[Armag] diarouga wrote:
In aoe3, we don't have competitive maps where you start on an island, or with a fully walled base.
In general, I'd say that in aoe3, maps differ by :
a) TP count
b) amount of hunts/mines
c) presence of a side sea
d) cliffs and chokes
That's only 4 criterias. On top of this, aoe2 maps differ by :
1) their size (and I guess it could be interesting to see how the meta would evolve on bigger maps)
2) the type of resources (on some maps you can fish with your villagers, or gather berries but this wouldn't work in aoe3)
3) the shape of the sea, which doesn't really matter in aoe3.
Why could that be... Weren't you and other top players always against non-standard maps?
Not really, people misunderstand my position about maps honestly.
I believe that removing hunts and TPs to create an "unstandard" map is bad. By doing that, you're removing something from the map, and it makes it less interesting strategically (as well as less balanced).
Unfortunately, that's what map makers did in 2016 (and I complained a lot about that ) : Tassili is a standard map with less hunts, Thar Desert is standard map with no TPs and less hunts, Gran Chaco is a standard map without TPs and the list goes on...
However, map makers never tried to make large maps (except Global warming, but it was shit for other reasons...), nor unstandard water maps (most of the top players don't like water games, I guess that's the reason, but I like it).
Goodspeed wrote:
When AoE3 players tech beyond colonial age, it's never for economy. With economy removed from the list of "what do I invest my resources into?" choices, you are choosing between tech and units. It only makes sense, then, that you would invest in tech until you reached your preferred unit comp and then switch to units. But where he is wrong imo is when he claims that proves a disproportionate focus on tech. I would say it proves a disproportionate lack of focus on economy.
Is this even true though? I think players absolutely invest in the economy beyond colonial age. It's always a choice when you hit fortress to send either 1000wood or send military shipments. Or to send royal mint/refrigeration even in late fortress? Or to invest in mills and plantations, or another TC. Until both players are in imperial with 99 vills and full eco upgrades, there's always the possibility to overboom and be punished for it. That said I'm guessing AoE2 is just a lot more like every game is a Japan or Brit mirror, where both players are trying to boom as hard as possible and it's about who can snowball more. Seems boring tbh.
Goodspeed wrote:
When AoE3 players tech beyond colonial age, it's never for economy. With economy removed from the list of "what do I invest my resources into?" choices, you are choosing between tech and units. It only makes sense, then, that you would invest in tech until you reached your preferred unit comp and then switch to units. But where he is wrong imo is when he claims that proves a disproportionate focus on tech. I would say it proves a disproportionate lack of focus on economy.
Is this even true though? I think players absolutely invest in the economy beyond colonial age. It's always a choice when you hit fortress to send either 1000wood or send military shipments. Or to send royal mint/refrigeration even in late fortress? Or to invest in mills and plantations, or another TC. Until both players are in imperial with 99 vills and full eco upgrades, there's always the possibility to overboom and be punished for it. That said I'm guessing AoE2 is just a lot more like every game is a Japan or Brit mirror, where both players are trying to boom as hard as possible and it's about who can snowball more. Seems boring tbh.
You didn't get the point of Parfait. Ofc you can boom in any rts game, but the thing is that in aoe3, you can boom without having to forego the training of military units or shipments, basically you get less punished for doing X or Y.
In aoe2 or sc:bw, every choice leads to a weaker play on the other side of the triangle (military - tech - eco), so you make micro decisions every dozens of seconds, like a boat that you are steering more to the left or the right side, micro-adjustments, etc..
It is just more nuanced in aoe2 than in aoe3. Remember Parfait giving the example of someone teching up in aoe2, while still pushing with units. You won't see that in aoe3, aoe3 is more one-dimensional in that regard. There are less nuances per path of action. In aoe3, it feels more like a train running down the rails and sometimes you see a siderail that you can evade into.
Goodspeed wrote:
When AoE3 players tech beyond colonial age, it's never for economy. With economy removed from the list of "what do I invest my resources into?" choices, you are choosing between tech and units. It only makes sense, then, that you would invest in tech until you reached your preferred unit comp and then switch to units. But where he is wrong imo is when he claims that proves a disproportionate focus on tech. I would say it proves a disproportionate lack of focus on economy.
Is this even true though? I think players absolutely invest in the economy beyond colonial age. It's always a choice when you hit fortress to send either 1000wood or send military shipments. Or to send royal mint/refrigeration even in late fortress? Or to invest in mills and plantations, or another TC. Until both players are in imperial with 99 vills and full eco upgrades, there's always the possibility to overboom and be punished for it. That said I'm guessing AoE2 is just a lot more like every game is a Japan or Brit mirror, where both players are trying to boom as hard as possible and it's about who can snowball more. Seems boring tbh.
crates are basically just value and you use them to help train more units though
in AOE2 if you make 3 TCs right off the bat when you age (and it's really easy to do because of how cheap TCs are) then you're booming and playing defensively. if you're still on 1 TC in castle age, it's because you're making a lot of units and trying to win the game with the military advantage.
upgrades are so strong in AOE2 though that I feel like you get them regardless of the circumstances
aaryngend wrote:Ofc you can boom in any rts game, but the thing is that in aoe3, you can boom without having to forego the training of military units or shipments, basically you get less punished for doing X or Y.
but then you say:
aaryngend wrote:Remember Parfait giving the example of someone teching up in aoe2, while still pushing with units. You won't see that in aoe3, aoe3 is more one-dimensional in that regard.
RefluxSemantic wrote:First time watching. How the fuck can you attempt to make a self-respecting commentary of aoe3 and then shown gameplay footage of close zoom..
Raphael used to play with close zoom in his first ESOC tourney haha.
RefluxSemantic wrote:First time watching. How the fuck can you attempt to make a self-respecting commentary of aoe3 and then shown gameplay footage of close zoom..
Raphael used to play with close zoom in his first ESOC tourney haha.
I feel he's very disengenous when it comes to talking about major tournies, iirc the size of the competetive scene when WCG was a thing it didn't really warrant the size of prize pool it had.
I don't know what to say. Parfait might have been a good player, but he's wrong on over half of the things he's saying in this video. He presents his ideas with a lot of confidence, but I don't actually think he's saying many things that are actually true. I furthermore think he is absolutely nitpicking small pieces of evidence to support his theory - he probably needs to do this because his theory isn't actually correct. Actually I just think he completely missed the point.
It's true that compared to other RTS games, aoe3 can feel a bit odd. But it's not actually because there is too much focus on tech, or too little focus on eco, or too little or much focus on military. Just look at what some civs do; Some rush, some boom, some try to age up. We have military, eco and units. The 'problem' isn't that these aspects aren't developed, it's that in aoe3 the defender's advantage disappears almost completely in the midgame. This is the core of the 'problem'. It's not because technology is too strong, or that economy is too weak, or that massing a large army is too strong. The problem is that you NEED map control once you hit the midgame, so at this point in the game we're basically stuck in permanent 'oh shit the game is going to end in one minute' mode. It's only then that we stop focusing on economy, and just try to get as much army as possible. The fact that he concluded that the game focuses too much on technology baffles me. If you want to explain aoe3's 'problems' in terms of these three aspects, it's clearly that eco options aren't strong enough. But that isn't really true either. The entire theory just doesn't work.
The way he tries to prove his theory is just.. bad. He makes mostly incorrect points:
- He says that the power and scope of massing military units is reduced. Compared to for example aoe2 this is demonstrably false; In aoe3 people make far more units, far earlier in the game. In aoe2 it doesn't seem uncommon for people to not have more army population than villager population for over 30 minutes of ingame time. In aoe3, the military mass starts to be larger than the villager population after like 8 minutes. There is clearly more emphasis on massing units.
- He then says that the meta at all times revolved around teching to specific, stronger units. This is demonstrably false too. For some civs teching to better units does happen, but there are plenty of civs that do not do such a thing at all. Think of 2008 Japan, where the meta revolved around making basically the earliest unit available. Or just consider Russia, who will make the basic age 2 units for the entire game. The same is often true for many other civs like for example Brits and India. Actually, literally any game where any civ stays age 2 basically disproves his entire point. After all, age 2 basically means you didn't tech up (going from age 1 to age 2 shouldn't really count, it's just some early startup phase like the dark age is for aoe2).
- His next point is somewhat unclear, but one thing he seems to imply is that in aoe3 tech vs boom doesn't happen. According to him, players are incentivized to rush to the best tech and unit compositions because they make it easy to end the game. This is again demonstrably false. Many openers actually don't rush to the best tech and unit composition; You actually try to squeeze in as much eco as possible in the early game, so that you can field as much army as possible in the midgame. It's a subtle difference, but it's a difference that completely debunks his theory. People don't rush for tech, they also boom. He says there isn't much benefit to making large numbers of units or investing a lot into economy. This is once again incorrect. Civs like Dutch play super economically, and I think I've seen Russia mass a large number of units once or twice in my life*. He claims the typical game is a fast fortress, which is once again false. It's at the very least a semi-fast fortress. This subtle difference once again destroys his theory. If people are rushing up to get the best tech and units, rather than making 'weak' colonial units, then do players typically make some age 2 units before trying to age? This fact is simply incompatible with his theory.
- He then discusses the 'metas', as if these demonstrate that his theory about tech is correct. But honestly, a lot of this is false. He lists Abus guns, Lancers, German Mercs, Bow Riders (I think? He calls them cav riders because he doesn't do proper research for his videos), Iroquois infantry, Dutch ruyters and Japanese musketeers. The funny thing about this is that abus, BR, Iro infantry and ashigarus are all colonial age units; They are not units you tech up to, they are literally the first unit available. The fact that these units are being massed actually proves his theory wrong, as these are some of the least technologically advanced units. Furthermore, I don't think Lancers were actually the reason why Spain teched (techs) up quickly. Spain is a civ that specifically techs up quickly to spam shipments. It's not actually about the tech, it's just the most efficient way to get a military mass. Does spain then actually focus on technology, or do they focus on military (the thing he said doesn't really happen). The German mercs were pretty similar to this. They were just a very efficient way to get a large army. The Dutch ruyters are also a pretty bad point. I clearly recall that in WCG2007, Dutch players actually primarily focused on skirmishers; you know, the unit available in age 2. Dutch ruyters weren't and still aren't exceptionally good either, as any competent aoe3 player should know.
I think his points don't prove his theory at all. On the contrary, I think all of his points are demonstrably false or just straight up don't support his theory. This was overall a really bad video in my opinion. I think he speaks with a lot of confidence, but all I hear is ignorance.
Riotcoke wrote:iirc the size of the competetive scene when WCG was a thing it didn't really warrant the size of prize pool it had.
It wasn't that. WCG was "country" based. If you're country wasn't involved, you couldn't be. Loads of talented players (Challe - Sweden, Braidon - Aussie, etc.) got left out for that reason. Outside of H2O, Parfait played in an objectively weak region (EU/Asia was loaded with PR 45+s).
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Did the bois at WCG get there travel and sub paid for? I assume so - maybe depends on the national body that was handling their players?
Just saying when you consider the NWC costs (flying players and casters and rent and setup etc) its going to count for a lot lot more than the £4K prize pool shows hence should probably factor that in as to whether it was "major." I suspect me losing game 7 vs mitoe cost them a grand alone (though can not confirm!)
Also a thing to consider ESOC has most likely paid players more money than WCG or any past tournament organizers. (When totaling ESOC all time pay outs.) When people look at the past and reminisce on the past they tend to over exaggerate and build it up to something more in their head than what it actually was.
Lasol wrote: just Saw a YouTube video with giveyouanexiaty. He Said check youre stove, if you Want to improve youre aoe3 skills.
WHAT does check your stove means? And how do you do it?
WickedCossack wrote:Did the bois at WCG get there travel and sub paid for? I assume so - maybe depends on the national body that was handling their players?
Just saying when you consider the NWC costs (flying players and casters and rent and setup etc) its going to count for a lot lot more than the £4K prize pool shows hence should probably factor that in as to whether it was "major." I suspect me losing game 7 vs mitoe cost them a grand alone (though can not confirm!)
Yes but for example in 2008, it was in Germany and the German team took 3 players, US had 1. For the national finals, you got housing and a stipend to cover a portion of travel, players were responsible for the rest.
WickedCossack wrote:Did the bois at WCG get there travel and sub paid for? I assume so - maybe depends on the national body that was handling their players?
Just saying when you consider the NWC costs (flying players and casters and rent and setup etc) its going to count for a lot lot more than the £4K prize pool shows hence should probably factor that in as to whether it was "major." I suspect me losing game 7 vs mitoe cost them a grand alone (though can not confirm!)
You fucking ruined the studio by being bad!
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
I think too many people that diss Parfait's points forget the terrible state the game was in during his time. He is looking at that timeframe and not at what ESOC has built. It is true that there was always one single strategy that everyone did during certain patches and there were basically no options at all.
In the end of vanilla german FF was the most dominant and annoying strategy and everybody did an FF. There was no colonial play or anything and there have been lots of metas like this:
like the Iroquois great house slaughterfest or the China Disciple FF during early TAD.
One-dimensional, boring gameplay, little differentiation between players. Kinda like SC2 during the early day.
Most of his points make sense to me, looking at the context, but I think he should have made it a bit clearer that he doesn't know what happened after 2008/2009. It doesn't even take much digging to find out that a new community has formed and aoe3 has changed fundamentally.
aaryngend wrote:I think too many people that diss Parfait's points forget the terrible state the game was in during his time. He is looking at that timeframe and not at what ESOC has built. It is true that there was always one single strategy that everyone did during certain patches and there were basically no options at all.
In the end of vanilla german FF was the most dominant and annoying strategy and everybody did an FF. There was no colonial play or anything and there have been lots of metas like this:
like the Iroquois great house slaughterfest or the China Disciple FF during early TAD.
One-dimensional, boring gameplay, little differentiation between players. Kinda like SC2 during the early day.
Most of his points make sense to me, looking at the context, but I think he should have made it a bit clearer that he doesn't know what happened after 2008/2009. It doesn't even take much digging to find out that a new community has formed and aoe3 has changed fundamentally.
Ye, that's the issue. He didn't make any research, and made claims about the 2007/2009 era instead.
) : Tassili is a standard map with less hunts, Thar Desert is standard map with no TPs and less hunts, Gran Chaco is a standard map without TPs and the list goes on...
