This is going to be a long one, so strap in.
The main argument will be: in high level tournaments(meaning team wise and prizepool wise) especially in the ones which has fixed civ pool, or ban/pick civ drafts, having fixed positions would really push aoe2 to the next level.
-So, by fixed positions i mean that players choose where they are placed, meaning flank and pocket(obviously we are talking about 3v3/4v4), and i really don't know how this can be done from a technical point, but don't think i need to get in there yet.
-Consistency: first thing that we would see is consistency, meaning players who play pocket and specialize on that role/civs, and flanks who specialize in those roles/civs, meaning what might happen is a slight increase general performance, also would be more specific roles what each player fills in all games.
-Balance, it would actually balance the game out, meaning we would be seeing the games to their full potential, having the best civs on pocket, and the best civs on flank, now this is where people will come in and say "yeah but then you can't see someone yolo forward, or yolo trush etc. we would only see archer/knight all the time", and i do agree on that, obviously those yolo games are fun to watch, but i have also seen a lot of 1.5hour games of full on killing spree from every player, and people calling those "one of the best games ever", also we really need to start thinking about actual high level balance, like if two teams are fighting for 5000$ and we have idk aM vs Secret and we have Ethiopians, chinese, indians, and one team has ethiop pocket, while other has indian pocket, and 9/10 times the game will be won just from civs alone, unless someone titanics, which happens very rarely in high elo as we know, so really, when players, especially if tournaments are a big part of their careers, lose because of a basic draw, it just becomes disgusting. ESPECIALLY nowadays when we have so many strong civs in pocket positions like indians, franks(mentioned cause got huge buffs in wololo), khmer, burmese, and flank civs like ethiop, vietnamese etc. and even civs like chinese, italians, portu have preferred positions to use them to their full potential.
-Luck, so next point is luck, obviously that would take out a big "luck" "rng" (call it how you want) factor, and i do agree on that, but honestly, we are talking about potential esports game, and how many other luck factors we still have: "map/timing/vision/matchup/ civ positions really don't need to be a part of that, because it's a very unskilled type of luck factor, it doesn't have any %High end choice, meaning you can't choose the optimal play, which will result in the biggest win, like for example decisions can be made with the most optimal play executed, if its the highest %win play, the outcome will determined that % of times, but with civilization position it's a bit different, because: 1. its a premade thing(you choose it in lobby), it's a decision that gets made mostly without using any information that you have accumulated in game, so it's basically already decided without depending on your map/matchup/timing/positioning/playstyle, for example if you have a very good map, you might decide to drush+fast castle, which is decided from in game experiences, but civ positioning ignores every factor, and players have litherally no control over that.
-I'll just conclude by saying, i only think this is needed for tournaments, not rated games, and i would like to see it as an option added in game, meaning teams can practice with it on and off, etc, sooo... anything i forgot? points i made wrong? leave your opinions .
The main argument will be: in high level tournaments(meaning team wise and prizepool wise) especially in the ones which has fixed civ pool, or ban/pick civ drafts, having fixed positions would really push aoe2 to the next level.
-So, by fixed positions i mean that players choose where they are placed, meaning flank and pocket(obviously we are talking about 3v3/4v4), and i really don't know how this can be done from a technical point, but don't think i need to get in there yet.
-Consistency: first thing that we would see is consistency, meaning players who play pocket and specialize on that role/civs, and flanks who specialize in those roles/civs, meaning what might happen is a slight increase general performance, also would be more specific roles what each player fills in all games.
-Balance, it would actually balance the game out, meaning we would be seeing the games to their full potential, having the best civs on pocket, and the best civs on flank, now this is where people will come in and say "yeah but then you can't see someone yolo forward, or yolo trush etc. we would only see archer/knight all the time", and i do agree on that, obviously those yolo games are fun to watch, but i have also seen a lot of 1.5hour games of full on killing spree from every player, and people calling those "one of the best games ever", also we really need to start thinking about actual high level balance, like if two teams are fighting for 5000$ and we have idk aM vs Secret and we have Ethiopians, chinese, indians, and one team has ethiop pocket, while other has indian pocket, and 9/10 times the game will be won just from civs alone, unless someone titanics, which happens very rarely in high elo as we know, so really, when players, especially if tournaments are a big part of their careers, lose because of a basic draw, it just becomes disgusting. ESPECIALLY nowadays when we have so many strong civs in pocket positions like indians, franks(mentioned cause got huge buffs in wololo), khmer, burmese, and flank civs like ethiop, vietnamese etc. and even civs like chinese, italians, portu have preferred positions to use them to their full potential.
-Luck, so next point is luck, obviously that would take out a big "luck" "rng" (call it how you want) factor, and i do agree on that, but honestly, we are talking about potential esports game, and how many other luck factors we still have: "map/timing/vision/matchup/ civ positions really don't need to be a part of that, because it's a very unskilled type of luck factor, it doesn't have any %High end choice, meaning you can't choose the optimal play, which will result in the biggest win, like for example decisions can be made with the most optimal play executed, if its the highest %win play, the outcome will determined that % of times, but with civilization position it's a bit different, because: 1. its a premade thing(you choose it in lobby), it's a decision that gets made mostly without using any information that you have accumulated in game, so it's basically already decided without depending on your map/matchup/timing/positioning/playstyle, for example if you have a very good map, you might decide to drush+fast castle, which is decided from in game experiences, but civ positioning ignores every factor, and players have litherally no control over that.
-I'll just conclude by saying, i only think this is needed for tournaments, not rated games, and i would like to see it as an option added in game, meaning teams can practice with it on and off, etc, sooo... anything i forgot? points i made wrong? leave your opinions .