Treasures

[Garja]

All things considered I actually think the game would be better if age 1 and the related treasures did not exist. Treasures have to be there because age 1 is just a waste of time, but tbh I feel like age 1 is a waste of time in general and treasures don't seem to bring anything to the table that makes the game better. Treasures are 'skill based' in the sense that there surely are some decisions to be made and skills to have, but it's not hard nor is it really fun to do, and the luck factor is still really big.

i agree if you look at aoc age 1 is quite different compared to aoe 3. Builds differ depending on what strat you wanna do later in the game. Things like bore or deer luring are quite hard to pull of and even scouting is harder because the map is bigger and you need to constantly scout in order to get enough info about the map and where your opponent is located. If you were to play a top aoc player youd basically lose the game in age 1 alread, sth which isnt really possible in aoe 3. Theres little differences between top players and bottom ones in aoe 3 concerning the first age.
I get why the devs decided to have a first age in aoe 3 but after 15 years its safe to say that this has been a mistake. It makes aoe slower, while giving little in return. Theres no interesting shipments that can be sent theres no rush strat that can be done in age 1. Its just always the same. You dont even alter your build in any, like in aoc, if you wanna do an ff or semi ff or colonial based play. Its always the same. It pretty much adds nothing to the game except for boredom

Why the confidence with which your argument this seems proportional to its falsity? Trolling?
Just like in AOC, in AOE3 a noob already loses after the age1 against a much better player. And even at higher levels it can make a difference. On top of that there are cards that can be sent in age1 (atp, schooners, gfa) even thought they don't necessarily involve interaction between players.
Also I'm rather sure that stuff like boar luring becomes routine too at high levels in AOC. The fact that AOC early management is harder than AOE3 (which is true) can be justified exactly by the fact that you have almost no interaction between players.

[deleted_user]

Fucking euro commies afraid any one person can get an advantage in a game.

[[Armag] diarouga]

All things considered I actually think the game would be better if age 1 and the related treasures did not exist. Treasures have to be there because age 1 is just a waste of time, but tbh I feel like age 1 is a waste of time in general and treasures don't seem to bring anything to the table that makes the game better. Treasures are 'skill based' in the sense that there surely are some decisions to be made and skills to have, but it's not hard nor is it really fun to do, and the luck factor is still really big.

i agree if you look at aoc age 1 is quite different compared to aoe 3. Builds differ depending on what strat you wanna do later in the game. Things like bore or deer luring are quite hard to pull of and even scouting is harder because the map is bigger and you need to constantly scout in order to get enough info about the map and where your opponent is located. If you were to play a top aoc player youd basically lose the game in age 1 alread, sth which isnt really possible in aoe 3. Theres little differences between top players and bottom ones in aoe 3 concerning the first age.
I get why the devs decided to have a first age in aoe 3 but after 15 years its safe to say that this has been a mistake. It makes aoe slower, while giving little in return. Theres no interesting shipments that can be sent theres no rush strat that can be done in age 1. Its just always the same. You dont even alter your build in any, like in aoc, if you wanna do an ff or semi ff or colonial based play. Its always the same. It pretty much adds nothing to the game except for boredom

Why the confidence with which your argument this seems proportional to its falsity? Trolling?
Just like in AOC, in AOE3 a noob already loses after the age1 against a much better player. And even at higher levels it can make a difference. On top of that there are cards that can be sent in age1 (atp, schooners, gfa) even thought they don't necessarily involve interaction between players.
Also I'm rather sure that stuff like boar luring becomes routine too at high levels in AOC. The fact that AOC early management is harder than AOE3 (which is true) can be justified exactly by the fact that you have almost no interaction between players.

I totally agree with Raph. In aoe3 a captain can just match a top player's age 1 most of the time, while in AOC a top player would just win the game in age 1 vs a 2000 elo guy.

[deleted_user0]

besides, what's more satisfying than winning a game after 90 seconds because someone gave up just cause you stole his tres. It's da best.

[[Armag] diarouga]

besides, what's more satisfying than winning a game after 90 seconds because someone gave up just cause you stole his tres. It's da best.

Garja!

[deleted_user]

The higher ranked a player is, the more available and proximous easy, high-value treasures should be to their town center. Ez.

[Garja]

I totally agree with Raph. In aoe3 a captain can just match a top player's age 1 most of the time, while in AOC a top player would just win the game in age 1 vs a 2000 elo guy.

You either blatantly lie or your perspective is distorted by the fact that you suck at treasuring so the captain matches your age1.

[Kaiserklein]

In aoe3 a captain can just match a top player's age 1 most of the time, while in AOC a top player would just win the game in age 1 vs a 2000 elo guy.

Sorry if I sound arrogant but I win my age 1 more than 90% of the time vs captains for sure.
Sure there's a lot of luck in age 1, but there's definitely a big part of skill too, sadly most people don't pay attention to it and then blame bad luck.

[momuuu]

All things considered I actually think the game would be better if age 1 and the related treasures did not exist. Treasures have to be there because age 1 is just a waste of time, but tbh I feel like age 1 is a waste of time in general and treasures don't seem to bring anything to the table that makes the game better. Treasures are 'skill based' in the sense that there surely are some decisions to be made and skills to have, but it's not hard nor is it really fun to do, and the luck factor is still really big.

i agree if you look at aoc age 1 is quite different compared to aoe 3. Builds differ depending on what strat you wanna do later in the game. Things like bore or deer luring are quite hard to pull of and even scouting is harder because the map is bigger and you need to constantly scout in order to get enough info about the map and where your opponent is located. If you were to play a top aoc player youd basically lose the game in age 1 alread, sth which isnt really possible in aoe 3. Theres little differences between top players and bottom ones in aoe 3 concerning the first age.
I get why the devs decided to have a first age in aoe 3 but after 15 years its safe to say that this has been a mistake. It makes aoe slower, while giving little in return. Theres no interesting shipments that can be sent theres no rush strat that can be done in age 1. Its just always the same. You dont even alter your build in any, like in aoc, if you wanna do an ff or semi ff or colonial based play. Its always the same. It pretty much adds nothing to the game except for boredom

Yeah, all things considered I don't actually see the true value of age 1. I do appreciate that there is at least a small amount of setup time, where you can consider what you're going to do and explore the map a bit, but aoe3 is over the top. Part of the problem is that there turned out to not be anything interesting really. You always ship 3v/trickle with some tiny exceptions (Ports, spain ATP builds, VC) and then you always simply gather food only to age up asap without cutting villagers. It has kind of turned out that even cutting villagers is barely ever a good thing. In fringe scenarios there are strategic decisions made before aging up, but in the majority of cases it's a 4 minute long autopilot where the only thing that is remotely interesting is the highly random and mostly boring treasure gathering. And then there are cheesy things like killing an explorer before it can get a TP because you got lucky finding it, or simply finding a CDB guarded by 4 wolfs or the 140f treasure which all is just gamebreaking and honestly luck based.

In general my point is that I don't even care if treasures are skillbased or not, if there is skill it's mostly a boring skill. Age 1 in aoe3 is entirely repetitive and boring and mostly boils down to waiting 4 minutes before the game start while hoping you - and not your opponent - randomly stumbles across some OP gamebreaking treasures. Skill can get you that edge of getting maybe 1 extra treasure per game, but it won't prevent your opponent from finding a super OP treasure close to his TC while you get pure garbage in your vicinity. As far as skill goes, Ive randomly collected something like 17/20 yaks in a game on mongolia against you claiming they didn't spawn randomly (checking afterwards, they did spawn randomly and I just got fucking lucky). It's luck giving one player a sick advantage just because age 1 is otherwise boring as fuck.

[gibson]

The thing is most of the time “winning” age 1 is irrelevant. Unless you get a native to lame, kill the other guys explorer, or get a lot of high tier treasures getting 70f 60w and 80f while the other guy gets 80f and 70g barely matters. Sometimes it’s a bigger deal if you can age a vil faster too but outside of that people don’t play the game tight enough for a tier 2 res treasure or 2 to make a difference in the long run.

[momuuu]

The thing is most of the time “winning” age 1 is irrelevant. Unless you get a native to lame, kill the other guys explorer, or get a lot of high tier treasures getting 70f 60w and 80f while the other guy gets 80f and 70g barely matters. Sometimes it’s a bigger deal if you can age a vil faster too but outside of that people don’t play the game tight enough for a tier 2 res treasure or 2 to make a difference in the long run.

I used to think this too, and it mostly is true, but some ~100 resources do matter some, just look at the russia villager buff. But in general, the real winning in age 1 is getting some ridiculous treasure to spawn closer to you than to your opponent. It's random moments that make your civ go from balanced to actually over powered, and there's very little skill in that.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The people who claim that aoc's age 1 isn't much better than aoe3's probably haven't played aoc.

[HUMMAN]

One reason is beginning action at the start is awkward. You want to explore, discover and adopt. It is a new world game afterall. I get why some people get bored but if there was no pre-war situation it would be boring too. Treasures/cows are there to make age1 less boring, since map is not static you have to discover.
I agree 140f and some other are broken, should be removed or be static at equal distances to TC's.
As said winning age1 not matter much, but age1 is also required because you have to adabt to the map.
If maps were static, certain MU's would be same everytime since few random variables are in.
Age 1 determine building market/tp age up time/ different hunts and mine placement makes everygame unique though not always balanced yet favors adapting skill.

[Mitoe]

I totally agree with Raph. In aoe3 a captain can just match a top player's age 1 most of the time, while in AOC a top player would just win the game in age 1 vs a 2000 elo guy.

There's no way a Captain actually matches a top player in age 1 "most of the time." Maybe you just play a lot of civs that are weaker than many of the other civs in age 1?

@lordraphael Can you just decide whether you like or hate the game? I don't think I've ever seen you say anything good about the game; why do you even play?

[Garja]

The people who claim that aoc's age 1 isn't much better than aoe3's probably haven't played aoc.

Who the fuck is even saying that

[momuuu]

I totally agree with Raph. In aoe3 a captain can just match a top player's age 1 most of the time, while in AOC a top player would just win the game in age 1 vs a 2000 elo guy.

There's no way a Captain actually matches a top player in age 1 "most of the time." Maybe you just play a lot of civs that are weaker than many of the other civs in age 1?

@lordraphael Can you just decide whether you like or hate the game? I don't think I've ever seen you say anything good about the game; why do you even play?

I too like to think the top players are really good at this game - and they are. But come on, they're not superhumans, not actually smarter than people, they just play more and might be more talented at games. Treasure hunting in age 1 has some tricks to it, and theres a small amount of experience, but once you know the tricks and turn on your brain you can do as well as luck allows you. It requires just common sense and a bit of map knowledge to realize when treasures are more worthwhile going for than others - literally anyone can acquire this skill. Some tricks are easy to pick up or come up with on your own: the treasure creeping, looking in the fog of war so you can see if your opponent is taking a big treasure, somewhat efficient scouting paths, and realizing that you shouldn't waste your crackshot on some maps. But it just feels weird to describe treasure hunting as some very deep skill that you can only master after putting 1000s of hours into the game. It's not that complex, and mostly driven by luck/a small amount of knowledge.

[Mitoe]

I never said it was complex. That doesn't mean I'll lose to Captains in age 1.

Literally the only claim I made in that post was that it's really unlikely for a Captain to break even with any top player in age 1. Maybe you think differently? Fine, but how often have you even played vs top players? If I were to play 20 games vs you Jerom, I'm certain I'd win age 1 in almost every game.

[Garja]

If age1 was so simple how is that there is literally a handful of players who do it right? Legit question.

[tabben]

Age 1 plays a large role vs. people at your own level, but when there's a skill gap (like between a captain and a colonel) other stuff are just more important, like macro and strategic decisions.

Also it's definitely possible for a capt./major to beat a colonel (or higher) in age 1. Just look at this age 1 i played vs Rapha the other day, still he managed to get away with a relatively comfortable win. If you don't feel like watching, i'll quickly recap it for you:

Tabben
35f
20w
105c
60f
80w
Kills both indian explorers and idles two villagers (one trying to pick up a treasure getting stolen, the other likely accidently waypointed to the same place)

LordRaphael
30c
40f
75w

[deleted_user]

Read what's written. There's no talk that it's impossible, only Diarouga used the word "most."

Congrats, what a great video.

[Snuden]

I like age 1 the most as it makes me feel that I'm still in the game with a legit chance to win.
This usually changes at 4:40 when my 700 wood shipment still haven't been sent.

[momuuu]

I never said it was complex. That doesn't mean I'll lose to Captains in age 1.

Literally the only claim I made in that post was that it's really unlikely for a Captain to break even with any top player in age 1. Maybe you think differently? Fine, but how often have you even played vs top players? If I were to play 20 games vs you Jerom, I'm certain I'd win age 1 in almost every game.

And I'm saying you're taking captains for retarded braindeads, practically. They're often not too stupid to properly play age 1. I don't even know how you can in theory win age 1 almost every game against a person if they could just get better treasure spawns? It's straight up ignoring the fact that frequently you'll just not find good treasures early on - you can't beat someone in age 1 if the first treasures on hudson bay that you find are some 3 polar bear treasure, 60w with 3 wolfs and a polar bear HP treasure while the other guy has for example 150c with 3 wolfs and 100w with 2 polar bears close to his base.

[tabben]

Read what's written. There's no talk that it's impossible, only Diarouga used the word "most."

Read what's written:

That doesn't mean I'll lose to Captains in age 1.

it's really unlikely for a Captain to break even with any top player in age 1

So if it's really unlikely for a capt. to break even with a top player in age 1, beating them in it must come pretty close to impossible, right?

Congrats, what a great video.

Would usually be thankful, but I'm really struggling to see what you're congratulating me for

[deleted_user]

Really unlikely =/= impossible and one example =/= sufficient evidence

Besides, you're a major, not a captain

[Mitoe]

And I'm saying you're taking captains for retarded braindeads, practically. They're often not too stupid to properly play age 1. I don't even know how you can in theory win age 1 almost every game against a person if they could just get better treasure spawns? It's straight up ignoring the fact that frequently you'll just not find good treasures early on - you can't beat someone in age 1 if the first treasures on hudson bay that you find are some 3 polar bear treasure, 60w with 3 wolfs and a polar bear HP treasure while the other guy has for example 150c with 3 wolfs and 100w with 2 polar bears close to his base.

I'm not calling Captains stupid. In my experience if I'm playing vs a Captain I almost always get the better treasures in age 1.

And even if your treasure spawn is significantly worse than your opponent you can still come out ahead. If I see explorer hp and 60w for 3 wolves, usually I'm going to choose to walk towards my opponent's side of the map in search of treasures and hope to contest them. In some cases this can even turn out better for me than for my opponent despite the fact that he had an objectively better treasure spawn, simply because I'll be higher hp, have kill/snare potential to deny him scouting, and if I do manage to steal one of the treasures he's started he's just behind regardless of where those treasures are positioned, to be honest.

But yes, this is why I said earlier in this thread that certain treasures (like 100% explorer hp for 8 renegados and similarly impossible to take treasures) have no place in 1v1. If all treasures were of roughly equal value to the strength of the guardians, and not untakable monstrosities, then the better player would come out ahead even more consistently.

If you don't believe me I'd be happy to play several games against you and see how age 1 goes. If you're right then across 10-20 games we should have roughly the same number of games where one of us gained an advantage in age 1 over the other, or broke even.