase and the chance to remove lag with LAN event (WCG). If you think that all happened with one very dominant civ every time you realize that balance and game play are kinda secondary.

Maybe that is why the competitive scene disappeared

[bwinner]

And unlike how mitoe said, I find it funny that people even considers the chance, that aoe3 could ever be a competitive game. If you made it to be one, you'd had to tweak it so much you don't even recognize it anymore from the original one.

AOE3 was actually competitive back then despite all the imbalances and shit. All it took was a larger playerbase and the chance to remove lag with LAN event (WCG). If you think that all happened with one very dominant civ every time you realize that balance and game play are kinda secondary.

Maybe that is why the competitive scene disappeared

No, it's obviously because there wasn't many people playing overall.

[gibson]

Aoe was competitive before esports was really even a thing. 5k player peaks is a tiny player base. Big esports games now have more people playing at a single time than ever played aoe3 online. Also thelastsamuria wasn't a top sc2 player. If he played the top players at Lans it would be non competitive, but he wasn't even good enough to go to any big tourneys, let alone win them. Now he was a very good player for sure, but he wasn't pro.

[supahons]

You can play nearly any game competitively if you want, just take a look at these speedruns https://www.youtube.com/user/gamesdonequick/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
The main problems with old games are monetisation and popularity. (eg. if aoe3 had 1 million twitch viewers ..., you buy the latest pc to play the game ...)

I think only the average apm of the top players would be higher with more players. If you have reached a certain level of excellence, only the small things matter. It's a game after all - if you have completed it 100%, you can try to find more stuff (eg. glitches, improve small things), change the gameplay (if you are the developer) or move on

[Garja]

Aoe was competitive before esports was really even a thing. 5k player peaks is a tiny player base. Big esports games now have more people playing at a single time than ever played aoe3 online. Also thelastsamuria wasn't a top sc2 player. If he played the top players at Lans it would be non competitive, but he wasn't even good enough to go to any big tourneys, let alone win them. Now he was a very good player for sure, but he wasn't pro.

Well RTS in korea was already quite a thing. SC:BR was super popular in korea even in early 2000s (with gaming shows and shit like now). AOE2 was at WCG event in 2000 and 2001 (Grunt won the second btw). Then you had all those FPS which I'm sure where already extremely competitive. Esport is just a word created more recently when gaming exploded thanks to broadband internet.
By the way Thelastsamurai wasnt rly close to the top players in AOE3, same thing for Kiljardi and few other players that I dont remember and who tried their way in SC2. Quite frankly I dont think they would have made to WCG finals even if they were playing in that era at their best AOE3 level.

You can play nearly any game competitively if you want, just take a look at these speedruns https://www.youtube.com/user/gamesdonequick/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
The main problems with old games are monetisation and popularity. (eg. if aoe3 had 1 million twitch viewers ..., you buy the latest pc to play the game ...)

I think only the average apm of the top players would be higher with more players. If you have reached a certain level of excellence, only the small things matter. It's a game after all - if you have completed it 100%, you can try to find more stuff (eg. glitches, improve small things), change the gameplay (if you are the developer) or move on

I agree and I like the word "excellence". That's what AOE3 really lacks. If you think that currently at top level we have players clicking on units to make them and being unpunished you realize how much there is to improve (and perhaps how much the meta has been dumbed down).

[Garja]

And unlike how mitoe said, I find it funny that people even considers the chance, that aoe3 could ever be a competitive game. If you made it to be one, you'd had to tweak it so much you don't even recognize it anymore from the original one.

AOE3 was actually competitive back then despite all the imbalances and shit. All it took was a larger playerbase and the chance to remove lag with LAN event (WCG). If you think that all happened with one very dominant civ every time you realize that balance and game play are kinda secondary.

Maybe that is why the competitive scene disappeared

Ye well, when there is super imbalance without patch fix the game can't last for too long. Basically no support + other games killed AOE3.

[Snuden]

Would have been cool with a real competitive scene.
Any hope for AoE 4?

[edeholland]

Would have been cool with a real competitive scene.
Any hope for AoE 4?

Nah not really

[gibson]

No

[Snuden]

Ok.

[[Armag] diarouga]

No