Stop Calling AOE2 Strategies "Cancer."

[crashDismounted]

I would like to play devil's advocate and say that repetitive civ picks shouldn't be a point of disrespect. The vast majority of people who play this game extensively, have one or two civilizations that they have streaks with. Hoang and Salicum are the most extreme examples, but I also noticed SongSong playing nothing but Koreans War Wagons for days (a couple of months ago), BadBoy changing his name to TatarsBoy and playing nothing but Tatars for weeks before they were nerfed, xiaohai playing nothing but Mongols for a significant period, etc. EDIT: Also xiaoxiong consistently picking African Clearing and playing Spanish

 

[im the cookie]

Been following this thread for a while and I have found it interesting.

I mostly agree with Myth's point of view; the way we express ourselves often tells a bit about the person's mindset over the aspect it is covering.

I do agree that strategy choices within the boundries of the game are valid. However, I do agree there is a gentleman's/gentlewoman's agreement because AoE II is also a game that has social interactions when playing multiplayer and that comes along with several other factors involved; not everyone shares the same mindset on how the game should be played (case in point this very thread), some players lack tolerance to frustration and tend to be quite vocal about their shortcomings (I got in a heated argument for using monks against a Celt player in Arena that was complaining about the annoying sound) and players often failing behaving themselves behind a computer screen.

That being said, I also agree toxic gameplay exist. Not only in AoE II, but in several other games too. Sure, the developers that constantly update the game try to balance this out or whatever they feel it is an unhealthy gameplay, but this is not new to Age of Empires.

For an extreme example: hiding vills across the map when defeated appealing to my opponent's impatience so they would leave the game in frustration. Come on, we all had that kind of player dragging the game on. I think that is as toxic as it might get. Is it in the same range as laming and trushing? Hell no, but you can not claim there is no toxic gameplay when clearly there is some out there.

And that kind of mind set is not new to AoE II either. Chess implemented timed matches because players would more often than not stall their move forever to see if the other player would resign out of boredom.

TL;DR: Even if we play within the boundries of the gameplay mechanics at our disposal and it is a 'war game' after all, there are certain social conventions and unwritten community guidelines that try to make the game as pleasant as it may be for everyone. Of course, fun and pleasure are subjective, but there's that.

My 2 cents.

 

[NuclearPasta]

The fact that AoE3 does have towers means that they generally liked the idea of towers which were present in AoE2 already, but fact that they restricted them to maximum of 7 towers per player and inability to build them close to enemy TC imply that they did not like the way they were used in AoE2.

Unlike towers, which were meant to be defensive buildings but players realized that they can be used offensively.

This is false. The developers knew about offensive tower rushes from before Age of Kings was even released. Trushes already done in AoE1. The earliest source I can confirm for that is October 2000, just two months after the Conqueror's was released, but it's clearly older than that date by the way it's talked about.

Defending a tower rush - Age of Empires Forums

More importantly, the trush in AoE2 existed in the beta of the game. An old news update on AoK Heaven discusses briefly how the Teuton tower rush has been nerfed in the recent patch of the beta. This post is dated September 20 of 1999, 10 days before the game was officially released.

Archived News From September 1999 - Age of Kings Heaven

Age of Kings Heaven: Your definite source for the latest news and information about Age of Empires II and the The Conquerors expansion pack. Download scenarios, campaigns, modifications and utilities from our extensive files section, find articles to help you play the game, or participate in one...

aok.heavengames.com

Even if this weren't the case, your reasoning would suggest that the devs were also against castle dropping and forward siege workshops. AoE3's build radius around the starting TC isn't exclusive to towers, it's all buildings. All buildings also have a limit on how many can be constructed, you can only get forts (castles) through home shipment cards, etc. This clearly makes no sense.

Game development often times will leave features left out, whether due to programming constraints or deadlines. Expanding that into saying certain strategies were never intended because the devs didn't think of them initially is ridiculous though. Again, drush FC was never really considered and is a relatively new addition to the meta of the game. I doubt the devs ever considered Fast Imps or Monk rushes either.

In the case of tower rushes however they were clearly very aware of it from both AoE1 and the AoE2 beta, purposefully left this strategy as part of the final product, and not even a year later released an expansion with a civ that had 4 different tower related bonuses. Which are very much intended for trushing.

 

[crashDismounted]

Again, drush FC was never really considered and is a relatively new addition to the meta of the game

What do you mean by "relatively new"? Coz Drush FC has been part of the meta for at least 8 years

 

[NuclearPasta]

What do you mean by "relatively new"? Coz Drush FC has been part of the meta for at least 8 years

Calling it 'new' is perhaps not the right terminology, I know it's been around for a long time. I mean that it's not been the go to strategy until recently, to the point palisade walls got nerfed heavily to counter it. The devs probably didn't think it'd be such an issue in the game 20 years later, is the point I was trying to make.

Like Celt drush FC which I had mentioned earlier. I doubt the devs looked at that 20 years ago and thought that Hoang would do the crazy stuff he does today with it.

 

[crashDismounted]

Calling it 'new' is perhaps not the right terminology, I know it's been around for a long time. I mean that it's not been the go to strategy until recently

Not exactly true, it was really common for Aztecs and Mayans in the Voobly days where everyone would either 1: play Huns wars because they were the most fun, or 2: play one of those two meso civs because they were the strongest in the game and did drush FC into xbow every time

 

[IvIaximus]

This is false. The developers knew about offensive tower rushes from before Age of Kings was even released. Trushes already done in AoE1. The earliest source I can confirm for that is October 2000, just two months after the Conqueror's was released, but it's clearly older than that date by the way it's talked about.

Defending a tower rush - Age of Empires Forums
More importantly, the trush in AoE2 existed in the beta of the game. An old news update on AoK Heaven discusses briefly how the Teuton tower rush has been nerfed in the recent patch of the beta. This post is dated September 20 of 1999, 10 days before the game was officially released.

The first post comes from october 2000 and Age of Kings was released september 1999, one year before that. It might or might not be a thing before AoE2. He clearly says "lately", so either it was not known before or it was some obscure strategy with not much success.
The second one is more clear on this. Posted 10 days before release, it states that tower rush was tweaked since beta. It seems that they found about this strategy in beta stage and they decided to tweak Teutons. So yes, I was wrong about developers not knowing about it before release but then again, fact that they nerfed Teutons because of "fierce tower rush" means exactly what I said. Towers were not meant to be used offensively. Teutons were only trushing civ back then. Apparently they thought this tweak to be enough since it only applied to Teuton.
Later, Conquerors exapnsion brought Korea. All of korean tower bonuses (range and free upgrade) IIRC applies after castle age is reached. It is obvious they did not mean to buff feudal towers, only castle and imperial. Interestingly enough there are no tower rushes in castle or imperial age. (unless you have towers from feudal which you upgrade) Another reason to think they were not supposed to be used offensively. Since they were not used in later ages, because castles are much better in castle and imperial age, one civ got buffs to castle and imperial towers.

Even if this weren't the case, your reasoning would suggest that the devs were also against castle dropping and forward siege workshops. AoE3's build radius around the starting TC isn't exclusive to towers, it's all buildings. All buildings also have a limit on how many can be constructed, you can only get forts (castles) through home shipment cards, etc. This clearly makes no sense.

I only mentioned towers because this entire topic is about trushing. But I would argue that same reasoning applies to forts (castle analogy in AoE3). There are no limits for all buildings. Limits are there for DEFENSIVE buildings and buildings which provide resource trickles (the reason why, is obvious there). Build radius clearly imply that during developing of AoE3 they knew about villagers walling resources and trushes and similar stuff and they were against it. They might or might not know about it during AoE 2 development. But it is obvious that walling oponents resources is abuse of building that is meant for defensive purposes.

Game development often times will leave features left out, whether due to programming constraints or deadlines. Expanding that into saying certain strategies were never intended because the devs didn't think of them initially is ridiculous though. Again, drush FC was never really considered and is a relatively new addition to the meta of the game. I doubt the devs ever considered Fast Imps or Monk rushes either.

The only ridiculous thing here is your inability to read. I did say, that some aspects of game (like trushing or laming) was not supposed to be used as they are used nowadays. If they did not mind trushing and walling oponents resources and similar stuff, they would never even think about adding tower/fort limits and TC radius in aoe3. If they go so far as to forbid this way of playing, it is clear, that such idea is reaction to some previous negative experience. Where did they get this experience? Most probably in AoE2 (hell even AoE, but did not nerf it enough in AoE2).
Drush to FC is known from cca 2002 at least. Drush/FC as known today might not been considered, but ability to use militia in dark age, make strong economy so you can quickly up to castle age and then keep producing ranged units definetely were imho "considered". Monk rushes are as old as this game. The Sheriff was part of ES team If I am not wrong and he either came with idea or improved upon. So it was known from early stages. Of course noone expected that ten years later people would monk rush on arena with 5 farmers. And that is my entire point here. If they were aware how far you can push monk rush, they might have scrapped it. Guess what, AoE 3 has healing units, but they can not convert enemy units.

In the case of tower rushes however they were clearly very aware of it from both AoE1 and the AoE2 beta, purposefully left this strategy as part of the final product, and not even a year later released an expansion with a civ that had 4 different tower related bonuses. Which are very much intended for trushing.

Koreans had two direct bonuses – range and free upgrade and one indirect – stone mining. None of those bonuses says it is buff to fuedal tower rush. Quite the contrary. Both direct tower bonuses apply to castle and mostly imperial age. Hence they support my idea of not buffing feudal but rather buffing underused castle and imperial age towers.
TL DR: All we are certain about is that developers knew about trush since beta version of AoE2 and they decided to nerf it because it was too powerful. Later they added civ that had tower bonuses in castle and imperial age respectively, not feudal age.(remember only feudal was known for tower rush) In their latest installment they added mechanics that prevent player from building too many defensive structures and permit player from building close to opponents base.
Considering that tower rush was only thing in feudal age, it is obvious that developers intended towers to be used defensively and throughout entire game (hence korean stuff). Their measures were not enough in AoE2 so they were quite radical about it in AoE3.
I feel like repeating myself, as usually on aoezone so I am done with this.

 

[locu05]

I'm here just to say that the majority of players that plays inca vill-trush are toxic not by the strategy (that involves ,making houses, palisades in all the resources, laming sheeps, boars etc ) but in the chat.
Writting 11 every 2 minutes, throwing flares all over the map for no reason in 1v1 games.
At least in 14-15-16x rated people who inca trush also are idiots that like to be toxic as persons.
Maybe it's due to chance or maybe I'm just lucky to find every ***** in this game in the ladder. But it's my experience.
Other than that, I like being one trick ponied many times in a tow because if I lose i recap the game and next time I will try something different to win, and if I win I'd learned how to beat an annoying strat.

 

[NuclearPasta]

I feel like repeating myself, as usually on aoezone so I am done with this.

If I can show without question that the devs knew about trushing before the release of AoE2 and you'll still say we need to look at AoE3 as a judge for how we're supposed to play AoE2 then yeah, I don't see any point in trying to continue any discussion on it. You're just making assumptions about the devs intentions and insisting it's fact.

 

[IYIyTh]

I'm not sure what the devs from 199x intended or not matters. There is, however a 20 year history of how the game is played based on the mechanics available, intended or not. These mechanics, and creative deviation of strategy based on their availability would seem more relevant. The game wasn't intended to be a battle of mirror civs preforming identical strategies with the outcome based on execution. That is why the game has replayability after all. The nuanced strategies increase not detract from the game imo.

 

[HungryHungryHussars]

there is no dignity in inca vil rushing

The tears of the meta noobs are heavenly succor to the enlightened Douchers, Trushers, and Hoangers.

All hail Rubenstock, our Patron Saint of Creative Gameplay.

 

[IYIyTh]

What has impressed me the most about this thread - and I say this totally unironically - is Myth’s ability to express the exact same thought, post after post, using different words every single time!

It's exceptional writing practice, and a welcome distraction from a certain paper that needs written.

 

[MaSmOrRa]

It's exceptional writing practice, and a welcome distraction from a certain paper that needs written.

:O Good luck!

 

[Mleder]

The tears of the meta noobs are heavenly succor to the enlightened Douchers, Trushers, and Hoangers.

All hail Rubenstock, our Patron Saint of Creative Gameplay.

As with Jesus and others, Rubenstock and Tatoh (who are really creative players, unlike copycats such as the OP, who plays this strat only because he can't win with normal strats) are fine, its just the followers who are sometimes a nuisance. So far we have only seen the tears of the OP. I think what this thread has clearly shown is that the OP is (contrary to what he claims, but the existence of the thread itself proves this) actually hurt by the insults and lack of respect shown by his opponents, who look down on him and regard him as a lesser player (rightly so!). He can beg for more recognition and tolerance in 10 more posts, but he simply won't get that for reasons outlined in other posts.

 

[IYIyTh]

If I am as bothered as you say regarding ELO being a discussion driver, why is it you mentioning ELO -- not I? Curiously, only you have brought up ELO as a means of defining respectable play, and your belief that playing alternative non strategies take away from someone's ELO and what you described as "deserved respect,", as if anyone cared about ELO's place in the discussion to begin with. Sure, I scoffed at the idea that it was insulting to say someone was a 1600 vs. a 1700 player due to the AOE2 ELO strata because statistically there isn't a meaningful difference (Being among the top 2% vs 3%), but it's completely beside the point.

The idea that there is an ELO one must obtain to show sportsmanship, to unlock acceptable use of alternative strategies, and/or that players stop "borrowing," from others at a certain ELO is categorically wrong.

It's not difficult to understand that this mindset (The idea that I do not respect my opponent playing meta, unless they're The Viper or Hera,) encourages an environment where people find it acceptable to flame others based on strategy choice.

Contrary to your suggestion and intent -- I'm unbothered. In fact I am thankful.
Thank you for epitomizing the problem, and so ardently.

I couldn't have described it better myself.

 

[dave_hun]

I wasn't planning to, but I am gonna include add my opinion to this discussion, however unpopular it may be.

I see many users here calling this topic stupid, but I see a lot of problems with acceptance of other playstyles. Therefore I approve any healthy discussion about this.

I am relatively new to the aoe2 scene, starting at around the end of 2019 with multiplayer. So I had a lot to learn. I like good variety, which meant I wanted to learn all the strategies, including ones with towers, laming, and etc. To get a general feel of how strong certain things are. Even though I am very far from a 'one-trick pony', I still got the same harsh remarks when trying the less popular openings (I'll discuss the 'one-tricking' issue in a later paragraph). There is such a huge stigma associated with some strats, that I constantly felt like walking on egg-shells , even though I was literally just trying to learn the game.

Not surprisingly, I have been quite demotivated from playing this game when I got these labels put on me. And yes, there are a lot of trolls that will insult you, no matter what. But that's the thing, I've been painted as the bad guy by 'normal' players as well. And when that happens on someone's stream, I am made look bad in front of potentially hundreds / thousands of viewers, with no means to respond or defend myself.

Some people mentioned the fact that using such cheese strats forces a one-dimensional game, because while they are counterable, they need a very specific counterplay. And I agree, facing the same thing over and over without having other strategies open is not fun. But I would say this is a game design problem. These strats take the game to such extremes, that there are usually 1 or max 2 viable defenses against it. In a well-balanced game, you should not be able to take complete map control, with zero actual military. You should also not be able to skip 2 ages with zero military and come out completely dominant. But this is an entirely different discussion, I won't go deeper into it. The point is, asking the game to be better balanced would be closer to an actual solution, than castigating players which accomplishes nothing but a less welcoming community. I would not be surprised to find out that some players stopped playing when they realized they "don't deserve as much respect, and rightly so".

There is no universally accepted gentlemen's agreement on what's fair and what's not. Some people accept laming, some don't. Some enjoy trushing, some don't. And so on. Satisfying everyone's expectations on how they want the opponent to play is an impossible task, and I'm not surprised to see that so many players don't even try.

So even though I don't agree with doing the same strat over and over & I don't enjoy facing it, my respect goes out to all you one-trickers, because receiving all the backlash must not be easy. And I don't respect you any less than variety players.

#UsingWhatTheGameGivesYouIsNotToxic

 

[HongeyKong]

If I am as bothered as you say regarding ELO being a discussion driver, why is it you mentioning ELO -- not I?

https://www.aoezone.net/threads/stop-calling-aoe2-strategies-cancer.174351/#post-729219

Self-hypnotising 111

 

[Biz]

enemy idles a ton of villagers walking across the map and making a tower: "how rude. it's disrespectful to do anything that isn't hard countered by a couple walls & skirms into FC"

player spends 275W 100S to make a mill + lumber camp + mining camp + villager factory + fortress + house: "look at me. i'm the world's greatest general"

i think the supervil bonus should be moved to castle age (or just deleted) because randoming into inca in teamgames feels bad, but that's what happens when you warp the whole balance around a single setting (1v1 arabia) and spend all of a civ's power budget on gimmicks that don't translate to normal RM games

it would be more exciting/aoe-like if people were making rams and catapults and armies to do a medieval siege, but it's not surprising that people have to rely on weird rushes instead, since the balance has let units that cost no farms and require no/few upgrades (mangonel, monk, crossbow) hide near an eco building and some houses to repel armies that cost thousands more to research, train, and upgrade

 

[IYIyTh]

enemy idles a ton of villagers walking across the map and making a tower: "how rude. it's disrespectful to do anything that isn't hard countered by a couple walls & skirms into FC"

player spends 275W 100S to make a mill + lumber camp + mining camp + villager factory + fortress + house: "look at me. i'm the world's greatest general"

i think the supervil bonus should be moved to castle age (or just deleted) because randoming into inca in teamgames feels bad, but that's what happens when you warp the whole balance around a single setting (1v1 arabia) and spend all of a civ's power budget on gimmicks that don't translate to normal RM games

it would be more exciting/aoe-like if people were making rams and catapults and armies to do a medieval siege, but it's not surprising that people have to rely on weird rushes instead, since the balance has let units that cost no farms and require no/few upgrades (mangonel, monk, crossbow) hide near an eco building and some houses to repel armies that cost thousands more to research, train, and upgrade

Inca's are a fantastic civ even without their Inca villager bonus. You can always catch someone flat footed thinking they're going to trush and making a different play. Their housing bonus could also be converted to additional military in wood saved, their tech tree is fantastic -- and they have many options available to them thru early Imperial. Eagles that can raid past castles and TC's just fine with UT armor bonus, and Slingers that if made with proper intuition and planning can thwart any attempt to head down the Champ line. They have halbs, their castle unique unit is a high HP ranged pike that can stack (creates quickly too,) and their monk techs are fantastic, especially in dealing with BBC. Their UT removing skirm/slinger min range helps their trash and turns them into Portugese Arquebus hand cannon with ballistics. They still get Siege Ram and Onager. They get a full blacksmith (outside cav armor.) They are extremely versatile.

I guess my only issue with your thought process is the idea that there is a prototypical "normal," RM game.

After all, the hypocrisy is laid bare when few complain about Franks eco and military bonuses.

Some find absolutely nothing wrong with a Mongol player taking all of their deer and boars, upping and pumping out scouts before their opponent arrives to Feudal. While one might think that's pretty cheesy, to someone else they might love it. Same thing with Khmer going FC and making absolutely zero military 24+0 until Castle Age. Or someone going Pre-Mill Drush FC.

I'm not sure why someone feels qualified to insult an opponent for any reason, let alone based on strategy choice when you should be getting creative.

The point is there isn't a standard way to play and the civilizations differences should be celebrated. I enjoy that Goth's can have a wacky all in drush start. I enjoy that Persians can go for a yolo TC drop. I enjoy that I can predict with almost complete certainty with zero scouting Bulgarians are going to go M@A into something. All of these provide different flavors of how the game is played, and make the game more like Chess rather than Checkers.

 

[crashDismounted]

I'm not sure why someone feels qualified to insult an opponent for any reason, let alone based on strategy choice when you should be getting creative.

I'm not sure what you mean, could you say it again for the 100th time?

 

[Biz]

Inca's are a fantastic civ even without their Inca villager bonus. Their housing bonus could also be converted to additional military in wood saved, their tech tree is fantastic -- and they have many options available to them thru early Imperial. Eagles that can raid past castles and TC's just fine with UT armor bonus, and Slingers that if made with proper intuition and planning can thwart any attempt to head down the Champ line. They have halbs, their castle unique unit is a high HP ranged pike that can stack (creates quickly too,) and their monk techs are fantastic, especially in dealing with BBC. Their UT removing skirm/slinger min range helps their trash and turns them into Portugese Arquebus hand cannon with ballistics. They still get Siege Ram and Onager. They get a full blacksmith (outside cav armor.) They are extremely versatile.

I guess my only issue with your thought process is that there is a prototypical "normal," RM game.

you're basically proving my point with this list of "many options" that you think are good

1v1 players don't understand why 3v3/4v4 players dislike getting inca

 

[-R-]

 

[HongeyKong]

View attachment 191236

https://www.aoezone.net/threads/official-mbl-tatoh-drama-discussion.168912/page-9#post-695153


Modri the prophet

 

[-R-]

Wow, Modri really saw this one coming from afar.

 

[ibramessineymar]

A couple of thoughts:

1. If I want to share my opinion of a strategy with you by after the game, either by calling it toxic or cancerous, or by admiring it and possibly using it in a game myself, why can't I? And this goes for any strategy, even a simple scout rush which may be the most common strategy in the game...if I want to say "that was a cancer strat" after being scout rushed, I'm allowed to. Are other people gonna agree with my opinion that a scout rush is cancer? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I can't share my opinion.

Sharing an opinion is not the same as insulting someone.

Sharing your opinion about a strategy = okay, insulting them for using a certain strategy = not okay

What your opponent said about your strategy = opinion, what they said about "wishing cancer on your family" = insult

2. Now if you wish to argue about the specific words people use, then maybe people should use "dumb" or "annoying" to describe strategies they dislike instead of "cancerous" or "toxic" but the truth is, describing something as cancerous or toxic is pretty common internet slang and the aoe2 community isn't gonna change that. Do I think that particular word choice is best? Not really, no, but once again that's an opinion about something, I am not insulting the people that use "cancerous" or "toxic" to describe a strategy or playstyle.

but you don't have the right to impress your strategy preferences on your opponent

This kind of goes back to my first point, but I'm not sure how you're defining the word "impress". If impress means "force them to change the way they play cuz I don't like it", then absolutely you don't have that right. But if "impress" means "tell you that I didn't like that strategy you just used or I thought it was dumb or annoying or cancer or toxic or whatever we want to call it", then...ummmm...I absolutely disagree. Why can't I share my opinion that I don't like your strategy just like you're sharing your opinion by making this thread?