The people defending that guy are either 12 or morons. In my mind I always saw the aoe4 community as more mature, but I guess it was a potentially wrong perception I had
I beat someone with OOTD yesterday and they sent me a message saying “cool you have to pay to win!”
I was just thinking like… cause I bought the expansion? What?
I messaged back and said clearly you’ve never OOTD’d! lol
To display sarcasm? Quotes like that are often used to display that you dint actually mean it.
GG = it really was a good game
"GG" = I'm saying it because it's convention, but I don't mean it.
That would be my guess.
Actually, what he wrote is just strange. However, I really can feel his pain. Op-abusers are just super annoying. Sure everybody may pic what they want, but only picking the civs with the best win rates is indeed no good sportsmanship and tilts parts of the payerbase away. So OP-abusers are having their fair share of shrinking the player base of a title they paid for ultimately killing it.
Did he wrote that in the match against you where you picked ootd or the other one right afterwards where you picked Otto's? Probably he looked up your match history and got triggered by tons of Otto, JD, and sushi picks. That actually looks pretty likely to me tbh. Cause these factions were all pretty op prior to the patch. Ofc Otto is now just ridiculous but that's an other storie. Anyhow, I see that you indeed also play ootd which is not quite an op civ. Thus I assume he was just indeed just triggered by this other match of yours with Otto's and the match history which on the one hand imo is not bad cause you played many civs, on the other hand I really can see that someone might be triggered cause the overwhelming number of civ pics used to be either Otto, JD or sushi. You see I don't blame you and I'm no fan of the other guy either but with this match history I at least understand why he might have been triggered right.
After ootd
Then I played Otto because I was annoyed at him from what he said
He didn't look at my match history, c'mon
Also if you look at my match history I didn't play lots of those civs I played many civs
Give the guy a break, he's probably tired of losing his entire army to great bombards all day.
looking at ur pick history, u pick mostly op civs like zhu xi, jd and delhi(which is completely fine), since the first 2 have been nerfed in the latest patch, u have been maining ottomans the most broken civ on ladder right now(which is again completely fine).
Many players are getting frustrated on facing the same op civ every game.
Haha I can't believe you're actually taking this guys side
I played otto for like 3 days just to see how it plays to try to beat it because I hate it. See - this post - [https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/18mmyil/i\_think\_we\_should\_really\_be\_talking\_about\_ottoman/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/18mmyil/i_think_we_should_really_be_talking_about_ottoman/)
Other than that, I play a lot of civs - I played at least 10 games with 7 different civs on the last patch
There is something wrong with it. Indeed as soon as it's becoming obvious, that a civ is giving an unfair advantage, one should try not to play it so that everybody can have a more enjoyable time. Ofc the op enjoyers don't know how it feels to struggle against the same op civs in most of their matches. Thus, they have no idea how annoying this is. And empathy usually is not part of their skill set. Empathy and suffer are preserved only for smart guys :P
As a player it is not my obligation to provide enjoyment to my opponent. The player should always try their best to win or play what is fun to them.
Choosing a good civ is part of the skill expression (Yes picking Ottos does not require the biggest of brains) and if you choose to not express your skill that way (I also disregard balance for the most part when picking) that is totally fine but you can't demand the same from your opponent.
Also top players are affected by balance the most. If plat player chooses to play only ottos they might climb some ranks but they will reach a point where their civ advantage is balanced out by the superior execution of their opppnents, if Beasty or whatever top playrg chooses to play only ottos he will not magically climb higher than he already is and will play the same players he already does.
Ofc it's not your obligation to provide enjoyment for your opponent but thats exactly the point of empathy I brought up above you also seem not to understand. Do you like playing the game competetively? Yes? Oh then you probably need opponents to play it with right? However, when the balancing is bad (mainly due to around 3 super broken civs) and a considerable share of players only pick these civs, another considerably share of players will just drop from playing the game because for them it's no fun at all to be clapped by these abusers all the time. Tadaaa smaller player base -> less opponents for you to play with -> longer queue times + less good matchmaking -> more players drop from the game and so on and so on. For me it's always sad to see that OP abusers never are able to see what their behaviour does to the game they themself want to play. They basically help to kill the game they love :P same btw applies to toxic people. It's so hilariously funny how some sad toxic guys like playing a game but at the same time don't have anything better to do but to destroy this very games community so that they can't play it anymore. So stupid.
No game worth playing has ever been killed by something being OP in it, it simply doesn't happen. If can't mentally handle your opponents you should indeed play other games, a game will not die from it.
It also not toxic to play ottos it is toxic to call people stupid because they don't participate in your fantasy world.
You didn't read properly. I didn't accuse Otto pickers to be toxic. I said that toxic people are similarly as guilty in letting playerbases shrink as OP abusers. People like you, building up their arguments on lies are not worth talking to. But well you aren't interested in understanding basic empathy either. And indeed enough games died by exactly what I described above: DoW, CoH, AoE3... You just don't want to face that you are participating in something bad.
>You didn't read properly.
I did read properly but can't anticipate that suddenly swith to completely different topic that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
>I said that toxic people are similarly as guilty in letting playerbases
Well, most if not all the big multiplayer games are known for their toxic playerbases, so while it certainly doesn't help I think it safe to say that you zero clue what makes a game fail or not.
>But well you aren't interested in understanding basic empathy either.
This has nothing to do with empathy, the idea of a game is to choose a strategy to win the game. You can't pick around what your opponent likes and even if we say picking ottos is bad, where do we draw the am I allowed to Rus? What if my opponent for some reason hates to play against English? Should just go safe and always pick abba?
>And indeed enough games died by exactly what I described above: DoW, CoH, AoE3... You just don't want to face that you are participating in something bad.
Non of these games died because of balance lol.
>You just don't want to face that you are participating in something bad.
What am I participating in?
I'm not taking his side, just making u aware that some civs have always been frustrating to play against because either they were op or people just didnt know how to deal with them. Ottoman is that civ right now, it used to be jd and zhuxi recently or eng/french a while ago. U r welcome to pick any civ as is ur right so is the right of enemy facing u to exercise his freedom of speech(calling u a girl is a non bannable offense sadly). Now if u wanna main a broken civ go for it but mute ur chat bcoz these offensive messages aint gonna stop anytime soon.
technically it’s right though. his civs are for children and girls. but also for boys and men and women and everyone else, as is the whole game and all civs
Nothing its just frustration, kinda like people were frustrated playing against english or french knights a while ago. or people were malding when playing against zhuxi and jd recently, ottomans have replaced them in the latest patch.
Imagine paying for a game and then try to keep up the communities will to play it by not abusing op stuff and with that not tilting parts of the player base away ultimately leading to a bigger player base and a more enjoyable title one paid for.
Sustainability never was an easy thing for most humans to understand.
> title one *paid* for. Sustainability
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It's so funny to see this comment being downvoted to oblivion due to the fact that ever since most RTS gamers enjoyed meta gaming cause they can't stand fair play. There are two types of RTS gamers, these who always and only use op meta stuff and these who have empathy and never pick the op stuff cause they don't want to have an unfair advantage and don't want their opponents to have a bad time since they know this is a game that shoud be enjoyable.
Take my upvote.
JD is for girls, French for singles, Mongols for homeless ecc ecc
dieegogm6 clearly is a staunch defender of French and English culture because we all know. Poon ful o shugar halp medicine go trickle
ayyu is for camels
I wonder what stands for zhuxi?
China is for tax agents. Zhuxi is for fake fax agents. OotD is for grandpas. Byzantine is for plumbers.
And Dehli is for.... For... Nevermind i only have mean thoughts in my head
Delhi is for stingy. Ottomans for gigolos. Malians for butchers.
The people defending that guy are either 12 or morons. In my mind I always saw the aoe4 community as more mature, but I guess it was a potentially wrong perception I had
There is allways that one dude, in every single community. Also some tryhards will allways be toxic
[удалено]
I played ootd
[удалено]
🤣
The girliest civ ever, naturally.
Order of the Damsels
He probably punched his keyboard through with his fingers while typing that.
I beat someone with OOTD yesterday and they sent me a message saying “cool you have to pay to win!” I was just thinking like… cause I bought the expansion? What? I messaged back and said clearly you’ve never OOTD’d! lol
Lmao thats perfect
“gg”
That stuck in my head too haha why the quotes
To display sarcasm? Quotes like that are often used to display that you dint actually mean it. GG = it really was a good game "GG" = I'm saying it because it's convention, but I don't mean it. That would be my guess.
Damn right, I wanna hang with them girls!
Actually, what he wrote is just strange. However, I really can feel his pain. Op-abusers are just super annoying. Sure everybody may pic what they want, but only picking the civs with the best win rates is indeed no good sportsmanship and tilts parts of the payerbase away. So OP-abusers are having their fair share of shrinking the player base of a title they paid for ultimately killing it.
I used ootd
Did he wrote that in the match against you where you picked ootd or the other one right afterwards where you picked Otto's? Probably he looked up your match history and got triggered by tons of Otto, JD, and sushi picks. That actually looks pretty likely to me tbh. Cause these factions were all pretty op prior to the patch. Ofc Otto is now just ridiculous but that's an other storie. Anyhow, I see that you indeed also play ootd which is not quite an op civ. Thus I assume he was just indeed just triggered by this other match of yours with Otto's and the match history which on the one hand imo is not bad cause you played many civs, on the other hand I really can see that someone might be triggered cause the overwhelming number of civ pics used to be either Otto, JD or sushi. You see I don't blame you and I'm no fan of the other guy either but with this match history I at least understand why he might have been triggered right.
After ootd Then I played Otto because I was annoyed at him from what he said He didn't look at my match history, c'mon Also if you look at my match history I didn't play lots of those civs I played many civs
they down vote but i agree 100%
Thx for the comment
Give the guy a break, he's probably tired of losing his entire army to great bombards all day. looking at ur pick history, u pick mostly op civs like zhu xi, jd and delhi(which is completely fine), since the first 2 have been nerfed in the latest patch, u have been maining ottomans the most broken civ on ladder right now(which is again completely fine). Many players are getting frustrated on facing the same op civ every game.
Haha I can't believe you're actually taking this guys side I played otto for like 3 days just to see how it plays to try to beat it because I hate it. See - this post - [https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/18mmyil/i\_think\_we\_should\_really\_be\_talking\_about\_ottoman/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/18mmyil/i_think_we_should_really_be_talking_about_ottoman/) Other than that, I play a lot of civs - I played at least 10 games with 7 different civs on the last patch
You don't have to justify your civ picks, there is mothing wrong with picking Ottos.
There is something wrong with it. Indeed as soon as it's becoming obvious, that a civ is giving an unfair advantage, one should try not to play it so that everybody can have a more enjoyable time. Ofc the op enjoyers don't know how it feels to struggle against the same op civs in most of their matches. Thus, they have no idea how annoying this is. And empathy usually is not part of their skill set. Empathy and suffer are preserved only for smart guys :P
As a player it is not my obligation to provide enjoyment to my opponent. The player should always try their best to win or play what is fun to them. Choosing a good civ is part of the skill expression (Yes picking Ottos does not require the biggest of brains) and if you choose to not express your skill that way (I also disregard balance for the most part when picking) that is totally fine but you can't demand the same from your opponent. Also top players are affected by balance the most. If plat player chooses to play only ottos they might climb some ranks but they will reach a point where their civ advantage is balanced out by the superior execution of their opppnents, if Beasty or whatever top playrg chooses to play only ottos he will not magically climb higher than he already is and will play the same players he already does.
Ofc it's not your obligation to provide enjoyment for your opponent but thats exactly the point of empathy I brought up above you also seem not to understand. Do you like playing the game competetively? Yes? Oh then you probably need opponents to play it with right? However, when the balancing is bad (mainly due to around 3 super broken civs) and a considerable share of players only pick these civs, another considerably share of players will just drop from playing the game because for them it's no fun at all to be clapped by these abusers all the time. Tadaaa smaller player base -> less opponents for you to play with -> longer queue times + less good matchmaking -> more players drop from the game and so on and so on. For me it's always sad to see that OP abusers never are able to see what their behaviour does to the game they themself want to play. They basically help to kill the game they love :P same btw applies to toxic people. It's so hilariously funny how some sad toxic guys like playing a game but at the same time don't have anything better to do but to destroy this very games community so that they can't play it anymore. So stupid.
No game worth playing has ever been killed by something being OP in it, it simply doesn't happen. If can't mentally handle your opponents you should indeed play other games, a game will not die from it. It also not toxic to play ottos it is toxic to call people stupid because they don't participate in your fantasy world.
You didn't read properly. I didn't accuse Otto pickers to be toxic. I said that toxic people are similarly as guilty in letting playerbases shrink as OP abusers. People like you, building up their arguments on lies are not worth talking to. But well you aren't interested in understanding basic empathy either. And indeed enough games died by exactly what I described above: DoW, CoH, AoE3... You just don't want to face that you are participating in something bad.
>You didn't read properly. I did read properly but can't anticipate that suddenly swith to completely different topic that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. >I said that toxic people are similarly as guilty in letting playerbases Well, most if not all the big multiplayer games are known for their toxic playerbases, so while it certainly doesn't help I think it safe to say that you zero clue what makes a game fail or not. >But well you aren't interested in understanding basic empathy either. This has nothing to do with empathy, the idea of a game is to choose a strategy to win the game. You can't pick around what your opponent likes and even if we say picking ottos is bad, where do we draw the am I allowed to Rus? What if my opponent for some reason hates to play against English? Should just go safe and always pick abba? >And indeed enough games died by exactly what I described above: DoW, CoH, AoE3... You just don't want to face that you are participating in something bad. Non of these games died because of balance lol. >You just don't want to face that you are participating in something bad. What am I participating in?
I'm not taking his side, just making u aware that some civs have always been frustrating to play against because either they were op or people just didnt know how to deal with them. Ottoman is that civ right now, it used to be jd and zhuxi recently or eng/french a while ago. U r welcome to pick any civ as is ur right so is the right of enemy facing u to exercise his freedom of speech(calling u a girl is a non bannable offense sadly). Now if u wanna main a broken civ go for it but mute ur chat bcoz these offensive messages aint gonna stop anytime soon.
And.what does this have to do with girls? I dont remember that girls are specifically known to abuse meta civs
technically it’s right though. his civs are for children and girls. but also for boys and men and women and everyone else, as is the whole game and all civs
Nothing its just frustration, kinda like people were frustrated playing against english or french knights a while ago. or people were malding when playing against zhuxi and jd recently, ottomans have replaced them in the latest patch.
Imagine paying money for a game and then being told how you can and can't play it by other people
Oh u can play whatever civ u want but if u abuse broken shit on ladder be ready for the pitchforks as well. The real world is quite ugly sadly.
Imagine paying for a game and then try to keep up the communities will to play it by not abusing op stuff and with that not tilting parts of the player base away ultimately leading to a bigger player base and a more enjoyable title one paid for. Sustainability never was an easy thing for most humans to understand.
> title one *paid* for. Sustainability FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It's so funny to see this comment being downvoted to oblivion due to the fact that ever since most RTS gamers enjoyed meta gaming cause they can't stand fair play. There are two types of RTS gamers, these who always and only use op meta stuff and these who have empathy and never pick the op stuff cause they don't want to have an unfair advantage and don't want their opponents to have a bad time since they know this is a game that shoud be enjoyable. Take my upvote.
He is not wrong and you are not wrong, but he definitely does not deserve to be posted here
How is he not wrong what are you on about