Once I reach 60 years old age, I will establish one and every friday we will have lan parties with cool AoE2 teamgames.To me "Mango Del Bug" sounds a bit like a name for a Colombian restaurant 111
Once I reach 60 years old age, I will establish one and every friday we will have lan parties with cool AoE2 teamgames.To me "Mango Del Bug" sounds a bit like a name for a Colombian restaurant 111
Free+instant upgrades has been a thing since the beginning of the game in 1999. Byzantines Town Watch, Franks farm techs, Teutons Murder Holes, Turks scout line upgrades. Then with The Conquerors was added Aztecs with free Loom (which was then removed for balance reasons), and Koreans with free tower upgrades. This is nothing new.I agree with this idea. More generally, I really dislike the mechanic of instanly researched technologies without any cost, especially if the technology in question confers a big eco (free Whellbarrow, Handart) or military boost (free thumbring). You shoud either spend resources or time. But, I feel like the game is not going to this direction with the recent patches (free thumbring, militia line, hussars, instant spawning of units,...). But, that's a personal taste.
This has never been said in the history of aoe 2 lolage of UUs. yawn
I agree it was a thing since the start of the game. I don't really mind Teutons Murder Holes or Byzantines Town Watch because these technologies are nice, but do not confer any military or economic advantage. Even free wood upgrade is nice but not unfair. On the other hand, free Wheelbarrow and Handcard is more debatable as you get a villager lead and a worker efficiency boost.Free+instant upgrades has been a thing since the beginning of the game in 1999. Byzantines Town Watch, Franks farm techs, Teutons Murder Holes, Turks scout line upgrades. Then with The Conquerors was added Aztecs with free Loom (which was then removed for balance reasons), and Koreans with free tower upgrades. This is nothing new.
Handicap mode will let you configure a multiplier for economy, building hp, millitary training time and counter damage for each player.
yeah i kind of agree. instead of being an archer powerhouse, archers will still be solid and a compliment to their infantry instead of their main unit.How much does removing Thumb Ring really impact Vikings though? I think Thumb Ring is overrated and below I will outline why.
1. Faster firing speed - apparently TR gives 18% faster firing on the archer line. How much does that matter when microing though? The step-and-fire microing means that the firing speed is determined by the player not the game. Nobody really just let's their archers or xbows just sit there and fire at will. They might in imp but then we're talking 18% ...not 30%. This is why Aztecs and Britons (neither of which have TR) can go Archers, Xbow and Arba no problem.
2. 100% accuracy at non-moving targets - first of all non-moving targets are easily hit even by a few feudal archers. The recent buff to archer accuracy means that even moving targets are hit frequently by feudal archers now. Plus the way players mass archers, there is a sort of overkill aspect anyway. Even if some archers miss, many won't thereby hurting or killing the unit anyway. This is especially true with ballistics mass xbows, they won't miss. TR is basically a non-factor here.
3. The cost. 300 Food and 250 Wood is actually quite expensive in castle age. If anything this frees up even more resources to an already great Viking economy. I'm calling it now, this is actually a buff to Vikings. Viking fast imp into Arba will become a meta.
? This was an unintended effect of the gunpowder buff they implemented in january, which was subsequently removed in the march patch. Arrow projectiles are unchanged from their original DE behavior.The recent buff to archer accuracy means that even moving targets are hit frequently by feudal archers now
Controversial but I agree 100%This is the tenth time walls have been nerfed since DE came out.
This is absolute trash. Why even bother trying to play defensive?
Drush/M@A are ridiculously overpowered.
People should not be rewarded/end a game by spamming dark age or feudal age units forward with no reasonable alternative to defend but invest 3-400res into your own, especially when several civs have way better eco/military bonuses in the early game than others.
Where is the risk in this early unit spam towards your enemy? It is already significantly resource and idle time intensive to build walls. There should be risk/reward in strategy. The units pay for themselves if your opponent is walled in the resource cost to repair/idle time to create walls.
Guess we can go back to playing HoW iT wAs InTeNdEd to be played, ie: 3-4 m@a ending a game before minute ten.
I count four nerfs to walls since DE came out: increase to build time, no armour for foundations, reduced Dark Age hp, and increase in cost for palisade gates. This would be the fifth. Plus, defensive/eco-oriented play styles are absolutely dominant in this game. I suspect they'll continue to be despite this.This is the tenth time walls have been nerfed since DE came out.
This is absolute trash. Why even bother trying to play defensive?
Drush/M@A are ridiculously overpowered.
People should not be rewarded/end a game by spamming dark age or feudal age units forward with no reasonable alternative to defend but invest 3-400res into your own, especially when several civs have way better eco/military bonuses in the early game than others.
Where is the risk in this early unit spam towards your enemy? It is already significantly resource and idle time intensive to build walls. There should be risk/reward in strategy. The units pay for themselves if your opponent is walled in the resource cost to repair/idle time to create walls.
Guess we can go back to playing HoW iT wAs InTeNdEd to be played, ie: 3-4 m@a ending a game before minute ten.
castle age UUs don't make the game fairerThis has never been said in the history of aoe 2 lol
Five nerfs is a hell of a lot. Each time we have thought they would make gameplay more aggressive but it has not actually worked.I count four nerfs to walls since DE came out: increase to build time, no armour for foundations, reduced Dark Age hp, and increase in cost for palisade gates. This would be the fifth. Plus, defensive/eco-oriented play styles are absolutely dominant in this game. I suspect they'll continue to be despite this.
I count four nerfs to walls since DE came out: increase to build time, no armour for foundations, reduced Dark Age hp, and increase in cost for palisade gates. This would be the fifth. Plus, defensive/eco-oriented play styles are absolutely dominant in this game. I suspect they'll continue to be despite this.
On top of this, the strength of m@a actively discourages scout rushing and favors archer play, which in turn makes civs like Mayans, Vikings, and Britons extremely overpowered, and leaves civs like Burmese, Teutons, and Spanish in the dust.Oh, darn. You caught me! Not ten times. Five.
Five times. God forbid someone suggest nerfing Scouts or Archers five times.
This is just garbage spewed from aggro-heavy pro's who prefer to be able to spam/rush and it just dumbs the game down for everyone.
Defensive civs are not dominant. Last time I checked the Byzantines sit around 47% or bottom of the barrel at 1650+. Not sure what metric you're basing that comment on. Can't wait to see how high Franks (Scrush) and Mayans (M@A archers) can climb now that it is nearly impossible to wall and defend from a few dark age/feudal units without spending three times in idle time and repair costs as it took to make the units.
IDK, just far less strategy in spamming dark age/feudal age units forward.
But this is the world we live in!
'Aggro-heavy pros' doesn't really hold. The competitive meta is very much not geared around spamming Dark/Feudal Age units, it's centred around minimal Feudal investment to get to Castle Age. Typically we see single range plays rather than double because investing heavily in military doesn't usually translate into significant damage in that part of the game, in large part because of walling. If they're feeling frisky, they might add a couple of scouts and/or a second range. Hardly constitutes unit spam.Oh, darn. You caught me! Not ten times. Five.
Five times. God forbid someone suggest nerfing Scouts or Archers five times.
This is just garbage spewed from aggro-heavy pro's who prefer to be able to spam/rush and it just dumbs the game down for everyone.
Defensive civs are not dominant. Last time I checked the Byzantines sit around 47% or bottom of the barrel at 1650+. Not sure what metric you're basing that comment on. Can't wait to see how high Franks (Scrush) and Mayans (M@A archers) can climb now that it is nearly impossible to wall and defend from a few dark age/feudal units without spending three times in idle time and repair costs as it took to make the units.
IDK, just far less strategy in spamming dark age/feudal age units forward.
But this is the world we live in!
I agree. Too many walling nerfs risks making the meta yet more one dimensional than it is already by neutering full wall strats on any non-closed map.This is the tenth time walls have been nerfed since DE came out.
This is absolute trash. Why even bother trying to play defensive?
Yes, they are overpowered. And they're overpowered because they utterly lack a counter strategy against them since DE nerfed Trushing. This isn't up for debate. But the meta becoming more and more one-dimensional, because aggro/mirroring aggro shall be the only viable strat/counter strat on non-closed maps, shall do all of the talking for me.If you just want to build a city play cities skyline not Age of Empires 2... Walls have been overpowered for a long time, yes they changed them several times but they where still overpowered.
That just means previous nerfs were not enough because walls were way too overpowered to stay op even after nerfs. Wall continued to be too dominant before this patch. Let's see how things go in current patch. It's still too early to tell. I think we might be finally approaching the sweet spot.Five nerfs is a hell of a lot. Each time we have thought they would make gameplay more aggressive but it has not actually worked.
It's weird to me to see all this whining that walls maybe might not be overpowered anymore after merely few days where there's a potential that they finally got fixed to a balanced state compared to all the years before. As for dumbing down the gameplay... isn't it what walling does? Removing the need to react real time and proceeding to mindlessly boom because enemy army is negated by walls.Oh, darn. You caught me! Not ten times. Five.
Five times. God forbid someone suggest nerfing Scouts or Archers five times.
This is just garbage spewed from aggro-heavy pro's who prefer to be able to spam/rush and it just dumbs the game down for everyone.
He said defensive playstyle. Not defensive civs. Completely different things. Please read before replying.Defensive civs are not dominant.
No it means that nerfing walls doesn't work. Unless you genuinely lose due to the investment of fully walling your base, people will always full wall in feudal age. The advantage you get by being fully walled over your opponent not being fully walled is so massive that it will always be worth it to wall until palisades cost 5 wood and 10 seconds to build, and houses are reduced to 1x1 tile buildings. If you sneak a group of archers or scouts into your opponent's base when he is not fully walled (and you are fully walled), the opponent's only counterplay to this is to just keep his army at home, unless they can genuinely break through your walls fast enough to force you to play defensive, in which case, a single watch tower is usually enough to stunt that push (or just a couple spears if the offensive army is scouts + towers, or a couple of archers if the army is just m@a and towers).That just means previous nerfs were not enough because walls were way too overpowered to stay op even after nerfs. Wall continued to be too dominant before this patch. Let's see how things go in current patch. It's still too early to tell. I think we might be finally approaching the sweet spot.
It's weird to me to see all this whining that walls maybe might not be overpowered anymore after merely few days where there's a potential that they finally got fixed to a balanced state compared to all the years before. As for dumbing down the gameplay... isn't it what walling does? Removing the need to react real time and proceeding to mindlessly boom because enemy army is negated by walls.