Yes I see MQ is standard but my question is why is it standard? Who made that decision and why?
Escape gaming. If you wanna sue them for damages, then there is no need as they are soon to be closing down.
Yes I see MQ is standard but my question is why is it standard? Who made that decision and why?
well i m more surprised that the argument "help the attacker" is used, but i guess aoczone user doesent care about "pros" opinionsTowers became 50 wood and pros believe that "helps" the defender when in actuality it doesnt favour them anymore than the attacker since it's always map dependant.
Pair it with maa and the person not on stone can lose half the time if map is garbage. Ez puntos.
well i m more surprised that the argument "help the attacker" is used, but i guess aoczone user doesent care about "pros" opinions
Well some civs with an eco bonus can defend against trush like celt jap mali etc.
Civ like Chinese even with clean build perfect macro start and 0 idle time with a 1.5-2 vill lead, will struggle on res up and have a hard time defending against it initially.
Then there is trash civ like viet who are just f'd regardless.
And pros opinions is all that matters here. They 100% get a say in balance decisions.
first of all u should know that with random civs sometimes there are civ win so u can abuse that going trush or just maa arch(its not just the strat but mostly the better civ) , anyway in high level game people should spot the fwd and be prepared to have that 50 wood
Looks like some one is just too new to the game, in the past (+2years ago) to get good rating you needed to play huns wars or mirror matches, it was about the perfection in execution of the strategy, now you can win just by getting a better civ, a lucky guy can get 6 good civs in one day and boost his elo 100 points, the exchange of points increased due to the random matches and everyone who actually plays knows it, see hera's post lol.looks like someone doesn't really know how elo works lol
Rating inflation is more complicated than it might first appear. I was tempted to agree with you initially, but upon reflection, he might be right. Take a random assortment of 2k players. In any given period some will have a run of civ wins, and some will have a run of civ losses. It will even out in the long run. But in the short term, those that have a good run will have an inflated elo above their actual level. This will cause them to run into 2.2k players more often, who will farm their elo points more easily, which could be one source of rating inflation. Previously, when there were theoretically fewer civ wins, only the 2ks who had earned higher elos would go on to face 2.2ks. This chess article about rating inflation explains a similar mechanic due to the use of a 'rating floor'.looks like someone doesn't really know how elo works lol
In AOE you start with a fixed rating and generally lose points in the beginning, practically transfering them to higher rated players (which cascades up to the top). Contrary, inactive players start to lose points, removing these points irreversibly from the pool. So rating inflation or deflation mainly reflects the change of playerbase: More new players -> more points to be farmed, less players -> more inactive accounts with decaying rating. I don't have the numbers but I guess other effects are largely irrelevant (unlike in chess, where starting elo is not constant and decay does not exist). If the numbers are available, one could correlate the development of top 10 players's elo with the number of active players on voobly (on HD, it is probably similar but more complicated since good players will probably switch to voobly and elo system bugs out every other day).Rating inflation is more complicated than it might first appear. I was tempted to agree with you initially, but upon reflection, he might be right. Take a random assortment of 2k players. In any given period some will have a run of civ wins, and some will have a run of civ losses. It will even out in the long run. But in the short term, those that have a good run will have an inflated elo above their actual level. This will cause them to run into 2.2k players more often, who will farm their elo points more easily, which could be one source of rating inflation. Previously, when there were theoretically fewer civ wins, only the 2ks who had earned higher elos would go on to face 2.2ks. This chess article about rating inflation explains a similar mechanic due to the use of a 'rating floor'.
The initial contention that the recent preference for random civ games leads to rating inflation still seems a reasonable one. But the regular influx of new accounts would most likely account for the bulk of any rating inflation, I agree. This effect would be countered somewhat by the ubiquity of smurf accounts, but perhaps only insignificantly.In AOE you start with a fixed rating and generally lose points in the beginning, practically transfering them to higher rated players (which cascades up to the top). Contrary, inactive players start to lose points, removing these points irreversibly from the pool. So rating inflation or deflation mainly reflects the change of playerbase: More new players -> more points to be farmed, less players -> more inactive accounts with decaying rating. I don't have the numbers but I guess other effects are largely irrelevant (unlike in chess, where starting elo is not constant and decay does not exist). If the numbers are available, one could correlate the development of top 10 players's elo with the number of active players on voobly (on HD, it is probably similar but more complicated since good players will probably switch to voobly and elo system bugs out every other day).
Really. I remembered the game when I was China with huge crater, my only wood was 20+ tiles from TC on forward! Also here was the gold. It wasn't a standart game for me, it was survive mode from minute 1. And if I had no starting sheep - It will be even harder.There are many RNG factors in AoE which is great, but one that makes you have to be less efficient in the first few seconds is bullshit, let me at least plan around my poor wood lines or forward gold, can’t do that with lack of sheep.
LulBack in 2016-2017 I got laughed at when I warned the community about the rise of MQ and its consequent fall of competitive AoC. It seems the lesser skilled HD players and their precious MQ are taking the upper hand in this battle. There is a clear trend towards noobifying the game. The next thing on their agenda is the adoption of custom closed arabia maps as the standard map to play. I would not be suprised to see 'no-rush' games gradually making their introduction into to the AoC scene, initiated by that same HD scum that have already ruined a lot of other competitive aspects of the game, eventually leading to the fall of competitive AoC. Just look at AoE3, that is exactly what happened there.
STOP THE DEGENERATION OF AOC
Where did I say it makes people better? I say it makes game more simple. There is difference. Making game easier does not miraculously make everyone better. Population will still be split among different levels no matter how easy you make it.Lmao some of the stuff I'm reading here holy. Bottom line is if the game is so easy now why arent there several new top players? Sure we are seeing a couple rise here and there, but it's not like the general population has gotten better because of these minor changes. MQ makes ur life easier, starting sheep makes the gave fairer and custom Arabia maps lower variance. Nowhere do these changes make players better at the game. Please stop hanging on to the good ol my startign sheep are in an oasis so I lose days. I feel like I have to comment on threads like these just incase people try to make changes based on some of the replies here...
C'mon bruh, where did Hera say he was referring to your post? I can't work out if the post he was more likely referring to was a troll or not though. 11Where did I say it makes people better? I say it makes game more simple. There is difference. Making game easier does not miraculously make everyone better. Population will still be split among different levels no matter how easy you make it.
And no worries... People does not makes changes on basis of random aoezone topic.
I genuinely don't know if you're serious or making fun of this ridiculous idea. Cause it seems as delusional as it gets.Back in 2016-2017 I got laughed at when I warned the community about the rise of MQ and its consequent fall of competitive AoC. It seems the lesser skilled HD players and their precious MQ are taking the upper hand in this battle. There is a clear trend towards noobifying the game. The next thing on their agenda is the adoption of custom closed arabia maps as the standard map to play. I would not be suprised to see 'no-rush' games gradually making their introduction into to the AoC scene, initiated by that same HD scum that have already ruined a lot of other competitive aspects of the game, eventually leading to the fall of competitive AoC. Just look at AoE3, that is exactly what happened there.
STOP THE DEGENERATION OF AOC