Goodspeed wrote: momuuu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:The meta does naturally evolve into longer and longer games, and that would be fine (it has been for AoE2) if this game was anywhere close to balanced in late game. Thing is there are such massive differences in scaling between the civs that it takes a large skill gap to overcome these. I don't think we have any hope of fixing this because of some design choices that were made in AoE3, so our best bet is indeed to make sure games are decided early on.
The way to do this, however, is imo not by making changes to the civs. Differences in scaling will always be there and we need to accept them. The way to deal with it is maps.
The meta evolves into whatever works best. This 'the meta naturally evolves into longer and longer games' is a terrible statement to try to justify extremely passive play. You don't even provide any reasoning for this statement and never have.
"A terrible statement" Sigh. Anyway yes, I have, but I'll explain again.
Note the difference between a full scale timing attack and early harassment. After all, harassment is not meant to end the game and therefore does not make the game shorter than it otherwise would've been. So a 5 huss semi-FF, for example, is not an aggressive build.
Yet the usage of 5 huss is still relatively aggressive compared to not making them. Actually in fact the 5 hussars should be used very aggressively against the even more greedy naked FF; In my experience of testing it has turned out that if you just idle their villagers with the hussars under the TC you will come out very far ahead versus the naked FF. It's almost as if you're rushing with 5 hussars. Anyhow, this easily proves that the meta doesn't get more defensive necessarily - as much as people might figure out how to defend things, it turns out that you can't get more greedy than semi FF. Similairly, in a difference game it might turn out you can't get more greedy than some aggressive BO.
Timing attacks meant to end the game are still common, but to my point they tend to be a little later in the game than they used to be. This is the result of 2 things: A more mature meta, and balance changes.
And why is this? Because EP maps have seventeen hunts and EP has nerfed Sepoy, Jans, Iro and has refused to buff russia. This is not a 'mature meta' but a direct consequence of changes made to the game. I don't see how anything provided in this statement points towards this being the result of 'a more mature meta'. If you make a statement, you should provide proof!
These balance changes were necessary to help the meta evolve past certain aggressive builds that were too strong. Throughout AoE3's history, there have almost always been aggressive build orders that were too strong, and extremely prevalent in the meta. It's true that the meta evolves towards whatever is best, but an important part of my argument is that whenever an early all in build order is best, that means there is a balance problem. And this has been true every time in history. Some memorable examples are the Spain FF, Otto FF, Iro rush/FF.
It's bullshit that there is a balance problem with an early rush build order is best. If the opposing defensive civ has about a 50% chance to hold of the rush build order, then there is no balance problem. Similairly, if all other options are inferior to the early rush build order (something that is definitely possible), then that rush build order is the best thing to do. Thus, two lines of logic conclude that it is possible for a rush build order to be the best thing to do without being overpowered. Funnily enough in the majority of Spain match ups the Spain FF is the best thing to do (something you label as an early all in build order yourself), yet it doesn't represent a balance problem as spain generally has about a 50% winrate.
If a timing attack wins games despite people having scouted it (and scouting things is a rather trivial matter in this game) and having had enough time to develop counters to it, that means it's too strong. So, in a balanced game, early timing attacks will slowly fade out of the meta as people find counters to them. If it is not possible to find counters to them, then it's not a balanced game.
This is not true. It can be that if both players micro equally a timing attack actually has a 50% chance to win. It's never as black and white as always wins or never wins, it's in reality always a chance that a timing push ends the game and that chance can theoretically be 50%. In that case, there is no balance problem, and in this balanced game timing attacks will still be part of the meta. Even if it isn't possible to find a counter to a timing push.
One could even reverse engineer your logic to make clear how incorrect it is:
If a civ is able to freely boom despite it being scouted (and scouting things is a rather trivial matter in this game), and there's no timing attack that can beat that boom even after having had enough time to develop counters to it, that means it's too strong. So in a balanced game
, economic strategies will slowly fade out of the meta as people find counters to them. If it is not possible to find counters to them, then it's not a balanced game.
I think for AoE3 to be balanced it needs to be designed in a way where the fight for map control decides games, and then by tweaking the maps you can move that fight earlier or later into the game and thus give all civs a chance. In other words, more focus on contains than all in timings.
And here's the actual truth. It's your own design opinion that has made EP push the game into the more passive territories, not the 'natural way for the meta to develop' and also not because its the only way to have a balanced game.