100 Stone Start

[Zbyszek]

It makes towers more potent because the enemy cant afford the counter if he isnt prepared.

It discourages booming because you need to mine stone for 3rd TC.

It discourages market use to click to castle age.

What do you think?
Is that something to consider?

 

[OLADUSHEK]

Dude, you are right

 

[LowEloNobody]

Tower your opponents stone and its just gg for him but sure.

 

[Lokalo]

Tower rush would be annoying, I would preffer making you can't sell below 200 stone in feudal, that would semi solve market issue. Though not sure how difficult that is to implement into game, but being not able to sell 200 stone would make people concider if market is really needed that early.

 

[Zbyszek]

what about 150 then? cant sell 50, cant build TC but can still tower.

 

[Lopiger]

what about 150 then? cant sell 50, cant build TC but can still tower.

I like that, would have made booming maps like arena even more annoying though...

 

[Lokalo]

what about 150 then? cant sell 50, cant build TC but can still tower.

Dunno, I personally would actually go the other direction. What concerns game play, I feel like people underuse towers a lot, cuz of can't afford tcs later. I feel like I would enjoy more bit weaker walls and instead having 250 stone, so you rely less on walls, but more on towers, though that's bit different topic, but making tower defence weaker isn't that great in my opinion.

I think prices overall are a bit too good in market in aoe2. After playing a bit RoR, where prices starting at 50sell/150 buy it makes you think before buying/selling. Currently even booming to keep some vills on gold and buy food is efficient, which probably shouldn't be, it should be more of a balancing tool with inneficient rate.

 

[Funito]

Tower your opponents stone and its just gg for him but sure.

I like the idea. Far from that, it may give more relevance to scouting, which may lead to less canned play styles. I hate that scouting is becoming less relevant (for example everyone just lure 3 deers) just because having the eco lead is most of the times an answer to everything. Even ma is very ocasional now.

 

[ponciliano]

this would mean more feudal wars and less castle age/imp games, which imo is a bad thing.

 

[YodaIamm]

this would mean more feudal wars and less castle age/imp games, which imo is a bad thing.

Why is it bad? These days even arabia games are boom into imp most of the times

 

[JackStap]

+1

 

[ponciliano]

Why is it bad? These days even arabia games are boom into imp most of the times

Because it's in castle and imp where the game shines most, where each civ shows its own pecularities.

 

[k_the_foodie]

I Disagree.
1. Counter towering is the the only answer to tower rush in 90% of the map generations. Removing that option would result in significant increase in map wins.
2. Selling stone to age up early is a strategic choice/risk player takes. You are sacrificing long term game for short term early pressure. If it doesn't work out, opponent gets an eco lead.

 

[Zbyszek]

@k_the_foodie the attacker has to go on stone and move vills forward to deny one area. I am not even sure if that is an incentive to trush more because the commitment is even bigger.

 

[Lokalo]

@k_the_foodie the attacker has to go on stone and move vills forward to deny one area. I am not even sure if that is an incentive to trush more because the commitment is even bigger.

Don't think so. As it's way bigger threat when you can't counter tower and until you get stone opponent can have or be building second tower. It just has much bigger effect and could be used in a similar way where you dont show 1 mangonel, but you already come with 2, so its harder to counter.

2. Selling stone to age up early is a strategic choice/risk player takes. You are sacrificing long term game for short term early pressure. If it doesn't work out, opponent gets an eco lead.

That's the issue often it's not even true. Because buy/sell rate is quite good. It is not efficient if you check into it just from surface level or maybe in Arena where you are sure opponent can't do dmg, so you are not forced to wall and stuff, so spending res more efficient is more important. However if you get faster up in arabia, it puts opponent into bad spot, cuz he has to get his feudal army away or risks losing it to much stronger units. Meanwhile you can buy stone back and get tc up when opponent only gets to castle age. People in top level do it all the time, if it would be that inneficient they wouldn't do it, but often here and now/faster is just better than more efficient. And if you get up in vill count, your eco isn't even worse cuz of that little inneficient market trade.

 

[Zbyszek]

Anyway buffing towers and early agression would probably be a good thing

 

[Potkeny]

Anyway buffing towers and early agression would probably be a good thing

Say that to incas.

 

[Lokalo]

Anyway buffing towers and early agression would probably be a good thing

Dunno, in maps like hideout I already see tower rush almost every second game, doesn't matter if it's team game or 1v1.