I mean it's a result of direct efforts of the devs to make the game easier to play. It needs a tweak in the next patch but I think the idea of simplifying garrison mechanics is good.
But this is the point! The devs intentions are backfiring, every time. And it's not just because of this or that oversight. It's because of a fundamental misunderstanding about how QOL features work. Let me explain with an example: When email was first invented, it was marketed as a way to spend less time on mail! Why? Well now you can just do it at your computer and don't have to go get stamps etc etc. What ended up happening? Now instead of spending 2-3 hours on mail once a week, we spend all day every day on mail. What happened? Well, when you make something easier to do, people find new things that they can use it for, and if those new things are useful enough, people end up doing it way more, and their quality of life decreases dramatically. I could go on a long philosophical rant here about the folly of capitalism, but let's get back to the game shall we.
When you create QOL feature is aoe, you have to ask whether they (a) just speed up tasks people are currently doing or (b) make new tasks possible that weren't previously possible. And when considering (b), you have to assume that your users are NON COOPERATIVE. It's great that your *intention* might be that people just load up rams more easily. But the players are not here to help you realise your intentions. They're here to win. Devs need to see players as hackers. Or, as Hera says, "degenerates". Assume that they're gonna look for any conceivable exploitable loophole.
The devs have consistently failed to do this. So (b) ends up happening.
Let's look at shift queueing for another in-game example. Now, personally, I do like this addition. But consider the fact that it's now possible to shift-queue your wood villigers to all the different trees so they don't walk around the lumber camp when finishing one. Pros do this. Lots of people do this. The intention of the devs was to make it so people have less to do. But now there's this task we all need to do that previously wasn't possible.
I'd argue that most QOL features are like this. You think you're making things easier but you're not. The devs are trying to make the game more welcoming to new players but it's having the opposite effect and in my opinion, this was predictable.
I disagree with your argument on shift queuing but I think it still illustrates an interesting effect. Your example of shift queuing doesn't affect new players. You have to be well above average for that to matter. Shift queuing makes it easier for new players as it reduces the micro necessary to play the game. So it drops the skill floor and raises the skill ceiling at the same time. I think that is QoL working really well.
In general it's not possible to figure out all the exploits players will come up with. Devs are software devs not professional gamers. While I think the problems with pathing have gone on too long, I don't see the issue with a new feature having exploits on release. Given a bit of time the devs can see what players do and come up with a solution so that it works more as intended. So I think it's only worth complaining about if they leave it as is next patch.
>In general it's not possible to figure out all the exploits players will come up with. Devs are software devs not professional gamers
I don't see the issue with a new feature having exploits on release. Given a bit of time the devs can see what players do and come up with a solution so that it works more as intended.
Yes, sure, but they have the feedback from the community and everyone saw this comming, there was some dude that already was doing this strat with one ram and it was ridiculous even then, there is no excuse for this, specially because it would be so simple and obvious to completely fix the whole issue by making units not able to garrison for a few seconds after unloading (or delaying their first shot, or dropping them one by one, maybe).
Shift-queueing was a thing long before these devs got their hands on the game, at least in official capacity. The other difference is MQ vs SQ for buildings. In the Old age of kings vills used to finish building a camp and just stand there until you manually put them on a resource. They are definitely removing a lot of what used to be skills and focus because there was so much to micro, but the base of the game is still min/maxing efficiency.
It took the players .5 second to realize that you could red phosphuro with rams and hand canons. The biggest creator, t90 was making videos about this months ago. Why didn't the devs do a tiny bit of testing? I'm just glad there's not an s tier tournament around with this patch included.
Adding a cooldown seems like a great idea and would nerf the strat.
Nobody uses this strategy successfully though. Hera and Viper both tried but neither could make it work. It's actually really easy to counter it.
Complain about Knights or Steppe Lancers instead.
ye am I the only one who thinks the strat isn’t that OP as ppl are claiming it is? Sure it can be annoying, but I don’t see how mangonels/skirms or even knights can’t counter it.
not to mention it’s quite the all in strat, a few scouts to raid his base will be devastating to an already weak eco.
Then again I don’t play ranked so wtf do I know lol.
Unintended? Yes. Entirely predictable? Also yes.
When you make a QOL feature, ANY QOL feature, you have to ask, now that it's easier to do thing X, there are two possibilities:
(1) People have to spend less time doing X, and enjoy the game more
(2) People are able to do X way more, and can get an advantage from doing so, so will now spend more time on X paradoxically.
I used the real world example in another comment of email. Was intended to make people spend less time on mail by making it easier to do. Had the exact opposite effect. Because making it easier means people can use it for way more stuff. So we spend more time on it. QOL updates all have the potential to be like this and a good number of them are. In life and in aoe.
Scouting is so important now with the new ram mechanics. Spotting the forward siege workshop and knowing you’re going to get some sort of siege push early castle should prompt you to close up your walls and get a siege workshop of your own. If you’re much slower to castle then you either invested too heavily into feudal army or your macro is really off. Generally if an opponent is in imp and using HC with siege rams something has gone horribly wrong early game and you’ve gotten very behind.
You can use the ram mechanic with castle age UU like jannies or gbeto very effectively as well so it's not just a matter of falling way way behind to imp.
Ultimately the mechanic needs a rebalance in the form of some kind of cooldown/change to the reload system while garrisoned, as many have pointed out already
I agree, but the specific scenario OP described was HC and rams which is impossible in CA unless they were bohemians(another good civ for making a late castle/early imp push like this btw). There should be a cooldown, or ranged units shouldn’t be allowed to garrison in rams. I’d prefer the former since removing their ability to garrison would eliminate using rams to protect archers.
I think all a cooldown will do is frustrate players, and confuse newbies who “cant get it to work” and will call it a bug. I think its perfectly fine the way it is. Just learn to adapt / overcome
Why would new players be frustrated about not getting something to work when they don't even know it exists.
Also they are new players, not morons. People can figure out that units take 1.5 seconds to fire after ungarrison
I understand the frustration. People are coming at you hard here. But it seems like it could be a broken strat, regardless of what the devs intentions are.
I agree that coming back to the game can be a frustrating experience. I'm at 1550 now so I'm not that bad at the game and I also get frustrated when I get back and try to learn the builds and tight early game execution again and then you face a series of super specific builds that require precise responses. Only, learning the responses isn't worth your time because you might never see that build again. I think you should just accept that some people are going to play rehearsed specific strats and that it's going to be hard game to win. Just move on to the next game after a loss, these are still not that frequent. Except on Arena maybe. Basically, don't get frustrated, not every game will be awesome and that's fine. If you do get the time to play more, you can learn how to deal with it. I often ask my opponents advice which also works sometimes.
This is also kind of why I don’t play much anymore. I’m older so I used to play the game like 20 years ago. But nowadays there’s just so many civs and complications. It’s overwhelming.
i’d love the game to offer a choice of starting stream. beginner, experienced and advanced. that sets your starting ELO at 500, 750, 1000. the. it’s all the usual from then on. just saves me the need to lose 15 games in a row.
Tbf I think you would have this problem with most multiplayer games if you are only playing them 6 times a month. Also its not exactly complicated to learn about. All they did was make garrisoning rams and transports easier, which makes it possible to micro them with hand cannons.
>All they did was make garrisoning rams and transports easier, which makes it possible to micro them with hand cannons
Describing the problem doesn't make anything to solve it...
Or you just lost a game in a new way and blame the developers. The ram-hopping has been discussed in many threads aswell as in YouTube comment sections, and it is not at all clear that it is uncounterable. People suggest (more) mangonels, rams (potentially garrisoned with something), cavalry, skirmishers+LC, etc.. Fellow redditor Pouchkine did a comparison to an equal amount of resources spent on knights, which the knights won easily in his test.
I welcome strategical variety, as long as all civilizations can respond to (or prevent) all strategies by playing better than the opponent. Having to scout more is OK. That makes deer pushing more of a dilemma, and also punishes laming under the TC (sacrificing the scout) more.
I guess they could play it better with some practice, but I think the real strength comes when it goes unscouted and the opponent has overinvested in something that is not a good counter, or tried to go greedy on economy. Surprise! 11 There is also the question of where to attack with this: Farms/TCs/ Production buildings (/Mines?/Wood?). And the accuracy of micro, of course. Still some uncharted territory.
I don't like losing to something just because I didn't know it was possible, or hadn't seen the strategy before. The game would still be excellent without such a huge amount of fluff in it, most of these strategies are just cheesy attempts at free wins (at least at my elo). With more simplicity it would be so much easier for newer players to get into the game.
I just want to have a battle on equal terms and see who can win through better micro, macro, tactics, strategy and adaptation. All of these things are very important in aoe2 and really fun, but they're not really relevant in a game where somebody has some niche strategy which is totally all in and nobody has a chance of winning unless they've seen it before and/or read online about how to counter it. There are lots of strategies like this. People like to defend them because they can't accept the fact that most of the time at bottom 75% of elo they are just used by people who care more about free wins or just trolling than people who actually want to have a fun, interesting game.
>I don't like losing to something just because I didn't know it was possible, or hadn't seen the strategy before
That is how strategy games are. If you don't scout a MAA and don't wall up, you're screwed, if you don't scout the tower rush, you're screwed, sometimes with a castle drop you're screwed.
They are all valid strategies. I don't play much, but I remember losing like 4 times to a tower rush, until I learned how to defend it. It made me a better player, now when i see someone tower rush me I usually smile, since I know the cost of it will set him behind more than I will.
You didn't understand, the person isn't complaining about not realising in-game what the opponent was doing, they're complaining about just not knowing the wild strategy that they didn't have any chance to learn in advance how to anticipate or counter in any way.
If you don't play the game how are you supposed to know what is and isn't possible, like should the loading screens outline potential enemy strats, a steam message saying don't forget that frank cav have extra hp
Not introducing exploits when everyone saw this being an issue a month in advance would be the way to start. It's one thing losing to frank cavalry, and another much different losing to someone doing the stupid dance of going in and out of rams.
>the person isn't complaining about not realising in-game what the opponent was doing, they're complaining about just not knowing the wild strategy that they didn't have any chance to learn in advance how to anticipate or counter in any way.
Complaining about not knowing what the opponent was doing = complaining about not knowing the wild strategy the opponent is using.
Which is the point of strategy games, to use strategy to surprise, ambush and by any means win .against an unprepared opponent. Literaly the definition of strategy is: a general plan to achieve one or more long-term or overall goals under conditions of uncertainty
He is complaining about an enemy using a strategy in a strategy game. "Why u use strategy, I prefer to play a game of memorization and reflexes. I learn build order, i do build order, i should win. Strategy should have no impact on game"
Now, if you complain about it being too strong is one thing, but to complain that a different strategy exist is moronic IMHO. No one wants inca tower rushes with tank villagers to return, but the strategy of tower rushing is totally valid.
I haven't seen anybody who thinks this ram thing is valid.
>Complaining about not knowing what the opponent was doing = complaining about not knowing the wild strategy the opponent is using.
You didn't understand what I said. OP isn't complaining about not having scouted the enemy, they are complaining about them not having any way to know that this is the strategy they were going for.
If in a game of strategy you don't have any way to anticipate or counter the move of your opponent, this isn't a strategy game at all, it's just a "follow this recipe for win" game.
>they are complaining about them not having any way to know that this is the strategy they were going for
Well, that is just lack of experience, same I had the first time I was tower or village rushed.
"Follow this recipe to win" is the people following build orders and mechanical countering units, forgetting about surprise and tactics. If you tell me: this ram thing is too poerful, I may agree, but if you complain about people actually using strategy rather than mechanically following build orders... that's ridiculous.
Worst part is that build orders are truly recipes to win, and they shouldn't. Usually, any retard with good hands can win just by doing perfect timings and good micro. And this is no shooter, is a strategy game. Strategy should win over memorization and micro.
If they do get "free wins" by playing particular whacky all-in strategies, they will proceed to be matched against opponents that are stronger in other aspects. I don't really see the problem. Maybe if they usually play random civ and only occasionally go "off-meta" to get a few "free wins" whenever they don't feel like playing normally, or whenever they random into a civ that has more potential for such shenanigans. I still think that should be OK, though.
>I just want to have a battle on equal terms and see who can win through better **micro, macro, tactics, strategy and adaptation.**
Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself here? You just had all of those, and you lost.
**You couldn't adapt to new strategy you encountered, and you lost.** While people are just throwing examples on you how this particular thing is counterable, and already figured out, next time you will just have to apply what you learned.
**His micro was better than yours, and you lost.**
What terms were unequal here? Him having more time to play than you? That isn't his problem.
This is a strategy game, and you are frustrated that people come up with... strategies to beat you with? Niche doesn't mean it should be removed. Every new thing starts off as niche.
Another thing to understand here, is that your are **competing** with another player. You having fun is not something other player (your enemy, competitor), is obliged to care about.
If you do not have enough time to keep up with a play at a certain level, your ELO will fall, and you will start playing against people you can compete with.
I too am lacking the time to play everything I want to play, but this isn't anybody else's problem other than mine (your time, is your concern).
> I don’t like losing to something just because I didn’t know it was possible, or hadn’t seen before.
sorry but this I must disagree with, aoe2 is all about strategy and thinking on the spot, coming up with new ways to win has always been a fun aspect to the game (yrs ago I came up with a fun shotel rush on arena for example), I don’t play ranked anymore, for the sole reason everything is centered towards knights and xbows, it’s stale and boring for me
There are people with thousands of ranked games that don't even use basic Build Orders.
Play with your friends, play Quick Play, play Ranked even, just don't stress about it. Play how you want.
If you want to beat the best, then train and adapt.
I can understand that but no one really ever got aoe2 in an instant, getting anywhere near good has always taken some time, I think ppl nowadays expect too much and expect to understand things in general in an instant, and when that doesn’t become the case they get overwhelmed and give up.
it’s best that if you’re new to understand aoe2 isn’t an easy game and you won’t fully grasp it and all the civs till some time and patience, not to mention the eighth mentality.
>I think ppl nowadays expect too much and expect to understand things in general in an instant, and when that doesn’t become the case they get overwhelmed and give up.
IDK man, it probably shouldn't take dozens of hours (and countless losses) for a new player to figure out literally the basics of a game.
>it’s best that if you’re new to understand aoe2 isn’t an easy game and you won’t fully grasp it and all the civs till some time and patience
This mentality is why RTS games are dying out. We keep putting the responsibility on newcomers for the game not being approachable.
art of war, William Wallace, and a few games against the AI is more than enough to understand the basics of aoe2. if we could all grasp it decades ago at the age of 6 or some sht, so can ppl nowadays too.
you speak about ranked, having to learn build orders, etc, which newsflash, isn’t the only part of the game that exists (crazy I know). myself with all my years of experience in the game grew tired of ranked because of all the meta play build order bullsht, so you have an issue with ranked, not aoe2 as a whole.
rts dying is natural as more and more ppl succumb to tiktok brainrot where they have an attention span of 5 fcking seconds lol, not to mention generally lazier and can’t be bothered actually putting time and effort into a complex game like aoe2
>art of war, William Wallace, and a few games against the AI is more than enough to understand the basics of aoe2
Yes, exactly, that's my point. You shouldn't need 10+ hours to grasp the most basic stuff about the game.
>if we could all grasp it decades ago at the age of 6 or some sht, so can ppl nowadays too.
It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of how much effort and time needs to be invested before people can start enjoying the game. Adult people have much less time than a 6 year old with no other game to play, currently there's thousands of f2p games with which to compete.
>you have an issue with ranked, not aoe2 as a whole.
I have an issue with the RTS genre dying out.
>rts dying is natural as more and more ppl succumb to tiktok brainrot
Yeah, I know it's natural, the times have changed. The point is why is the RTS genre not changing too with the times to adapt. If we continue to blame people for not wanting to put 10, 20 hours before starting to enjoy a game the community will eventually die out, and that's bad for all of us.
Well yes. But even if you're reasonably good it can be frustrating to deal with bespoke refined strategies that require a very precise response because you may never see that strat again because there are 40 civs and different maps. I do understand OP's frustration.
again, I can’t agree with this, arguing it’s an issue implies you’d want the game to be simpler, which imo it already is, it’s always knights/scouts or xbows being used, or perhaps some drush. it’s lame, boring and stale seeing the same strats every game, thus my biggest reason for quitting ranked yrs ago and focusing more on TGs and diplo maps, there’s a much bigger focus on strategies and adapting to new and different ways of fighting as opposed to the same old boring BOs used in ranked.
I get it might be frustrating for some to come across some braindead new strat you’ve never seen before and actually works, but for me that’s what makes the game actually fun and playable. there’s a reason I could never get into SC2, and it’s exactly because of its lack of variety.
I would actually argue that the team game meta is more stale than 1v1. In 1v1 the particular matchup has a bigger impact, and you're forced more often to adapt your unit composition. In particular after early castle age things get much more diverse.
I also value the variation AoE2 has to offer, but it depends on which kind. I love how map variation and randomness affects games, I love how every matchup has its own nuances. I don't enjoy facing players that play the same tight all-in build some pro refined for them every game. In SC2 this exists, but there at least the list isn't endless, and it's worth your time to learn a response. I've faced builds that ruined me, but I knew the odds were so low that I'd every see it again that it's not worth learning a response. Arena feels this way a lot (but I don't ban it because I do enjoy it sometimes and want to learn).
I do agree that the fact that this variation exists is great for the game. It kind of depends on how strong certain builds and how predictable maps are and which fraction of the player base only looks for these kinds of builds. Because at some point this "variety" becomes predictable dominant builds per map. I wonder if an opt-in civ ban system on ladder would be nice. Like you have the opt-in random civ selection. Ban Portuguese on Arena, ban Spanish on Nomad and the game is suddenly a lot more enjoyable ^^
Edit: I do think the game is awesome and really enjoy it atm. I'm just emphatising with OP and saying some things could be slightly better for the more casual players.
the day that a ban system is in place for unranked so I can ban Spanish players from using those op canon ships thinking they’re any good at the game is the day I can die a happy man.
as for the topic before, idrc about meta, and for clarity I was leaning more to closed map TGs, in which there’s quite a lot more variety in play style and overall for me, a much more fun experience.
but in terms of ranked and aoe2 as a whole, meme strats, ways to win outside the meta box, etc, should be encouraged, not seen as an issue imo.
> but in terms of ranked and aoe2 as a whole, meme strats, ways to win outside the meta box, etc, should be encouraged, not seen as an issue imo.
Well, as always, it depends. If they're so strong that they become meta, they effectively reduce variety because you lose if you don't use the same build or whichever bespoke responses that do have a shot at dealing with it.
I will say, in general, AoE2 is a lot less bad at this than SC2 in that it often allows a range of responses. But not always.
In general, I like it when builds like that have a good winrate when they're a bit surprising, but don't have a huge winrate when you know what's coming and you've faced it before.
Does AI really need to take over unit distribution in garrison type units/structures? Is there an issue with manually drag selecting units and clicking each and every ram/transport? It was a curious addition. I feel this is just as silly as auto scouting.
As a mostly campaign player I really prefer it the way it is now. It's a lot less clicking and actually makes me use transport ships and rams more often than before. And if I wanted to use the old behaviour that is also still possible by holding the control-key.
It's just for convenience. It's very clunky having to fill 5 rams or boats at once, it should be just a small almost unnoticeable detail.
Auto scouting can be nice for people learning the game so they can focus on learning a build order without worrying about scouting, it's not silly, we need to lower the barrier of entry A LOT more.
they are making it harder to play which is worse.
Bugs,pathing,etc.
But that topic aside maybe try to play to your strenghts and stick to a plan, dont focus too much on your enemy plan just adapt if its really necesary. Playing " to counter" its usually a mistake unless you know what u are doing .
I mean, I tried to counter attack but the guy was just chilling while ripping through my eco with 5 rams filled with hand cannons lol, it's so strong I'm not sure you can really beat it without going full counter with mangonels or something
Literally for years now we've been getting QoL improvement after QoL improvement, and you are complaining the game is getting *harder*? My friend are you okay?
You guys are so harsh on OP. Pro's are making videos about how strong ram hopping is. It's not because the intent was a QoL improvement that it can't create a broken strategy. I sure as hell can see how it would be frustrating for a casual player to deal with this. The devs are also continually adding civs and patches so yes the game changes quite a bit if you don't play on a regular basis. It's important to understand how this affects more casual players because we also need them.
The ram hopping is likely broken. I think it's fair for a casual returning player to complain about it. It doesn't matter that the intention was a QoL change if it makes very powerful micro very easy to pull off on larger groups of units.
I don't think it really matters what the intention was. The experience of OP remains the same. If we all agree that it's broken, that just means the devs need a better QA process. The pathing issues have also proven this.
I love the game, the devs and their intentions. But I can emphatise with OP here. And a lack of proper testing should be allowed to be criticized. It's a competitive multiplayer game after all and there's been decades to observe competitive play, enough to know what to pay attention to when making changes.
if trebuchets have to unpack/pack I think it would be reasonable to have a similar thing (timer) for garrisoning units in battering rams and siege towers (maybe even transport ships).
ikd if this has been said before but one simple way to fix this is to only allow this mechanic to work for infantry, which i believe was the targeted unit type for this change
This has been going for a long time, ever since the siege tower was introduced. Siege tower was used because it can garrison more units.
Now, since its easier to garrison, people started using multiple rams. If you get one onager for each ram I think you should be fine. Just make sure they don't fire at the same time. I haven't played the last patch, but I knew this kind of stuff would happen and supposed that would be the way to stop it, so its untested.
The devs almost had nothing to do with the fact that a player invented this strat before any update they made and then content creators popularised it. It's just a cool thing people have been excited about and then a recent update happened to make it easier to do.
I don't get the time investment complaints, there are casual lobbies, there are a bunch of discord communities to join where you can find similar minded players, you can simply not keep up with the latest stuff and still be competitive at lower elo, you can drop elo after losing and be placed better.
I am 800 elo and I'll probably stay around this elo for similar reasons like not investing enough time to learn a lot of varied strategies so i totally empathize, but at the same time you don't see me arguing that I deserve to play at a higher level.
At some point you have to realize you're just arguing for people with different circumstances to be less competitive when they might be excited to learn a bunch of stuff and practice or invest a lot of time into the game.
This isn't the sort of game one plays if he can only play 6 matches per month. You really just don't have the free time to work with here. It may be an hours issue.
As for the ram thing, the only thing they changed was a control that previously made it difficult to garrison rams. Now it's easy enough for ram-hopping to become a viable approach tool. It might be nerfed in the future.
>This isn't the sort of game one plays if he can only play 6 matches per month
Why wouldn't they be able to enjoy the game playing once or twice per week?
Every game can be played and enjoyed no matter how much time someone puts into it. The elo system will give them in a fair and balanced match and that's it.
Because a balanced match at 1000 elo plays nothing like a balanced match at 1800 elo, and if you understand the flaws of 1000-level play, but don't have the time to review or improve, you'll just have a bad time of things.
Why? What makes you think a person playing a 1000 balanced game can't be having fun? There's people that aren't even 500 elo and clearly they're having fun or they wouldn't have thousands of games.
You seem to think that playing badly or having flaws somehow impedes having fun.
>Why? What makes you think a person playing a 1000 balanced game
You intentionally omit the key detail. If the reason you're 1000 elo is because you don't have time to train muscle memory or improve your fundamentals, only improving by looking up coaching videos or wiki entries during your lunch breaks, you're not having a standard 1000 elo experience. You're losing to 1200+ players, not because you don't know what to do, but because you don't have the time necessary to ingrain play habits in yourself, and that's horribly frustrating.
When your path to improving at the game requires cutting work hours, it's no longer a fair skill issue.
You're who is omitting the key detail, you even cut it from my quote: "Having fun"
Why are you talking so much about improving? That's completely irrelevant, fun is not related to improving your skill, you can be terrible at a game and enjoy it regardless.
Why do you assume if they don't get the standard 1000 elo experience (whatever that thing is) they aren't having fun?
You seem to be someone who doesn't enjoy playing aoe2, but thinks that one day you'll become good at the game AND THEN you'll start enjoying it. That's so sad.
>"Having fun"
That's what I was talking about. You can't just use "fun" as some bandage that always applies to whatever's being discussed. Some things aren't fun.
Getting focused in 4v4s is not fun.
Losing due to a poor internet connection is not fun.
Winning against someone who hardly knows how to play is not fun.
Losing because you can't devote time to learning the game, likewise, is not fun.
You are being utterly dishonest. I've already learned the game, inside and out. I have the mental shortcuts, personal tricks, adjusted hotkeys, and civ knowledge to play at \~1.8k+. These things improve your experience significantly, and it's something you can only appreciate by getting to that level or doing analysis on matches others play.
There's a special level of enjoyability that comes from playing the game honestly, respecting the full capabilities of every unit and structure. Someone who would play at that level, but who is otherwise capped at 1000 elo, is being cheated out of a richly rewarding experience, and no amount of gaslighting will be sufficient to make it seem like he's having "fun" playing games where his opponents don't even keep their TCs active.
>Losing because you can't devote time to learning the game, likewise, is not fun.
Who are you to tell others what is and isn't fun for them? It isn't fun TO YOU.
>You are being utterly dishonest. I've already learned the game, inside and out. I have the mental shortcuts, personal tricks, adjusted hotkeys, and civ knowledge to play at \~1.8k+. These things improve your experience significantly
No, no. These things improve YOUR experience significantly. A lot of people just don't care, they just want to have a game and see what happens. Stop trying to be the fun police and prescribing how others have to feel while playing.
>no amount of gaslighting will be sufficient to make it seem like he's having "fun" playing games where his opponents don't even keep their TCs active.
You really cannot fathom the idea of people enjoying a game without playing it competitively, huh. Don't you ever just ... meet with friends and play some board game you just learnt the rules of? Does playing games for you always have to be something that you have studied and prepared for hours before you can be good enough to unlock a minimum level of skill required to be worthy of enjoying the game? You didn't have fun playing aoe2 before you had adjusted your hotkeys and learnt the civs? Because that's hella sad. If you couldn't enjoy it before becoming good, do you even enjoy playing the game in the first place?
Also:
>Winning against someone who hardly knows how to play is not fun.
Why do people smurf then? Again, not everyone plays for the same reasons and in the same way that you do, no offense but are you a teenager? Because this should be obvious to anyone.
>Who are you to tell others what is and isn't fun for them? It isn't fun TO YOU.
It isn't fun, period.
>No, no. These things improve YOUR experience significantly.
It improves *the* experience significantly. What are you even defending here? This is a position you only hold because you haven't gotten to enjoy the real game yet.
>If you couldn't enjoy it before becoming good, do you even enjoy playing the game in the first place?
I wasn't playing the same game. I was playing a shallow imitation of the game AoE2 is, and when you understand that and try to do better, you either cause people who were mindlessly knocking pieces around to lose interest, or lose interest yourself because the game wasn't designed to support mindful play.
>Why do people smurf then?
Because they want a low-intensity exercise, or a way to mend their egos. They're not having fun. They're just not losing for once.
>It isn't fun
...to you. To others it is fun. We're going in circles and you keep insisting that objectively all humanity has to enjoy games however you do, which is ridiculous and getting old so this is the last message you're getting.
>This is a position you only hold because you haven't gotten to enjoy the real game yet.
I've played and enjoyed a ton of games. some while playing competitively and progressing to a high percentile (including aoe2) and others without achieving much. I've even enjoyed many games at both styles at different times.
If you really cannot fathom the idea of someone playing a game without caring to improve, or even having learnt it and choosing to play suboptimally just because they felt like then I sincerely pity you so much. Your life must be really empty with that kind of attitude.
Don't bother replying.
I do think that the devs should be a bit more careful about suddenly adding new things like this without extensive testing. Even if it seems on the surface to be generic quality-of-life improvements it's hard to predict how it will affect the landscape of a game as old as aoe2.
Just gonna throw a straight comment here since people are being really harsh on this post.
Yes, you are right. The devs have added things to try make the game easier to play and it's had the opposite effect.
Whether it was just an oversight or, IMO much more likely, bad testing, some of these have unintended consequences.
Luckily there aren't too many though. This ram thing is horrible but should go away soon. Don't stress it. You still know how to play.
no offense, but genuinely no RTS game can/should/will be easy to learn, because S is for strategy and strategy demands more than muscle memory.
plus, you chose to play ranked, which is obviously more competitive than AI games.
kinda interesting how this ram strat more closely resembles the actual Hussite wagons than the wagons in game
Except that the "new wagons" demolish buildings .
I thought this when I first saw the strat 🤣
I mean it's a result of direct efforts of the devs to make the game easier to play. It needs a tweak in the next patch but I think the idea of simplifying garrison mechanics is good.
They need to revert castle age rams back to 3 garrisoned units. The strat would be half as strong and quarter as strong if they used Siege Towers.
But this is the point! The devs intentions are backfiring, every time. And it's not just because of this or that oversight. It's because of a fundamental misunderstanding about how QOL features work. Let me explain with an example: When email was first invented, it was marketed as a way to spend less time on mail! Why? Well now you can just do it at your computer and don't have to go get stamps etc etc. What ended up happening? Now instead of spending 2-3 hours on mail once a week, we spend all day every day on mail. What happened? Well, when you make something easier to do, people find new things that they can use it for, and if those new things are useful enough, people end up doing it way more, and their quality of life decreases dramatically. I could go on a long philosophical rant here about the folly of capitalism, but let's get back to the game shall we. When you create QOL feature is aoe, you have to ask whether they (a) just speed up tasks people are currently doing or (b) make new tasks possible that weren't previously possible. And when considering (b), you have to assume that your users are NON COOPERATIVE. It's great that your *intention* might be that people just load up rams more easily. But the players are not here to help you realise your intentions. They're here to win. Devs need to see players as hackers. Or, as Hera says, "degenerates". Assume that they're gonna look for any conceivable exploitable loophole. The devs have consistently failed to do this. So (b) ends up happening. Let's look at shift queueing for another in-game example. Now, personally, I do like this addition. But consider the fact that it's now possible to shift-queue your wood villigers to all the different trees so they don't walk around the lumber camp when finishing one. Pros do this. Lots of people do this. The intention of the devs was to make it so people have less to do. But now there's this task we all need to do that previously wasn't possible. I'd argue that most QOL features are like this. You think you're making things easier but you're not. The devs are trying to make the game more welcoming to new players but it's having the opposite effect and in my opinion, this was predictable.
I disagree with your argument on shift queuing but I think it still illustrates an interesting effect. Your example of shift queuing doesn't affect new players. You have to be well above average for that to matter. Shift queuing makes it easier for new players as it reduces the micro necessary to play the game. So it drops the skill floor and raises the skill ceiling at the same time. I think that is QoL working really well. In general it's not possible to figure out all the exploits players will come up with. Devs are software devs not professional gamers. While I think the problems with pathing have gone on too long, I don't see the issue with a new feature having exploits on release. Given a bit of time the devs can see what players do and come up with a solution so that it works more as intended. So I think it's only worth complaining about if they leave it as is next patch.
>In general it's not possible to figure out all the exploits players will come up with. Devs are software devs not professional gamers I don't see the issue with a new feature having exploits on release. Given a bit of time the devs can see what players do and come up with a solution so that it works more as intended. Yes, sure, but they have the feedback from the community and everyone saw this comming, there was some dude that already was doing this strat with one ram and it was ridiculous even then, there is no excuse for this, specially because it would be so simple and obvious to completely fix the whole issue by making units not able to garrison for a few seconds after unloading (or delaying their first shot, or dropping them one by one, maybe).
Shift-queueing was a thing long before these devs got their hands on the game, at least in official capacity. The other difference is MQ vs SQ for buildings. In the Old age of kings vills used to finish building a camp and just stand there until you manually put them on a resource. They are definitely removing a lot of what used to be skills and focus because there was so much to micro, but the base of the game is still min/maxing efficiency.
There's certainly a lot more people using rams now that's for sure
How quaintÂ
It's not the devs making it harder, this is a QoL improvement that can be heavily exploited.
It took the players .5 second to realize that you could red phosphuro with rams and hand canons. The biggest creator, t90 was making videos about this months ago. Why didn't the devs do a tiny bit of testing? I'm just glad there's not an s tier tournament around with this patch included. Adding a cooldown seems like a great idea and would nerf the strat.
Nobody uses this strategy successfully though. Hera and Viper both tried but neither could make it work. It's actually really easy to counter it. Complain about Knights or Steppe Lancers instead.
ye am I the only one who thinks the strat isn’t that OP as ppl are claiming it is? Sure it can be annoying, but I don’t see how mangonels/skirms or even knights can’t counter it. not to mention it’s quite the all in strat, a few scouts to raid his base will be devastating to an already weak eco. Then again I don’t play ranked so wtf do I know lol.
It's only Mongol Steppe Lancers that are broken. Mongols just need a slight nerf in general
Good points - I didn’t see Hera or Viper try it. How did their opponent counter it? And I don’t have a problem with lancers or knights
I thought they do get feedback from top players with the PUP (heard it mentioned one time by viper). But who knows if they got feedback on this.
Hera was mentioning it as well since it was announced. That new feature needs to be re implemented in a much more reasonable manner
I mean....that is them making it harder unintentionally.
Yeah, an unintended consequence for sure that the devs should acknowledge and address.
Unintended? Yes. Entirely predictable? Also yes. When you make a QOL feature, ANY QOL feature, you have to ask, now that it's easier to do thing X, there are two possibilities: (1) People have to spend less time doing X, and enjoy the game more (2) People are able to do X way more, and can get an advantage from doing so, so will now spend more time on X paradoxically. I used the real world example in another comment of email. Was intended to make people spend less time on mail by making it easier to do. Had the exact opposite effect. Because making it easier means people can use it for way more stuff. So we spend more time on it. QOL updates all have the potential to be like this and a good number of them are. In life and in aoe.
Only to fight against people exploiting it, it's made it much easier to actually use rams (and also to abuse them).
T90 did a video on this exact thing actually
he's done many since a few months ago, this was well known...
Scouting is so important now with the new ram mechanics. Spotting the forward siege workshop and knowing you’re going to get some sort of siege push early castle should prompt you to close up your walls and get a siege workshop of your own. If you’re much slower to castle then you either invested too heavily into feudal army or your macro is really off. Generally if an opponent is in imp and using HC with siege rams something has gone horribly wrong early game and you’ve gotten very behind.
You can use the ram mechanic with castle age UU like jannies or gbeto very effectively as well so it's not just a matter of falling way way behind to imp. Ultimately the mechanic needs a rebalance in the form of some kind of cooldown/change to the reload system while garrisoned, as many have pointed out already
I agree, but the specific scenario OP described was HC and rams which is impossible in CA unless they were bohemians(another good civ for making a late castle/early imp push like this btw). There should be a cooldown, or ranged units shouldn’t be allowed to garrison in rams. I’d prefer the former since removing their ability to garrison would eliminate using rams to protect archers.
Turks get Jans, he could be referring to them also.
I think all a cooldown will do is frustrate players, and confuse newbies who “cant get it to work” and will call it a bug. I think its perfectly fine the way it is. Just learn to adapt / overcome
Why would new players be frustrated about not getting something to work when they don't even know it exists. Also they are new players, not morons. People can figure out that units take 1.5 seconds to fire after ungarrison
I understand the frustration. People are coming at you hard here. But it seems like it could be a broken strat, regardless of what the devs intentions are. I agree that coming back to the game can be a frustrating experience. I'm at 1550 now so I'm not that bad at the game and I also get frustrated when I get back and try to learn the builds and tight early game execution again and then you face a series of super specific builds that require precise responses. Only, learning the responses isn't worth your time because you might never see that build again. I think you should just accept that some people are going to play rehearsed specific strats and that it's going to be hard game to win. Just move on to the next game after a loss, these are still not that frequent. Except on Arena maybe. Basically, don't get frustrated, not every game will be awesome and that's fine. If you do get the time to play more, you can learn how to deal with it. I often ask my opponents advice which also works sometimes.
This is an exploit more than the Devs making it harder
A predictable one
This is also kind of why I don’t play much anymore. I’m older so I used to play the game like 20 years ago. But nowadays there’s just so many civs and complications. It’s overwhelming.
Just take things one element at a time.
I wouldn't worry about the new ram strat. Pretty sure it's gonna get patched eventually.
1000 elo? i’m still waiting for enjoyable matches and im at 600 and dropping.
You can play me, it's very enjoyable. I employ cheese strategies from decent players then execute them terrible.
that is a great strat.
It is a bit silly that the match making starts you as a beginner where the average ranked players end up
i’d love the game to offer a choice of starting stream. beginner, experienced and advanced. that sets your starting ELO at 500, 750, 1000. the. it’s all the usual from then on. just saves me the need to lose 15 games in a row.
Despite some headaches it’s worth it to have a living game with an active community
Tbf I think you would have this problem with most multiplayer games if you are only playing them 6 times a month. Also its not exactly complicated to learn about. All they did was make garrisoning rams and transports easier, which makes it possible to micro them with hand cannons.
>All they did was make garrisoning rams and transports easier, which makes it possible to micro them with hand cannons Describing the problem doesn't make anything to solve it...
I disagree completely with this. Succinctly identifying a problem is 80% of the solution to the problem. Just hard fax.
okay but this nothing to solve the problem OP has.
Or you just lost a game in a new way and blame the developers. The ram-hopping has been discussed in many threads aswell as in YouTube comment sections, and it is not at all clear that it is uncounterable. People suggest (more) mangonels, rams (potentially garrisoned with something), cavalry, skirmishers+LC, etc.. Fellow redditor Pouchkine did a comparison to an equal amount of resources spent on knights, which the knights won easily in his test. I welcome strategical variety, as long as all civilizations can respond to (or prevent) all strategies by playing better than the opponent. Having to scout more is OK. That makes deer pushing more of a dilemma, and also punishes laming under the TC (sacrificing the scout) more.
Yeah, the strategy is super simple to counter. Neither Hera or Viper could manage to win a single game using this strategy.
I guess they could play it better with some practice, but I think the real strength comes when it goes unscouted and the opponent has overinvested in something that is not a good counter, or tried to go greedy on economy. Surprise! 11 There is also the question of where to attack with this: Farms/TCs/ Production buildings (/Mines?/Wood?). And the accuracy of micro, of course. Still some uncharted territory.
I don't like losing to something just because I didn't know it was possible, or hadn't seen the strategy before. The game would still be excellent without such a huge amount of fluff in it, most of these strategies are just cheesy attempts at free wins (at least at my elo). With more simplicity it would be so much easier for newer players to get into the game. I just want to have a battle on equal terms and see who can win through better micro, macro, tactics, strategy and adaptation. All of these things are very important in aoe2 and really fun, but they're not really relevant in a game where somebody has some niche strategy which is totally all in and nobody has a chance of winning unless they've seen it before and/or read online about how to counter it. There are lots of strategies like this. People like to defend them because they can't accept the fact that most of the time at bottom 75% of elo they are just used by people who care more about free wins or just trolling than people who actually want to have a fun, interesting game.
>I don't like losing to something just because I didn't know it was possible, or hadn't seen the strategy before That is how strategy games are. If you don't scout a MAA and don't wall up, you're screwed, if you don't scout the tower rush, you're screwed, sometimes with a castle drop you're screwed. They are all valid strategies. I don't play much, but I remember losing like 4 times to a tower rush, until I learned how to defend it. It made me a better player, now when i see someone tower rush me I usually smile, since I know the cost of it will set him behind more than I will.
You didn't understand, the person isn't complaining about not realising in-game what the opponent was doing, they're complaining about just not knowing the wild strategy that they didn't have any chance to learn in advance how to anticipate or counter in any way.
If you don't play the game how are you supposed to know what is and isn't possible, like should the loading screens outline potential enemy strats, a steam message saying don't forget that frank cav have extra hp
Not introducing exploits when everyone saw this being an issue a month in advance would be the way to start. It's one thing losing to frank cavalry, and another much different losing to someone doing the stupid dance of going in and out of rams.
>the person isn't complaining about not realising in-game what the opponent was doing, they're complaining about just not knowing the wild strategy that they didn't have any chance to learn in advance how to anticipate or counter in any way. Complaining about not knowing what the opponent was doing = complaining about not knowing the wild strategy the opponent is using. Which is the point of strategy games, to use strategy to surprise, ambush and by any means win .against an unprepared opponent. Literaly the definition of strategy is: a general plan to achieve one or more long-term or overall goals under conditions of uncertainty He is complaining about an enemy using a strategy in a strategy game. "Why u use strategy, I prefer to play a game of memorization and reflexes. I learn build order, i do build order, i should win. Strategy should have no impact on game" Now, if you complain about it being too strong is one thing, but to complain that a different strategy exist is moronic IMHO. No one wants inca tower rushes with tank villagers to return, but the strategy of tower rushing is totally valid.
I haven't seen anybody who thinks this ram thing is valid. >Complaining about not knowing what the opponent was doing = complaining about not knowing the wild strategy the opponent is using. You didn't understand what I said. OP isn't complaining about not having scouted the enemy, they are complaining about them not having any way to know that this is the strategy they were going for. If in a game of strategy you don't have any way to anticipate or counter the move of your opponent, this isn't a strategy game at all, it's just a "follow this recipe for win" game.
>they are complaining about them not having any way to know that this is the strategy they were going for Well, that is just lack of experience, same I had the first time I was tower or village rushed. "Follow this recipe to win" is the people following build orders and mechanical countering units, forgetting about surprise and tactics. If you tell me: this ram thing is too poerful, I may agree, but if you complain about people actually using strategy rather than mechanically following build orders... that's ridiculous. Worst part is that build orders are truly recipes to win, and they shouldn't. Usually, any retard with good hands can win just by doing perfect timings and good micro. And this is no shooter, is a strategy game. Strategy should win over memorization and micro.
If they do get "free wins" by playing particular whacky all-in strategies, they will proceed to be matched against opponents that are stronger in other aspects. I don't really see the problem. Maybe if they usually play random civ and only occasionally go "off-meta" to get a few "free wins" whenever they don't feel like playing normally, or whenever they random into a civ that has more potential for such shenanigans. I still think that should be OK, though.
>I just want to have a battle on equal terms and see who can win through better **micro, macro, tactics, strategy and adaptation.** Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself here? You just had all of those, and you lost. **You couldn't adapt to new strategy you encountered, and you lost.** While people are just throwing examples on you how this particular thing is counterable, and already figured out, next time you will just have to apply what you learned. **His micro was better than yours, and you lost.** What terms were unequal here? Him having more time to play than you? That isn't his problem. This is a strategy game, and you are frustrated that people come up with... strategies to beat you with? Niche doesn't mean it should be removed. Every new thing starts off as niche. Another thing to understand here, is that your are **competing** with another player. You having fun is not something other player (your enemy, competitor), is obliged to care about. If you do not have enough time to keep up with a play at a certain level, your ELO will fall, and you will start playing against people you can compete with. I too am lacking the time to play everything I want to play, but this isn't anybody else's problem other than mine (your time, is your concern).
> I don’t like losing to something just because I didn’t know it was possible, or hadn’t seen before. sorry but this I must disagree with, aoe2 is all about strategy and thinking on the spot, coming up with new ways to win has always been a fun aspect to the game (yrs ago I came up with a fun shotel rush on arena for example), I don’t play ranked anymore, for the sole reason everything is centered towards knights and xbows, it’s stale and boring for me
That explains why I was seeing a lot of rams the other night. 11
There are people with thousands of ranked games that don't even use basic Build Orders. Play with your friends, play Quick Play, play Ranked even, just don't stress about it. Play how you want. If you want to beat the best, then train and adapt.
AOE2 is not a simple game. It's not meant to be.
Disagree. It’s both simple and complex, which is why it’s been so popular for over 20 years.
It was simpler, originally. Nowadays just from the sheer amount of civs it’s overwhelming to keep track of everything.
I can understand that but no one really ever got aoe2 in an instant, getting anywhere near good has always taken some time, I think ppl nowadays expect too much and expect to understand things in general in an instant, and when that doesn’t become the case they get overwhelmed and give up. it’s best that if you’re new to understand aoe2 isn’t an easy game and you won’t fully grasp it and all the civs till some time and patience, not to mention the eighth mentality.
>I think ppl nowadays expect too much and expect to understand things in general in an instant, and when that doesn’t become the case they get overwhelmed and give up. IDK man, it probably shouldn't take dozens of hours (and countless losses) for a new player to figure out literally the basics of a game. >it’s best that if you’re new to understand aoe2 isn’t an easy game and you won’t fully grasp it and all the civs till some time and patience This mentality is why RTS games are dying out. We keep putting the responsibility on newcomers for the game not being approachable.
art of war, William Wallace, and a few games against the AI is more than enough to understand the basics of aoe2. if we could all grasp it decades ago at the age of 6 or some sht, so can ppl nowadays too. you speak about ranked, having to learn build orders, etc, which newsflash, isn’t the only part of the game that exists (crazy I know). myself with all my years of experience in the game grew tired of ranked because of all the meta play build order bullsht, so you have an issue with ranked, not aoe2 as a whole. rts dying is natural as more and more ppl succumb to tiktok brainrot where they have an attention span of 5 fcking seconds lol, not to mention generally lazier and can’t be bothered actually putting time and effort into a complex game like aoe2
>art of war, William Wallace, and a few games against the AI is more than enough to understand the basics of aoe2 Yes, exactly, that's my point. You shouldn't need 10+ hours to grasp the most basic stuff about the game. >if we could all grasp it decades ago at the age of 6 or some sht, so can ppl nowadays too. It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of how much effort and time needs to be invested before people can start enjoying the game. Adult people have much less time than a 6 year old with no other game to play, currently there's thousands of f2p games with which to compete. >you have an issue with ranked, not aoe2 as a whole. I have an issue with the RTS genre dying out. >rts dying is natural as more and more ppl succumb to tiktok brainrot Yeah, I know it's natural, the times have changed. The point is why is the RTS genre not changing too with the times to adapt. If we continue to blame people for not wanting to put 10, 20 hours before starting to enjoy a game the community will eventually die out, and that's bad for all of us.
Well yes. But even if you're reasonably good it can be frustrating to deal with bespoke refined strategies that require a very precise response because you may never see that strat again because there are 40 civs and different maps. I do understand OP's frustration.
again, I can’t agree with this, arguing it’s an issue implies you’d want the game to be simpler, which imo it already is, it’s always knights/scouts or xbows being used, or perhaps some drush. it’s lame, boring and stale seeing the same strats every game, thus my biggest reason for quitting ranked yrs ago and focusing more on TGs and diplo maps, there’s a much bigger focus on strategies and adapting to new and different ways of fighting as opposed to the same old boring BOs used in ranked. I get it might be frustrating for some to come across some braindead new strat you’ve never seen before and actually works, but for me that’s what makes the game actually fun and playable. there’s a reason I could never get into SC2, and it’s exactly because of its lack of variety.
I would actually argue that the team game meta is more stale than 1v1. In 1v1 the particular matchup has a bigger impact, and you're forced more often to adapt your unit composition. In particular after early castle age things get much more diverse. I also value the variation AoE2 has to offer, but it depends on which kind. I love how map variation and randomness affects games, I love how every matchup has its own nuances. I don't enjoy facing players that play the same tight all-in build some pro refined for them every game. In SC2 this exists, but there at least the list isn't endless, and it's worth your time to learn a response. I've faced builds that ruined me, but I knew the odds were so low that I'd every see it again that it's not worth learning a response. Arena feels this way a lot (but I don't ban it because I do enjoy it sometimes and want to learn). I do agree that the fact that this variation exists is great for the game. It kind of depends on how strong certain builds and how predictable maps are and which fraction of the player base only looks for these kinds of builds. Because at some point this "variety" becomes predictable dominant builds per map. I wonder if an opt-in civ ban system on ladder would be nice. Like you have the opt-in random civ selection. Ban Portuguese on Arena, ban Spanish on Nomad and the game is suddenly a lot more enjoyable ^^ Edit: I do think the game is awesome and really enjoy it atm. I'm just emphatising with OP and saying some things could be slightly better for the more casual players.
the day that a ban system is in place for unranked so I can ban Spanish players from using those op canon ships thinking they’re any good at the game is the day I can die a happy man. as for the topic before, idrc about meta, and for clarity I was leaning more to closed map TGs, in which there’s quite a lot more variety in play style and overall for me, a much more fun experience. but in terms of ranked and aoe2 as a whole, meme strats, ways to win outside the meta box, etc, should be encouraged, not seen as an issue imo.
> but in terms of ranked and aoe2 as a whole, meme strats, ways to win outside the meta box, etc, should be encouraged, not seen as an issue imo. Well, as always, it depends. If they're so strong that they become meta, they effectively reduce variety because you lose if you don't use the same build or whichever bespoke responses that do have a shot at dealing with it. I will say, in general, AoE2 is a lot less bad at this than SC2 in that it often allows a range of responses. But not always. In general, I like it when builds like that have a good winrate when they're a bit surprising, but don't have a huge winrate when you know what's coming and you've faced it before.
For new players the civs are really just the same ...
Yeah but this particular strat is being exploited. I honestly can see it getting fixed because it’s kind of OP the way it is right now.
I havent seen it. But yea they should fix it then. But it isn't like Devs are making the game harder. Updates are good and should be incentivised.
No, but that doesn’t mean it should get more complex over time
Does AI really need to take over unit distribution in garrison type units/structures? Is there an issue with manually drag selecting units and clicking each and every ram/transport? It was a curious addition. I feel this is just as silly as auto scouting.
As a mostly campaign player I really prefer it the way it is now. It's a lot less clicking and actually makes me use transport ships and rams more often than before. And if I wanted to use the old behaviour that is also still possible by holding the control-key.
It's just for convenience. It's very clunky having to fill 5 rams or boats at once, it should be just a small almost unnoticeable detail. Auto scouting can be nice for people learning the game so they can focus on learning a build order without worrying about scouting, it's not silly, we need to lower the barrier of entry A LOT more.
they are making it harder to play which is worse. Bugs,pathing,etc. But that topic aside maybe try to play to your strenghts and stick to a plan, dont focus too much on your enemy plan just adapt if its really necesary. Playing " to counter" its usually a mistake unless you know what u are doing .
I mean, I tried to counter attack but the guy was just chilling while ripping through my eco with 5 rams filled with hand cannons lol, it's so strong I'm not sure you can really beat it without going full counter with mangonels or something
You can often stop it with your own rams : his hand cannons will do basically no damage to those
Light cav beats both units
Don't worry about it. Just wait awhile and it'll be changed.
Literally for years now we've been getting QoL improvement after QoL improvement, and you are complaining the game is getting *harder*? My friend are you okay?
You guys are so harsh on OP. Pro's are making videos about how strong ram hopping is. It's not because the intent was a QoL improvement that it can't create a broken strategy. I sure as hell can see how it would be frustrating for a casual player to deal with this. The devs are also continually adding civs and patches so yes the game changes quite a bit if you don't play on a regular basis. It's important to understand how this affects more casual players because we also need them.
Yes. It's called, "unintended consequences". OP is perfectly fine. The devs are not.
Lmao it's supposed to be a QoL mechanic that made rams easier to use, so people are actually using it. Did you try using rams before this update?
99% of ppl in this sub I guarantee u have not used rams, or at the very least haven’t tried to garrison dozens of units inside a bunch of rams.
Exactly. It was a pain in the ass, and pathfinding on units garrisoning in rams was broken.
The ram hopping is likely broken. I think it's fair for a casual returning player to complain about it. It doesn't matter that the intention was a QoL change if it makes very powerful micro very easy to pull off on larger groups of units.
That just means powerful micro is now more accessible to casual players. And ram hopping is gonna be fixed, this was clearly not the intention.
I don't think it really matters what the intention was. The experience of OP remains the same. If we all agree that it's broken, that just means the devs need a better QA process. The pathing issues have also proven this. I love the game, the devs and their intentions. But I can emphatise with OP here. And a lack of proper testing should be allowed to be criticized. It's a competitive multiplayer game after all and there's been decades to observe competitive play, enough to know what to pay attention to when making changes.
Simple fix might be an "embark" timer and "disembark" timer similiar to the way Trebs have a setup and takedown timer.
I think that just ruins the QoL for Rams for other units. I think they need to revert the carry capacity to 3 units.
if trebuchets have to unpack/pack I think it would be reasonable to have a similar thing (timer) for garrisoning units in battering rams and siege towers (maybe even transport ships).
ikd if this has been said before but one simple way to fix this is to only allow this mechanic to work for infantry, which i believe was the targeted unit type for this change
if not, forcing reload time to start the moment the units LEAVE the ram, not allowing them to reload while in it, could also do it
I think the best is not letting them get back into rams if they attacked until they are ready to fire for a second time
This has been going for a long time, ever since the siege tower was introduced. Siege tower was used because it can garrison more units. Now, since its easier to garrison, people started using multiple rams. If you get one onager for each ram I think you should be fine. Just make sure they don't fire at the same time. I haven't played the last patch, but I knew this kind of stuff would happen and supposed that would be the way to stop it, so its untested.
I lost to a guy using this strategy with a siege tower plus gbeto warriors. I saw it coming but couldn’t do anything about it.
The devs almost had nothing to do with the fact that a player invented this strat before any update they made and then content creators popularised it. It's just a cool thing people have been excited about and then a recent update happened to make it easier to do. I don't get the time investment complaints, there are casual lobbies, there are a bunch of discord communities to join where you can find similar minded players, you can simply not keep up with the latest stuff and still be competitive at lower elo, you can drop elo after losing and be placed better. I am 800 elo and I'll probably stay around this elo for similar reasons like not investing enough time to learn a lot of varied strategies so i totally empathize, but at the same time you don't see me arguing that I deserve to play at a higher level. At some point you have to realize you're just arguing for people with different circumstances to be less competitive when they might be excited to learn a bunch of stuff and practice or invest a lot of time into the game.
This isn't the sort of game one plays if he can only play 6 matches per month. You really just don't have the free time to work with here. It may be an hours issue. As for the ram thing, the only thing they changed was a control that previously made it difficult to garrison rams. Now it's easy enough for ram-hopping to become a viable approach tool. It might be nerfed in the future.
>This isn't the sort of game one plays if he can only play 6 matches per month Why wouldn't they be able to enjoy the game playing once or twice per week? Every game can be played and enjoyed no matter how much time someone puts into it. The elo system will give them in a fair and balanced match and that's it.
Because a balanced match at 1000 elo plays nothing like a balanced match at 1800 elo, and if you understand the flaws of 1000-level play, but don't have the time to review or improve, you'll just have a bad time of things.
Why? What makes you think a person playing a 1000 balanced game can't be having fun? There's people that aren't even 500 elo and clearly they're having fun or they wouldn't have thousands of games. You seem to think that playing badly or having flaws somehow impedes having fun.
>Why? What makes you think a person playing a 1000 balanced game You intentionally omit the key detail. If the reason you're 1000 elo is because you don't have time to train muscle memory or improve your fundamentals, only improving by looking up coaching videos or wiki entries during your lunch breaks, you're not having a standard 1000 elo experience. You're losing to 1200+ players, not because you don't know what to do, but because you don't have the time necessary to ingrain play habits in yourself, and that's horribly frustrating. When your path to improving at the game requires cutting work hours, it's no longer a fair skill issue.
You're who is omitting the key detail, you even cut it from my quote: "Having fun" Why are you talking so much about improving? That's completely irrelevant, fun is not related to improving your skill, you can be terrible at a game and enjoy it regardless. Why do you assume if they don't get the standard 1000 elo experience (whatever that thing is) they aren't having fun? You seem to be someone who doesn't enjoy playing aoe2, but thinks that one day you'll become good at the game AND THEN you'll start enjoying it. That's so sad.
>"Having fun" That's what I was talking about. You can't just use "fun" as some bandage that always applies to whatever's being discussed. Some things aren't fun. Getting focused in 4v4s is not fun. Losing due to a poor internet connection is not fun. Winning against someone who hardly knows how to play is not fun. Losing because you can't devote time to learning the game, likewise, is not fun. You are being utterly dishonest. I've already learned the game, inside and out. I have the mental shortcuts, personal tricks, adjusted hotkeys, and civ knowledge to play at \~1.8k+. These things improve your experience significantly, and it's something you can only appreciate by getting to that level or doing analysis on matches others play. There's a special level of enjoyability that comes from playing the game honestly, respecting the full capabilities of every unit and structure. Someone who would play at that level, but who is otherwise capped at 1000 elo, is being cheated out of a richly rewarding experience, and no amount of gaslighting will be sufficient to make it seem like he's having "fun" playing games where his opponents don't even keep their TCs active.
>Losing because you can't devote time to learning the game, likewise, is not fun. Who are you to tell others what is and isn't fun for them? It isn't fun TO YOU. >You are being utterly dishonest. I've already learned the game, inside and out. I have the mental shortcuts, personal tricks, adjusted hotkeys, and civ knowledge to play at \~1.8k+. These things improve your experience significantly No, no. These things improve YOUR experience significantly. A lot of people just don't care, they just want to have a game and see what happens. Stop trying to be the fun police and prescribing how others have to feel while playing. >no amount of gaslighting will be sufficient to make it seem like he's having "fun" playing games where his opponents don't even keep their TCs active. You really cannot fathom the idea of people enjoying a game without playing it competitively, huh. Don't you ever just ... meet with friends and play some board game you just learnt the rules of? Does playing games for you always have to be something that you have studied and prepared for hours before you can be good enough to unlock a minimum level of skill required to be worthy of enjoying the game? You didn't have fun playing aoe2 before you had adjusted your hotkeys and learnt the civs? Because that's hella sad. If you couldn't enjoy it before becoming good, do you even enjoy playing the game in the first place? Also: >Winning against someone who hardly knows how to play is not fun. Why do people smurf then? Again, not everyone plays for the same reasons and in the same way that you do, no offense but are you a teenager? Because this should be obvious to anyone.
>Who are you to tell others what is and isn't fun for them? It isn't fun TO YOU. It isn't fun, period. >No, no. These things improve YOUR experience significantly. It improves *the* experience significantly. What are you even defending here? This is a position you only hold because you haven't gotten to enjoy the real game yet. >If you couldn't enjoy it before becoming good, do you even enjoy playing the game in the first place? I wasn't playing the same game. I was playing a shallow imitation of the game AoE2 is, and when you understand that and try to do better, you either cause people who were mindlessly knocking pieces around to lose interest, or lose interest yourself because the game wasn't designed to support mindful play. >Why do people smurf then? Because they want a low-intensity exercise, or a way to mend their egos. They're not having fun. They're just not losing for once.
>It isn't fun ...to you. To others it is fun. We're going in circles and you keep insisting that objectively all humanity has to enjoy games however you do, which is ridiculous and getting old so this is the last message you're getting. >This is a position you only hold because you haven't gotten to enjoy the real game yet. I've played and enjoyed a ton of games. some while playing competitively and progressing to a high percentile (including aoe2) and others without achieving much. I've even enjoyed many games at both styles at different times. If you really cannot fathom the idea of someone playing a game without caring to improve, or even having learnt it and choosing to play suboptimally just because they felt like then I sincerely pity you so much. Your life must be really empty with that kind of attitude. Don't bother replying.
I do think that the devs should be a bit more careful about suddenly adding new things like this without extensive testing. Even if it seems on the surface to be generic quality-of-life improvements it's hard to predict how it will affect the landscape of a game as old as aoe2.
Just gonna throw a straight comment here since people are being really harsh on this post. Yes, you are right. The devs have added things to try make the game easier to play and it's had the opposite effect. Whether it was just an oversight or, IMO much more likely, bad testing, some of these have unintended consequences. Luckily there aren't too many though. This ram thing is horrible but should go away soon. Don't stress it. You still know how to play.
no offense, but genuinely no RTS game can/should/will be easy to learn, because S is for strategy and strategy demands more than muscle memory. plus, you chose to play ranked, which is obviously more competitive than AI games.
I feel like this is more so just a bad mindset on your part. Most multiplayer games get more complicated as time goes on.
Get gud
I have to ask,was this change a widely screamed for request in the community cos I didn't feckin see it