When did "timings" become such a big topic?

[Astaroth]

I used to be active on the old RTS (then Age-)-Sanctuary forums and a decent player back in like 2008, but I don't at all remember the concept of "timings".

That's why I am wondering when timings became such a huge topic in Aoe3. Or have they always been and I just forgot?

"Timing" also seems to be a fairly aoe3 specific term, I've basically never seen or read it in ANY aoe2 context.

Now don't get me wrong, of course general concepts like rushes, build orders, FFs, "attacking when the opponent is booming /defenseless" have always been around. And attacking at opportune times is a thing in all RTS games.

But I don't remember "hitting the right timing" being such a major concept of similar importance as BO, micro, macro. And I also don't really recall timing pushes being a big thing. You went either rush, FF or boom/turtle and eventually or constantly attacked, not thinking "my opponent is doing BO x I am doing BO y, so I should push at exactly minute 11".

Thoughts?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Timing is used a lot in sc2. More than in aoe3 actually so I wouldn't say that it is an aoe3 specific term.

From what I know, GS popularised the concept of timing.

[gibson]

Timing is also used in CSGO, in fact its probably a concept in every competitive game.

[Jerimuno]

Shipments are a big aspect in why timings are more impactful in aoe3 than in (boring) aoe2

[bittersalt123]

Well if you know timings then your ability to win games goes way up.

[Kaiserklein]

Pretty sure people taking more TPs contributed a lot to the timings thing. Back when people would just spam bow pike or musk huss in colo, shipments wouldn't rythm your build orders as much.

[chronique]

Its important on aoe3 becouse you have 2 specific mechanic in this game :
- shipement
- unit are train by group.
So when you have in same time one shipement plus, coming from 2 rax, 10 unit, you have a strong timing becouse lot of useful unit in same time.

[n0el]

Pretty sure people taking more TPs contributed a lot to the timings thing. Back when people would just spam bow pike or musk huss in colo, shipments wouldn't rythm your build orders as much.

Basically this is most of it. There were timing windows before the TP Meta but they were more subtle. Like in the japan mirror days if you knew you had an xp lead you had two timing where you had ashi attack and the daimyo before your opponent. Now the games are much more structured around timing windows where you get big power spikes just based on your build order rather than in game momentum.

[Mitoe]

I would say that timings are a pretty universal concept across most RTS games.

A timing mostly just means that you're trying to punish a big investment from your opponent, like water or a villager shipment in AoE3, a Command Center/Nexus/Hatchery (or really expensive tech) in SC2, or an age up in AoE2, etc. OR you've made sacrifices to your own economy to try to get a stronger army to deal damage to your opponent. It's called a timing because this window disappears as your opponent's investments begin to pay off or your economy starts to fall behind due to your sacrifices.

[bittersalt123]

I'm pretty sure all we care about is how it's used for AOE3 xD

[RefluxSemantic]

The maps made timings a thing, not TPs.

If you have no hunts in your base every moment in the game is a timing window, and thus it's useless to speak of a timing attack.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The maps made timings a thing, not TPs.

If you have no hunts in your base every moment in the game is a timing window, and thus it's useless to speak of a timing attack.

Yea I agree.
On most RE maps, you have to it a 7min timing, so in a way there's no timing.

[Garja]

The maps made timings a thing, not TPs.

If you have no hunts in your base every moment in the game is a timing window, and thus it's useless to speak of a timing attack.

More like with no hunts in predictable and usually nearby positions timings change every time. And to be fair that's not even bad.

[RefluxSemantic]

I'm not making any comments on whether it's good or bad. It's just that timings became a big topic because of maps. On the average RE map, any attack hits a timing window basically, so calling the attack a timing window seems useless.

[Astaroth]

Thanks for the interesting input, everyone.

I would say that timings are a pretty universal concept across most RTS games.

A timing mostly just means that you're trying to punish a big investment from your opponent, like water or a villager shipment in AoE3, a Command Center/Nexus/Hatchery (or really expensive tech) in SC2, or an age up in AoE2, etc. OR you've made sacrifices to your own economy to try to get a stronger army to deal damage to your opponent. It's called a timing because this window disappears as your opponent's investments begin to pay off or your economy starts to fall behind due to your sacrifices.

It's just so interesting, because I only watch aoe2 and aoe3 and while the term is extremely common in aoe3, it is never mentioned in aoe2.

Of course people in aoe2 still go "all in" in age2 or age3 or "punish a greedy play", but usually not based on specific times or windows and more like: if I'm going to all-in in age2 or age3, I do it basically from the start. Not like in aoe3, where you think: just got my 3rd shipment in age2/age3, he just aged up/built a 2nd TC/ran out of hunt, it's gotime! One exception to this are desperate ram pushes in aoe2, especially on gimmick maps like gold rush. This is almost the only example I know of "massing army and waiting for a moment to attack".

But I guess the difference stems from the aoe3 factors that were mentioned here: shipment mechanic, batch training, importance of natural res etc.

Not saying it's good or bad or anything, just found it interesting. I also don't remember it from back in the day, as I said.

[Garja]

The thing is timings are related to spike in military population and inherent to BOs. On RE maps it's harder to have a strict BO timing just due to villager walking times.

[Djigit]

Timing is used a lot in sc2. More than in aoe3 actually so I wouldn't say that it is an aoe3 specific term.

From what I know, GS popularised the concept of timing.

100%.
"Timing" can be applied universally, but yeah, this word has been used profusely over the last 5 years on ESOC.
As you said, I believe its usage increased after GS published his guide. If I remember correctly, people used to simply call it a "push".

[[Armag] diarouga]

Thanks for the interesting input, everyone.

I would say that timings are a pretty universal concept across most RTS games.

A timing mostly just means that you're trying to punish a big investment from your opponent, like water or a villager shipment in AoE3, a Command Center/Nexus/Hatchery (or really expensive tech) in SC2, or an age up in AoE2, etc. OR you've made sacrifices to your own economy to try to get a stronger army to deal damage to your opponent. It's called a timing because this window disappears as your opponent's investments begin to pay off or your economy starts to fall behind due to your sacrifices.

It's just so interesting, because I only watch aoe2 and aoe3 and while the term is extremely common in aoe3, it is never mentioned in aoe2.

Of course people in aoe2 still go "all in" in age2 or age3 or "punish a greedy play", but usually not based on specific times or windows and more like: if I'm going to all-in in age2 or age3, I do it basically from the start. Not like in aoe3, where you think: just got my 3rd shipment in age2/age3, he just aged up/built a 2nd TC/ran out of hunt, it's gotime! One exception to this are desperate ram pushes in aoe2, especially on gimmick maps like gold rush. This is almost the only example I know of "massing army and waiting for a moment to attack".

But I guess the difference stems from the aoe3 factors that were mentioned here: shipment mechanic, batch training, importance of natural res etc.

Not saying it's good or bad or anything, just found it interesting. I also don't remember it from back in the day, as I said.

aoe2 is actually an exception when it comes to timings. The reason is that in aoe2, military units are weak (by that I mean that a wall can stop them forever and that they takes ages to kill a vill : also you can't kill your opponent's army if he goes back), so having a big military lead is not going to end the game as it would in most RTS. As a result, it's more about booming, walling and raiding.

In aoe3, sc2 etc however, you usually want to have the strongest army and hit a timing (like the 2/2 timing in tvz).

[Astaroth]

That's really interesting. I enjoy this type of background/meta analysis of different RTS games and their behind the scenes mechanics.

[dansil92]

Mythology had an interesting timing mechanic regarding god powers, titans, etc. The closest thing to that in III is basically an urumi pop with a batch of 5 howdah amd ceasefire

[kami_ryu]

since "real time" strategy games existed

even a jan rush is a timing lol

[Aizamk]

The concept was basically popularized by zuterjection casts. Zutazuta used the term a number of times and eventually Interjection also started using it in pretty much every single situation. Casters after that then picked up on this terminology.

[SoldieR]

The term "timings" is super overused. I used to hate it because I thought it was just common sense. Yes, you wait to attack when you have 8 skirm on the way, then attack when it arrives. Ofc. I've come to accept the term though, as it can be used in a more meaningful way. For example, Russia can plan their strategy against Dutch based on a timing attack. Rather than hoping to just overrun them, you can poke here and there, not ever really taking a major engagement but rather plan to order your shipments so that you have a massive army just when they hit age 3. That has more meaning as a "timing", for me. I guess it depends on how you use the term and how you interpret it.
And yes, GS invented the term.

[gibson]

Nobody from aoe3 invented the term lol.

[SoldieR]

Do I really have to explain what I mean