Mirroring is currently a very common practice in all games in all formats,whether 1v1 or team.It is said to bring about balance so a player does not win with a civ-advantage.But,I argue that:
1.Mirroring enables players with less game knowledge to estimate the enemy's strategy/situation since he/she also has the same TT.And isn't game knowledge about knowing the strengths/weaknesses of all civs?
2.It makes games very boring to watch since all fighting is almost always based around a very few pool of units.It ruins diversity since fighting the strengths and weaknesses of a civilization is key to playing better.It makes for a game where playing a small group overused units more important than knowing how to play a civ.
3.If you know your enemy is going to pick Saracens on Arabia,what makes you choose Saracens instead of Turks or Koreans who have the same state pitiful weakness on Arabia?Has the concept of winning against odds against a technicaly superior civ become less glorious or something?Isn't it a better way to improve by facing the picked civ's worst enemy than facing the very civ that you're trying to play as?
4.I saw Zak's channel today and even though CoT is very hyped about here,not many videos had more than 4000+ views.Really,I think the concept of mirroring is killing what could have been a more colourful tournament and ultimately,AoE2.
5.What's worse than a Hun on arabia?Two Huns facing eachother on arabia.What even worse than that?Two viks/saras/celts facing eachother on arabia.
So,really share your opinions about mirroring.I have said none of what I have written to offend anyone.But to me,it just does not make sense to play a game mirrored when you have 17/23 other civs to play as.
1.Mirroring enables players with less game knowledge to estimate the enemy's strategy/situation since he/she also has the same TT.And isn't game knowledge about knowing the strengths/weaknesses of all civs?
2.It makes games very boring to watch since all fighting is almost always based around a very few pool of units.It ruins diversity since fighting the strengths and weaknesses of a civilization is key to playing better.It makes for a game where playing a small group overused units more important than knowing how to play a civ.
3.If you know your enemy is going to pick Saracens on Arabia,what makes you choose Saracens instead of Turks or Koreans who have the same state pitiful weakness on Arabia?Has the concept of winning against odds against a technicaly superior civ become less glorious or something?Isn't it a better way to improve by facing the picked civ's worst enemy than facing the very civ that you're trying to play as?
4.I saw Zak's channel today and even though CoT is very hyped about here,not many videos had more than 4000+ views.Really,I think the concept of mirroring is killing what could have been a more colourful tournament and ultimately,AoE2.
5.What's worse than a Hun on arabia?Two Huns facing eachother on arabia.What even worse than that?Two viks/saras/celts facing eachother on arabia.
So,really share your opinions about mirroring.I have said none of what I have written to offend anyone.But to me,it just does not make sense to play a game mirrored when you have 17/23 other civs to play as.