good savemore money for memb/t90/nili/lidakor or in general the scene
I think, it's because the players who make it far in tournaments are usually close in skill. So either player has a close to 50% win-chance and small mistakes have a bigger impact on the result. Luck is a minor factor aswell, most notable in fights with monks or in the map generation, but I think it matters later in the game. Early game is mostly not that luck dependent (if both aren't trying to lame), but comes down to strategy and map awareness.If luck really has such a minimal impact, why are we continuing to play such long series and don't move to Bo1s or bo3s?
Hard to say but yeah, that is certainly also a factor. I mainly think SC2 is more luck-based because of the build order rock-paper-scissors dynamic that is barely a thing in AoE.I would say level of competition plays a much larger role in that phenomenon than randomness or luck.
Franks vs Mayans, first game between Hera and TheViper in Hidden Cup 4, Franks wonwhens the last time you saw mayan/china lose to any of the other civs you listed?
Yes but Viper is washed so this is not a good example.Franks vs Mayans, first game between Hera and TheViper in Hidden Cup 4, Franks won
This is more because the civs they edge slightly are also quite broken.Really I don't think Mayans and Chinese are ridiculously broken. They're the best two civs but only by a slight margin.
That was Berbers vs MayansFranks vs Mayans, first game between Hera and TheViper in Hidden Cup 4, Franks won
Viper won that game...Yes but Viper is washed so this is not a good example.
So every good civ is broken. GotchaThis is more because the civs they edge slightly are also quite broken.
My mistake 11. I mean yet again shows there are more than 3-4 viable civs on arabia since I didn't even mention Berbers as one of the best ara civsThat was Berbers vs Mayans
I know but you didn't say that so the lazy meme opportunity was there and obviously I had to take it.Viper won that game...
That is how things tend to be. What is a civ Mayans and Chinese edge slightly? Vikings? Strong consensus they have one of most busted eco bonuses in game.So every good civ is broken. Gotcha
Agree this actually does make your point stronger.My mistake 11. I mean yet again shows there are more than 3-4 viable civs on arabia since I didn't even mention Berbers as one of the best ara civs
Well the deal with the current balance is that every civ is stronger than they used to be except for Mayans, Huns, and Aztecs. For example Teutons have been buffed multiple times since The Conquerors (despite being already okay there) to the point where if their current state was applied to The Conquerors they would probably be overpowered, same thing with Turks, Koreans, Franks etc. So pretty much every civilization now has something that is kinda busted about them. And the Spanish, one of the only civs to not receive any buffs since their original state, are one of the worst 1v1 arabia civs now (despite having the best castle age unique unit in the game). It's all power creep.That is how things tend to be. What is a civ Mayans and Chinese edge slightly? Vikings? Strong consensus they have one of most busted eco bonuses in game.
This is very true.Well the deal with the current balance is that every civ is stronger than they used to be except for Mayans, Huns, and Aztecs. For example Teutons have been buffed multiple times since The Conquerors (despite being already okay there) to the point where if their current state was applied to The Conquerors they would probably be overpowered, same thing with Turks, Koreans, Franks etc. So pretty much every civilization now has something that is kinda busted about them. And the Spanish, one of the only civs to not receive any buffs since their original state, are one of the worst 1v1 arabia civs now (despite having the best castle age unique unit in the game). It's all power creep.
They got nerfed though with the tower nerf and conq armor nerf. If the top civs get nerfed but the rest receive buffs is that really power creep? The top tier civs are played in the majority of matches after all.Well the deal with the current balance is that every civ is stronger than they used to be except for Mayans, Huns, and Aztecs. For example Teutons have been buffed multiple times since The Conquerors (despite being already okay there) to the point where if their current state was applied to The Conquerors they would probably be overpowered, same thing with Turks, Koreans, Franks etc. So pretty much every civilization now has something that is kinda busted about them. And the Spanish, one of the only civs to not receive any buffs since their original state, are one of the worst 1v1 arabia civs now (despite having the best castle age unique unit in the game). It's all power creep.
Power creep is the baseline or average level of power and when the game is designed for it at a certain level exceeding it tends to be not ideal.They got nerfed though with the tower nerf and conq armor nerf. If the top civs get nerfed but the rest receive buffs is that really power creep? The top tier civs are played in the majority of matches after all.
And I would still argue a little more power creep isn't too bad, it makes the civs differentiate more from each other. If we just nerf civs more and more each civ will play very similar and the game will get more boring because of it.
Hey this doesn't have to be one or the other.Imo the problem we are facing with power creep has more to do with the devs not having a good idea what to do with many of their civs which doesn't lead to the best gameplay when these civs get buffed into playability without tackling their core problems.