New Parfait video

[bwinner]

I remember a sentence from the wisest of us, the old elifent aizamk saying that aoe3 is a perfect game for hime because you can win both with your mechanics or with your game knowledges and both equally matter. I think this is very true when you look at the players on top (quite a variety of profile have reached the top10 during esoc era). I don't believe this is the case in aoe2 where top players are only the 400apm guys, so for me aoe3 has more variety in this regard. This is probably the reason why I love the game too.

[P i k i l i c]

Well, parfait is actually aware that ESOC and the EP exist but basically he answers in the comments to Goodspeed and others that all that happened after 2008 doesn't really matter because aoe3 is not competitive at all compared to 2008, hence making the entire community insignificant. I may exaggerate his position but I think it is roughly his point.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well, parfait is actually aware that ESOC and the EP exist but basically he answers in the comments to Goodspeed and others that all that happened after 2008 doesn't really matter because aoe3 is not competitive at all compared to 2008, hence making the entire community insignificant. I may exaggerate his position but I think it is roughly his point.

Many disagree with me, but I think that aoe3 is more competitive today.

[P i k i l i c]

@[Armag] diarouga personally I don't know since I am neither a high level player nor fully aware of the situation in 2008 and 2019 but I was reporting what parfait said

[aaryngend]

Well, parfait is actually aware that ESOC and the EP exist but basically he answers in the comments to Goodspeed and others that all that happened after 2008 doesn't really matter because aoe3 is not competitive at all compared to 2008, hence making the entire community insignificant. I may exaggerate his position but I think it is roughly his point.

Interesting, so he was very well aware and chose not to mention it at all? I mean, I know he talked about time constraints but this is too big to just ignore.
There is no rush, he could have released the video 1-2 months later but with proper research.

[Astaroth]

Honestly, the main reasons Aoe3 feels very different to eg Aoe2 with regards to the relationship between eco/tech/army are different from what Parfait mentioned:

1. Incredible importance of natural resources and TPs around the map, meaning essentially no way to boom in your base mid or longterm.

2. Weakness of buildings, making turtling very hard compared to eg aoe2, where walls, guard towers and castles hold almost anything but age4 rams and trebuchets, meaning that earlier attacks aim to hurt and slow down, not to kill - completely unlike aoe3's deadly timings.

3. Rather small maps.

4. Civs scaling extremely differently, forcing some civs to end the game or lose.

5. Shipments, particularly military ones.

All of these factors incentivise massing army, timing pushes, one big fight often deciding the game. There is very little comeback potential and mostly very little reason to boom (aside from TPs and civ bonuses).

In aoe2, most top players will almost always fish boom on water maps and 3 tc boom in castle age on all maps. This is because it is very hard to punish - most attacks can be repelled with cheap mangonel defense, castle etc. In aoe 3, if you play too greedily, the opponent can just siege your whole base no problem.

Similarly, aoe2 incentivises moving out on the map with small armies - losing 15 crossbows is fine if you kill 6 vills. In aoe3, losing 15 skirms or musks can be game losing, because you simply have less stuff when the big fight happens.

The finite natural res of AoE3 also make eco differences completely irrelevant at a certain point. If only 30 of your vills can still gather coin or food, it doesn't matter so much if you have 30 or 60vills. Or at least it matters less than getting great trades. In aoe2, a huge eco can compensate bad trades because you can just remass in your base and he can't siege it easily anyway.

Shipments also contribute to an important point: the army you have at eg 10 or 15 minutes is often much, much bigger than the army you can naturally produce with your eco in any reasonable time frame. That's because if 30 % or so of your army value are made out of finite unit shipments, your comparatively weak eco cant compensate for the loss quickly.

[RefluxSemantic]

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.

This is true. However that actually doesnt change the fact that his theory is just wrong. I dont even think it holds up in the metas he was part of. Over half if his arguments were straight up false. His theory also doesnt hold up anymore now that we figured the game out more. His theory wasnt about a small bit of the meta, but about aoe3 as a whole. If it was true, it would have held up as we learned more about the game. But as I pointed out, it didnt. The sheer arrogance of this video rubs me the wrong way. He's not doing any research, and is presenting bullshit as if he's a genius.

If you want to make this grand analysis of what aoe3 is like, of how the game compares to other games, you need to do actual research. If you want to defend a theory like that, you should have looked if it would stand the test of time. If you dont do that, you shouldnt be making videos with this tone.

[Goodspeed]

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.

The problem is that he is making points about game design based on glaring balance issues. It should be clear to anyone that the broken metas of the past were not a result of design choices but of poor balancing. And what he's doing is not analyzing the meta, he's (or rather he thinks he is) analyzing the game's fundamental design.

[RefluxSemantic]

tbh hes right. TPs are important nowadays but they only reinforce his theory becasue they allow even more and safer advances to age 3. So his core theory still holds up, regardless of wheather he includes tps or not. Its a sign of a good theory or that it still holds up even if some important factors that arent known to it still can be explained/ support the claim it makes.

Except his theory doesn't hold up. If his theory would hold up, colonial play wouldn't be a thing. But it is, and has been even more prominent in the past. If his theory was true, we would be doing naked FF instead of semi FF, we wouldn't be shipping 1000w in fortress for more eco. His theory simply doesn't hold up. It's at best an incomplete description of reality, but honestly I think it's straight up incorrect and accidentally gets a few of the aspects of aoe3 correct (but is blatantly wrong in many other regards).

[Dolan]

I don't know if this argument holds water or not. I know some of the former Ensemble devs said in interviews that cuirs were meant to be broken and OP. It was a design choice for cuirs to always be OP and very hard to counter.

And that's why Ensemble resisted calls from the community, over the years, to nerf them significantly. What they did, instead, was to rebalance other units to give them a better chance at countering cuirs. But they steadfastly refused to nerf cuirs and turn them into just another version of huss.

So maybe, indeed, some units were meant to have a certain profile in the game that made them particularly hard to deal with. If you make access to that unit expensive, then it makes sense to also make it very powerful. You're not gonna be able to spam it before your eco is strong enough to support that. And if your opponent didn't prevent you from getting there, then it's their fault.

Kinda same reasoning behind making monitors so broken as they were in RE. What Ensemble couldn't anticipate is how creative players got at reaching that later age so fast unscathed, to be able to use that broken unit from a secure spot and basically have almost no counter. And this is what EP fixed, which, in a way, changed the game design, but moderated some balance extremes.

[bobabu]

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.

The problem is that he is making points about game design based on glaring balance issues. It should be clear to anyone that the broken metas of the past were not a result of design choices but of poor balancing. And what he's doing is not analyzing the meta, he's (or rather he thinks he is) analyzing the game's fundamental design.

The video starts of well, especially what he is saying about the simplification of the game and starts completely falling apart due to a lack of knowledge. I'd say there's a strong focus on fighting in Age of Empires 3. The army masses in Age of Empires 3 are generally larger and you get a large army mass sooner. So while Age of Empires 3 starts off easier, there's a shift around the 6 to 10 minute mark where Age of Empires 3 is actually more micro intensive due to the large army mass. I believe that quick reactions are more decisive in Age of Empires 3 than in Age of Empires 2 and that a lot of games come down to unit control. Whereas in Age of Empires 2 strageic decision are more important than micromanagement. Especially since good eco-management doesn't shift the game in your favour as fast as good military unit management. I like the focus on fighting that Age of Empires 3 offers, it's very subjective. Parfait should rather make the argument that there's a stronger focus on fighting which was probably the idea of the developers. Halo Wars in a way followed the same sentiment where you similarly to Age of Empires 3 have cards and then the focus is all on fighting.

[RefluxSemantic]

I thought the video started pretty poorly too. What's up with him trying to use early game scouting to prove his point? Aoe3 early game scouting is probably one of the most intensive forms of scouting in any RTS I've ever played, and there is so much decision making with regards to treasures. This is far more complex than scouting in aoe2. It's the one thing that got more complex and the one thing where you need to micro more.

[Mitoe]

I don't think scouting is more complex than AoE2 to be honest (though I haven't actually played much AoE2). I'm not sure it's less complex either; there's depth to how you use your scouting units in both games.

[Dolan]

Yeah, devs thought that emphasising eco and macro made the game too slow and boring.

AOE3 shifted to a more action-focused dynamic, in which eco management took second place, while constant fighting and game fate reversals through sudden shipments to a spawn point that could be changed across the map took center stage. They deliberately wanted to make an Age game that played more like Starcraft.

[RefluxSemantic]

I don't think scouting is more complex than AoE2 to be honest (though I haven't actually played much AoE2).

There isn't that much complexity in aoe2, at least it didn't really seem like it. At the very least it's there is more micromanagement in aoe3. "in aoe2 you can lose your explorer to a town center", that's his argument for why it's harder in aoe2. This is just horseshit.

I initially said half of the things he said were incorrect. I'm starting to think basically everything he said is incorrect.

[bobabu]

I don't know if this argument holds water or not. I know some of the former Ensemble devs said in interviews that cuirs were meant to be broken and OP. It was a design choice for cuirs to always be OP and very hard to counter.

And that's why Ensemble resisted calls from the community, over the years, to nerf them significantly. What they did, instead, was to rebalance other units to give them a better chance at countering cuirs. But they steadfastly refused to nerf cuirs and turn them into just another version of huss.

So maybe, indeed, some units were meant to have a certain profile in the game that made them particularly hard to deal with. If you make access to that unit expensive, then it makes sense to also make it very powerful. You're not gonna be able to spam it before your eco is strong enough to support that. And if your opponent didn't prevent you from getting there, then it's their fault.

Kinda same reasoning behind making monitors so broken as they were in RE. What Ensemble couldn't anticipate is how creative players got at reaching that later age so fast unscathed, to be able to use that broken unit from a secure spot and have almost no counter. And this is what EP fixed, which, in a way, changed the game design, but moderated some balance extremes.

I think it was a very good decision by the devs to keep the gendarmes the same. For newbies knowing all the different counters or when to take fights will be extremely difficult. They will find solace in knowing there's a unit which they can spam and a lot of players will not be able to do anything against them. Then ofc naturally you wanna make the unique units of each civilization and not just the standard ones. So the unique units need to be better than standard units. Then there's the op and untouchable feeling that full gendarme spam gives you. Even in high Lvl games, good players will switch to gendarmes even though they wouldn't need them just to feel dominant and unstoppable. I mean everyone knows how it feels when you see a gendarme mass coming at you.

[Dolan]

Yep, it's those unique OP units that made every civ very cool to play. Nobody would be interested in playing a civ with bland, generic units, that are perfectly balanced.

[bobabu]

I don't think scouting is more complex than AoE2 to be honest (though I haven't actually played much AoE2).

There isn't that much complexity in aoe2, at least it didn't really seem like it. At the very least it's there is more micromanagement in aoe3. "in aoe2 you can lose your explorer to a town center", that's his argument for why it's harder in aoe2. This is just horseshit.

I initially said half of the things he said were incorrect. I'm starting to think basically everything he said is incorrect.

He is right about the scout though. Unlike in Age of Empires 3 if the scout dies in Age of Empires 2 it's gone for good. In Age of Empires 3 scouting isn't as important because you will start with enough food to Age up nearby your base something which is not guaranteed in Age of Empires 2. I'd say in Age of Empires 3 in Age 1 you have time to text the opponent and make some jokes. I believe that's the beauty of Age of Empires 3 because it doesn't immediately overwhelm new players. While Age of Empires 2 it's a constant struggle. You don't have time to text your opponent you immediately need to find a food source in order to be able to q villagers. If you don't watch them they might die to a boar. Then about halfway through aging up you will have to make the decision between scouting the opponent or sacrificing a food source mainly deer. Trust me the first few minutes in Age of Empires 2 is a real struggle. In Age of Empires it's much more straight forward. You build a tp, scout your base and collect a few treasures. Even if you forget about your scout your enemy will no be able to kill it. Vills won't do enough damage to do so. And even if the scout dies you can revive it. In most cases you can just walk back to your own towncenter.

[RefluxSemantic]

I don't think scouting is more complex than AoE2 to be honest (though I haven't actually played much AoE2).

There isn't that much complexity in aoe2, at least it didn't really seem like it. At the very least it's there is more micromanagement in aoe3. "in aoe2 you can lose your explorer to a town center", that's his argument for why it's harder in aoe2. This is just horseshit.

I initially said half of the things he said were incorrect. I'm starting to think basically everything he said is incorrect.

He is right about the scout though. Unlike in Age of Empires 3 if the scout dies in Age of Empires 2 it's gone for good. In Age of Empires 3 scouting isn't as important because you will start with enough food to Age up nearby your base something which is not guaranteed in Age of Empires 2. I'd say in Age of Empires 3 in Age 1 you have time to text the opponent and make some jokes. Which I actually believe is nice because the game starts slow. While Age of Empires 2 it's a constant struggle. You don't have time to text your opponent you immediately need to find a food source in order to be able to q villagers. If you don't watch them they might die to a boar. Then about halfway through aging up you will have to make the decision between scouting the opponent or sacrificing a food source mainly deer. Trust me the first few minutes in Age of Empires 2 is a real struggle. In Age of Empires it's much more straight forward. You build a tp, scout your base and collect a few treasures. Even if you forget about your scout your enemy will no be able to kill it. Vills won't do enough damage to do so. And even if the scout dies you can revive it. In most cases you can just walk back to your own towncenter.

not running your scout into an enemy TC is not a large micromanagement burden.. There isn't really much discussion possible.

[Imperial Noob]

In Age of Empires 3 scouting isn't as important because you will start with enough food to Age up nearby your base something which is not guaranteed in Age of Empires 2.

*laughs in RE maps*

[bobabu]

Show hidden quotes

I don't think scouting is more complex than AoE2 to be honest (though I haven't actually played much AoE2).

There isn't that much complexity in aoe2, at least it didn't really seem like it. At the very least it's there is more micromanagement in aoe3. "in aoe2 you can lose your explorer to a town center", that's his argument for why it's harder in aoe2. This is just horseshit.

I initially said half of the things he said were incorrect. I'm starting to think basically everything he said is incorrect.

He is right about the scout though. Unlike in Age of Empires 3 if the scout dies in Age of Empires 2 it's gone for good. In Age of Empires 3 scouting isn't as important because you will start with enough food to Age up nearby your base something which is not guaranteed in Age of Empires 2. I'd say in Age of Empires 3 in Age 1 you have time to text the opponent and make some jokes. Which I actually believe is nice because the game starts slow. While Age of Empires 2 it's a constant struggle. You don't have time to text your opponent you immediately need to find a food source in order to be able to q villagers. If you don't watch them they might die to a boar. Then about halfway through aging up you will have to make the decision between scouting the opponent or sacrificing a food source mainly deer. Trust me the first few minutes in Age of Empires 2 is a real struggle. In Age of Empires it's much more straight forward. You build a tp, scout your base and collect a few treasures. Even if you forget about your scout your enemy will no be able to kill it. Vills won't do enough damage to do so. And even if the scout dies you can revive it. In most cases you can just walk back to your own towncenter.

not running your scout into an enemy TC is not a large micromanagement burden.. There isn't really much discussion possible.

Well it's normal to try to idle the enemy a bit with your scout. It's not about actually walking under the towncenter of your opponent but that you might try to idle him he walks his vill back in to the twoncenter and your scout follows the vill. Nobody would try to attack vills with the scout in Age of Empires 3 to idle someone. The only case I could think of is doing that with a toma.

[RefluxSemantic]

You're missing the point. He's saying age 1 is more micro-intensive in aoe2 because you might run your scout into a TC, and then completely ignores the fact that treasure creeping exists. Neither thing is very micro-intensive anyways, it's a bad example to begin with but it's an even worse example to show that aoe3 toned down on the micromanagement.

[bobabu]

In Age of Empires 3 scouting isn't as important because you will start with enough food to Age up nearby your base something which is not guaranteed in Age of Empires 2.

*laughs in RE maps*

Even on RE maps you will have enough food to age up. There will always be a hunt. Yes, as soon as they run out the struggle begins and you need to herd and can't get even unlucky because of the herd backherds. Backherding is just a flaw of the game really. I mean when they run into the wrong direction even though you are shooting from the right angle.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well in aoe3 your opponent can snare your explorer and kill it, that's the same thing.

[Goodspeed]

@RefluxSemantic You're cherry picking. The more important point he made about scouting in AoE2 is that there are multiple uses for your scout, and the decision on how to use it can be very impactful.

As far as I know (though I'm pretty shit at the game) there are 3 main uses:
- Scouting your own map. This is important if you want to wall, or want to decide whether or not to wall based on your map spawn.
- Herding deer. This gives a pretty nice early game food boost.
- Scouting your opponent's map. This is important if you're looking to attack them, or want to decide whether or not you want to attack them based on their map spawn.

Importantly, you can't do all 3. In AoE3, you really don't face this choice because the map is much smaller and scouting around your and your opponent's bases in the early game is not important. By 8 min game time you should have all the important stuff scouted no matter what, as long as your scout isn't idle half the game. The only real strategic choice is where to go for treasures.