The one that can be played on Voobly without the Steam HD game. Who cares about HD? :lol: :lol: :lol:
1111The one that can be played on Voobly without the Steam HD game. Who cares about HD? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Haha +1! I hope Cysion won't read this, this guy be like "AoE 2 HD The Forgotten is the revolutionary, second official expansion to Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings blah blah..."
111. Oh Jesus. Go to The Forgotten lobb(y)ies on HD and you'll see why it's named like that lool
You really think AoF is better balanced than standard aoc?How can people even say that standard AoC is better balanced than any of the other 3... I don't get it.
John the Late said:How can people even say that standard AoC is better balanced than any of the other 3... I don't get it.
SaladEsc said:These results are of course perfectly accurate since aoczone is voting on the patch itself, and not the people behind it. Kappa...
You really think AoF is better balanced than standard aoc?How can people even say that standard AoC is better balanced than any of the other 3... I don't get it.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. AoF has never been played over a long enough period of time by a sufficient number of decently skilled players. Even in 1.0c, people didn't figure out the real strength of pure CA until mid 2009 or so. So there's absolutely no reason to think that AoF was balanced better.You really think AoF is better balanced than standard aoc?How can people even say that standard AoC is better balanced than any of the other 3... I don't get it.
I'm going to take SC2 as an example here. There have been periods after SC2 expansions where certain playstyles have dominated competitive play to the point that even vast skill differences can't make up the lack of balance.
In AoC, even after what, around 15 years, the most skilled players can make up the difference in the imbalance and win with weaker strategies and weaker civilizations. For example Viper beating 2k2+ players on rooster with fc fire strategies.
This is an extraordinary feat of game balancing. Whilst it may be possible to even further improve on this, it is at best completely unecessary, and at worst will lead to stronger imbalances further down the line. We know that 15 years and millions and millions of AoC games have resulted in a game where civ and strategy balance is not an issue for more players than I can count on two hands. We don't have such an overwhelming body of evidence for AoF or either of the patches yet.
Really the problem here isn't even with the population being polled, it is with the options presented - there is no significant data on any of the patches or the expansion. If we had a couple of years of constant rated games and tournaments being played on the balance patches and AoF, maybe this poll would be valid.
How can people even say that standard AoC is better balanced than any of the other 3... I don't get it.
Standard AOC IS quite balanced.
I keep seeing people throw around these vague terms like "quite balanced", "so unbalanced", "not so unbalanced" everytime there's a balance discussion.i mean if the game were so unbalanced as some ppl want to make you believe
Vs weaker players. Winning with a sub-optimal strategy vs a weaker opposition means nothing. Same goes for winning vs your level of players once in a blue moon.In AoC, even after what, around 15 years, the most skilled players can make up the difference in the imbalance and win with weaker strategies and weaker civilizations.
And yet we have people like you who take every opportunity to bash the patch, to spread fear mongering, to cause bullshit flamewars, to judge that the patch is unbalanced. And you try to go around with this "I will not contribute any penny to AOC if a patch is used", "I will put a big amount of money into the tourney if it is not in the patch". You try everything you can to prevent the patch from being popular, thus limiting the data we can obtain and now you say there is not enough data to validate the patch.Really the problem here isn't even with the population being polled, it is with the options presented - there is no significant data on any of the patches or the expansion. If we had a couple of years of constant rated games and tournaments being played on the balance patches and AoF, maybe this poll would be valid.
What is worse, AOC has a decent share of people like you who have no objectivity and will never recognize any merit the patch ever has even when disagreeing with the overall idea of patch. Lack of objectivity in forum is appalling.AoCZone is full of people who don't actually play the game.
Rarely do I find myself agreeing to your posts so much PlB but this is just so spot on.(On mobile)
I don't like bashing upon current balance, but yesterday I wanted to play 1v1 arabia random civ (in the description IN CAPITAL LETTERS), soon after a 1400 player joined.
In the lobby I was picking random civ then he picked hun, I said "random civ please", he picked mirror...I was like "i said random civ please" then he lost his **** "you're trying to scam me with a civ win u *****", etc...I just raged and closed my Voobly 11
If even some 1400 players don't want to play random civ because of a presumed fear of "civ win"...what can I say more 11
Honestly, for me balance patch is useless (yes, you read well!) in 1v1 arabia till 18xx, below this level skill and execution matter more than civilization balance imho. Above this, mirror or Balance Patch is compulsory for fairness.
BP could also be useful in BF where Korea/Celt siege is nerfed, and worse imperial civs a little better, but the reality is BP just isn't meant to appeal to Voobly masses...even if it's very transparent and the theories of " it will split the community" are utter ****
Balance patch will never get adopted in masses on Voobly unless you don't incite people to play it (in short: extra ELO for winning games with random civs/all ppl pick a different civ, watching BP recs without having to configure anything, integrate a "balance patch" case just to tick in in-game multiplayer lobby instead to afraid people with that "AOC balance patch" ugly thing, etc...)
Point is at my level, normal AoC and balance patch are equally enjoyable, granted you don't find complete idiots who wants to mirror/pick into four civs which are useless to mention even if description says otherwise
Balance or not balance whatever, BUT VOOBLY PLEASE DON'T LET PLAYERS ENGRAIN MIRROR IN THEIR PSYCHE. Random is to mirror what sex is to masturbation. Don't let it grow even more 11
]And yet we have people like you who take every opportunity to bash the patch, to spread fear mongering, to cause bullshit flamewars, to judge that the patch is unbalanced. And you try to go around with this "I will not contribute any penny to AOC if a patch is used", "I will put a big amount of money into the tourney if it is not in the patch". You try everything you can to prevent the patch from being popular, thus limiting the data we can obtain and now you say there is not enough data to validate the patch.
Would have happily contributed to something of this format, but not if it's also being used to push a balance change
Your criticism of the balance patch is one of the most pathetic I have ever seen by all the community (I'm not talking about this topic, you know that). You know that I'm not talking about a particular instance, you know the ruckus you tried to cause when BOP was announced, among other things. Don't act like a saint now.
I frankly respect a lot of people who don't agree with patching AOC. But not you. And when I get personal about stuff it is with reason. I don't unless a person pisses me off big time.
I made this poll due to the $1000 BoP tournament. I am surprised that this patch has received so much money by voobly, considering that so few players on voobly (0? I haven't seen a BP game in months...) have any interest in playing this patch.
I'm going to take SC2 as an example here. There have been periods after SC2 expansions where certain playstyles have dominated competitive play to the point that even vast skill differences can't make up the lack of balance.
In AoC, even after what, around 15 years, the most skilled players can make up the difference in the imbalance and win with weaker strategies and weaker civilizations. For example Viper beating 2k2+ players on rooster with fc fire strategies.
This is an extraordinary feat of game balancing. Whilst it may be possible to even further improve on this, it is at best completely unecessary, and at worst will lead to stronger imbalances further down the line. We know that 15 years and millions and millions of AoC games have resulted in a game where civ and strategy balance is not an issue for more players than I can count on two hands. We don't have such an overwhelming body of evidence for AoF or either of the patches yet.
Really the problem here isn't even with the population being polled, it is with the options presented - there is no significant data on any of the patches or the expansion. If we had a couple of years of constant rated games and tournaments being played on the balance patches and AoF, maybe this poll would be valid.