You think 18+ Arabia player can't do mangonel, monks, spears 1 TC push? Even Metall can do it. If we speak about monk civs, it's not different aswell. Where arena players always used to have advantage was BO, defensive play and decisions, strategies. There won't be much difference in BO, everybody will go instantly aggresive and you can hardly pull off something different succesfully. So, this definitely doesn't favour "Arena players".How do you come to that conclusion? Point 4 of yours is that "1 TC pushes are simply way more powerful with castle age start, than in standard. That means - most players will obviously go for monk civs/mayans/turks/britons.". Wouldn't that play into the hands of Arena players?
To go with your Teuton example: Still have cheaper farms, strong monks and bloodlines. How are they much worse vs something like Saracens than in a Dark Age start scenario?Britons (and probably Aztecs too) get a definite boost and most likely would be an instant ban for many players, I give you that. But can you name a few more examples of civilization match ups that are likely to happen that are more unbalanced in Castle Age than in Dark Age?
If he opens with 2 extra scouts hes dead . If he goes boom and in 8 - 10 min doing scouts, his eco will suffer about the same as "pusher's eco". Pusher can go siege, monastery, rax and with 1 - 2 spears hes more than fine. Even if he doesnt go for any spear, you can end with a fight with 3 monks against 3 scouts for example. Once again, the outcome of the match is unclear, and because of how small economies both players have, it's gonna have so much impact.Which would play into the hands of Arena players? (see point 1)
What if the other player doesn't just sit back, hand over all map control and boom but opens up with a stable and 1-2 extra scouts and denies the guy trying to monk / siege rush map control?
What if the pushing player gets caught off guard and loses his forward push? Or is unlucky with mangonel micro because of lag? Suddenly he's 5-10 villagers behind when the total number of villagers is much lower.
OK, so if you go for stables instantly and 1 scout and your enemy isnt doing a monastery + monk, you lost the game already. If he's doing monastery + monk and still converts 1 of your scouts, youre dead. If you kill his monk (best scenario), you have 2 scouts against 1, your enemy has useless monastery, you have stables and you're -80 food while him -100 gold, you're pretty even. Too much risk to take. EWhen starting in Castle Age, a player could take stragglers, build a stable before even doing a lumber camp and create a second scout to not rely on such luck factor?
So called Arena experts like Edie, TeRRoR and MetalRTS have been practicing and optimizing dark age, feudal age and build orders in general a lot, and that plays a significant role in to why they are so good in Arena.
Serious question, not being sarcastic: What's so crucial about the Dark Age on Arena that you compare it to me removing the meat, not the salad? It's not like you suddenly don't setup an economy or use your scout.
And: What do the potatoes and whine [did you do that on purpose lol?] stand for in this metaphor? Having a mix of Castle and Dark Age Starts?
@swissboy
The other dishes were just a bigger variety of settings. Let's say there is a bo5.
G1 Random civs - Dark age
G2 Switch - Dark
G3 Random - Castle age
G4 Switch - Castle age
G5 TR - Whatever age
Something like this would be great. Since you hosted the MoMR tournament I guess you watched some of the games. Those games were not close to what a normal game with dark age is, so ofc the whole build up to castle age has a huge influence of the game. You need dark age to scout the map for example, so you know what BO to use for your strategy for that game. A civ like turk will have a huge advantage since he will make sure his opponent cant scout the map because of superior scout. This will lead to the turk knowing what the map looks like, relic postions, extra golds, enemy's res etc while the other player will have 0 information.
In this kind of situation it would probably be better with explored map already.
Yea 100% castle age starts makes me not wanna sign up anymore
+1what if instead of home maps, players could choose their 'home age' :lol: and all the other games will be standard?
+1what if instead of home maps, players could choose their 'home age' :lol: and all the other games will be standard?
Our score 5:8 in my favour, right?you're better off to take advice from first guy you see at bottom of NPL ladder than from dracont regarding arena
people need to test the map swissboy provided before posting their opinions. opinions sux hard.
Just in short, because this is quite OT. We played like 30 - 40 games during last 10 month with Metal (prolly more, because I don't know all of his smurfs), he helped me to improve in 1v1 Arena, we were on quite similar level. I didn't like his behaviour, however he was quite online and always up for a game, so we were friends (IMO). Then Metal claimed himself no. 1 Arena player, insulting me, my friends and most of AoC community, behaved like ***** in the game with me (which he said later on was just due to 2 redbulls) and when there was an offer of a BO21, Metal agreed with that to deny it 2 days later. I was very much looking fwd to face Metal in this tournament, however if the Castle Age start will stay it won't be a win to count for any side.@DraCoNT, what's your obsession with Metal? Even though he is not the best arena player I have seen him taking games from ppl like MBL, Terror and giving very tough fight to Viper. I think he is pretty good, haven't seen you doing any of that.
I agree, if somebody would host an event like this, it would be fun to watch (I'm not sure if to play aswell). But not instead of Moa! As somebody pointed out already, MoA became quite prestigious event, because Arena is a classic map with unique playstyle and winning it always meant being the best player on Arena. That's something to fight for for expert arena players same as for top RM Map players.Castle age start is great as it now forces people to think and come up with new things rather than same old same old. Remember adaptation is a skill as well. Executing memorized build order over years is not the only measure of skill. Which is why Viper is most enjoyable to watch because he is so good at adapting.
Yeah and I'm telling you the difference isn't that big. To defend aztecs, turks, mayans etc you need eco and make LCs, skirms, kts, rams whatever. However in standard dark age start, you have more time to prepare your eco for this and try to win. Not in Castle Age start.Some civs are OP over others in these settings but in nomal arena also some civs are OP & unbeatable. This is how AOC is and not because of settings.
It was fun to watch, however there wasn't as unfair tournament ever in AoC history. In one practise game I've actually won TatoH, just because of the map and because I had saracen against his frank. TatoH absolutely outplayed me in this game, still couldn't win though doing everything correctly. Only feel after this game was feeling bad for him. At least these settings aren't that unfair. However this is what I've been speaking about, was fun to watch (usually), not that much to play.Masters of Megarandom was the most enjoyable tournament to watch in recent times with so much variety of strategies being used.
I've done a few arguments already why it's wrong. Btw. as Edie pointed out, Dark age BO is extremely important on Arena and this way it's taken out. Yes, and there are players who don't play much anymore, however they'd play this, because they know how to play Arena and like the atmosphere of tournaments. They won't join it with Castle Age start.Most people saying this sucks is because now they have to think what they need to do rather than just mindlessly execute a build order for first 15 mins.
You don't have the understanding of Arena according to your last line.A normal arena game is like going FC asap and ohh wait the glorious scout fight around min 10-11.
Like many people already stated here with castle age start the advantages of some civs become even more powerful and kinda overpowered. Aztecs, turks or vikings for example will be just dominant. I don't know what is this obsession with fast starts and immidiate battles lately. Aoc is just not a game like some others and the preparation, scouting, build orders, future layout of the game, etc all done mainly in dark age are somewhat unique and somewhat what I believe most experienced players enjoy when playing aoc. If you remove that you basically ruin a huge significant part of aoc and we will be left with something incomplete. Also it should be up to players if they wanna play that or not. It shouldn't be up to spectators whether they like dark age. It's age of conquerors not age of spectators. I feel people lately forget that.
Most people saying this sucks is because now they have to think what they need to do rather than just mindlessly execute a build order for first 15 mins.
A normal arena game is like going FC asap and ohh wait the glorious scout fight around min 10-11. Wow
...
One thing about the community that is really awful is how opposed we are to change. The map is still arena and the strategies will still be very similar, the main difference is that the execution will be unfamiliar for most players.
...
However, will this really be that much different for players?
The average arena game now is like this:
Dark->feudal->castle -> one guy pushes one guy defends with a castle -> rush to imp and trebs (omg such stratejiz)
I think with this change, at least Arena will make sense now. Why would a dark age civilization have stone walls already constructed?
....
You don't have the understanding of Arena according to your last line.A normal arena game is like going FC asap and ohh wait the glorious scout fight around min 10-11.
Yeah and I'm telling you the difference isn't that big. To defend aztecs, turks, mayans etc you need eco and make LCs, skirms, kts, rams whatever. However in standard dark age start, you have more time to prepare your eco for this and try to win. Not in Castle Age start.Some civs are OP over others in these settings but in nomal arena also some civs are OP & unbeatable. This is how AOC is and not because of settings.
Most people saying this sucks is because now they have to think what they need to do rather than just mindlessly execute a build order for first 15 mins.
A normal arena game is like going FC asap and ohh wait the glorious scout fight around min 10-11. Wow
This is plain wrong, as pointed out above. If your argument was sound, why not start in post imp?
Most people saying this sucks is because now they have to think what they need to do rather than just mindlessly execute a build order for first 15 mins.
A normal arena game is like going FC asap and ohh wait the glorious scout fight around min 10-11. Wow
This is plain wrong, as pointed out above. If your argument was sound, why not start in post imp?
IMP start would be another extreme in the same way dark age start is other end of extreme. Castle Age start is middle ground, leaves a lot of unexplored varied strategies on the table.
Castle age start gives you feudal eco upgrades for free but all monks techs still need to be done. There is a lot of variation which is going to be there in castle age starts. Instead of trashing it without any evidence why not give it a try and have a exciting tournament.