This is the biggest issue in 1v1 AOE4...
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2024
- Map designed by Beasty - • Pro Players Trying Out...
Feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions for future videos. Enjoy this one and have a great day :)
If you are enjoying my CZcams content, check out my live stream on Twitch!
Streaming pretty much every day, starting time is at 6 PM CET. Link to my stream is down below.
►Beastyqt Clips: / beastyqtclips
►Twitch: / beastyqt
►Twitter: / beastyqtsc2
►Instagram: / beastyqtsc2
►Patreon: / beastyqt
►Discord: / discord
Edited & thumbnail by / @blackfiresc2
#Beastyqt #AOE4 #AgeofEmpires4
Thanks for watching and supporting! :)
The biggest issue for team ranked games are diamonds, conqs, and golds all getting in the same lobby. I’ve been the only Diamond on a team of all golds going against 3 conqs and a Diamond.
Yeah I definitely noticed that the matchmaking in team games took a massive hit with the recent promotions they did and the release the "test" version of the game.
The games are so swingy with people who have absolutely no clue what they are doing, which is not their fault btw. but the fault of the matchmaking by putting them in the same game with more experienced players.
Skill issue. Literally though 😂
You got carried to diamond
@@christiansmith8721 you got carried to gold… buddy
Divisions say very little. You need to look at the ELO, and unfortunately for new accounts, or after ladder resets, division and ELO doesn't correlate well, at all. And it can take quite a bunch of games for this to correct itself. Unfortunately, division is prominently displayed, ELO isn't shown anywhere in game (only on aoe4world afaik). Regardless, even if corrected for this, you remain with the issue that match making seems off quite a bit: as pro players are long in queue it will match vs anyone, whereas it out of the group of "anyone" it should at least pick the higher rated players in queue, which it doesn't seem to do a good job at.
I dont think long games and split maps are an issue at all... Most lower level players really love getting to play with all features of their civ and have huge armies crash instead of dying in feudal while painstakingly defending against the same old french/english pressure. pretty sure thats why many people play ranked team games without even having a ranking in 1v1
yeah but he is talking about 1v1. So in 1v1, the players who love the campy maps... I don't think most of these players even play 1v1.
Facts
Im disagreeing with the part that removing neutral markets is suppose to be an easy fix. This change would need civs redesign.
It would be a massive buff for civs that are not trade focused. The trade for civs like french, abbasid, mongols and ottoman is the one of main strenghts. Some of the trading landmarks & unique perks would be useless. To recompensate this the devs would have to add more choice how to play those civs. Overall i think the trade is good as it is. It is massive investment, and its easy to raid. Its good analysis though, i like the idea to have more objectives for a maps :)
Split maps are fine for casual players and maps like Black Forest in AoE2 as well are fun for a longer game. They could be taken out of the ladder pool or have a different version of them though to cater better to the competitive part of the game.
In AoE2 there are a lot of campy maps and people enjoy them there. If the devs want campy maps to be enjoyable in AoE4, they need to make late game resource gathering slower, so that when someone wins a fight, they can push against the enemy instead of being instantly greeted with a fresh army. Either that, or remove campy maps from the pool like Beasty says.
I lived on black Forrest in aoe2 lol
In AoE2 doesn't exist siege anti-siege and infinite gold with trade (1vs1) and Stone Walls are worse.
bombard cannon serve as anti-siege siege in aoe2
@@ngnxtan True, I was imprecise, but that unit is held by a few civs and can miss the shot.
Kinda, but Bomard Cannons don't eviscerate trebuchets like Springalds do. @@ngnxtan
SInce you have defensive and more boomy civs, I don't mind more campy maps and gameplay. Variety is good.
But I agree that in some cases, it gets excessively campy. The new Hill and Dale is a prime example of a good campy map without overdoing it.
Vary the map sizes!!!!!!!!! We need more maps that vary in size. You can have an open map that is larger but start the players closer together or vice versa. If a player wants to split the map they're gonna have to pay for it. The larger maps also make it easier to fit in more terrain based choke points that players can take advantage of in combat. The extended fights are that much cooler when players aren't just fighting in open fields.
If ranked had been Arabia only, I would have double the play hours on AoE4.
I'm surprised Prairie wasn't mentioned
I do think the mashing into each other forever is so true, even in team games. I recently have been rushing wonder because it feels like whoever builds a wonder first will win lol
Facts
Trade should be a finite resource like everything else. Imagine if a market accumulates "Commerce" over time. This resource trickles constantly and is used to boost your trade. When you acquire resources from trade your commerce expends. When you run out of commerce, your trade ceases to produce resources (but you will always gain a little, since commerce constantly trickles).
Neutral markets also have their own pool of commerce. Building multiple markets can or can not affect the amount of commerce your markets generate depending on balance. They could also add upgrades or civ unique upgrades that affect commerce, to make trading more lucrative.
In exchange of all of this traders should be made cheaper. Adding trade to your economy should be a question of map control, not resource investment.
One of the big problems with High View I have been saying for months or almost a year. Sacred Sites should be neutral, beyond the way of walling that you also point out well.
This video came at the perfect time. My last game was on High View and against a French player who was trading in the back. Game went over an hour with no real end in sight. I had to quit and move on with my life.
I’ve given myself permission to just resign after 45 min, those hour plus games are so brutal
Maps with market in the middle could fix things. Whoever wins a strategic battle in the middle generally will eventually win.
I believe that there are no bad maps if the resources are within the same range, to have a "fair" game and that it is the skill that defines a game, knowing that we can talk about maps that promote defensive or aggressive play, water maps, land or hybrids that promote different types of victories etc. Now one thing that would change the game style a lot would be to
CHANGE THE MAP FROM SQUARE TO CIRCULAR, in my opinion, this would be interesting to analyze
Ofc there are bad maps😂😂😂 og mountain pass is the best example mongols just won on the map you early tower the middle and trade boom behind (English might be able to counter it and Abbasid might be able to boom a little bit harder but every other civ is just screwed, and even if its a mirror they just throw shit af each others face with zero chance to push and the eco behind is so strong nobody will ever make advances.
@@asddasdasdasdadsa I'm talking about maps not civs, play on that map mongolian vs mongolian
@@brj821 the map still sucks because nobody ever wins besides maybe after 60+ minutes one gets a wonder up first ??? Did you ever play the map if not shut up if you have no idea wtf
"Best spot for balance" Someone makes 50 rams and sends them into your base is as balanced as the game can get! Abbasid Camels counter spears, archers and cav, their MAA counter everything in the game due to the increase attack speed and over 300hp per unit but still taking 1 pop space. China nest of bees still cost half as much as they should for the damage out put they do, every next of Bees should be 3 pop space easy. AOE4 is far from balanced. Sure its not ridiculous like after launch with the springalds. But there needs to be a real balance of damage out put vs cost, vs pop space. You want to send 50 rams sure, each ram should be 3 to 5 pop space and a 20% bonus torch damage when attacked by infantry. The face if you send 1 ram to a building it takes 10 units to attack it before it takes out that one building, Now imagine 50 rams. And lets not go into Abbasids and their BS.
Whats abbs bs im curious
@@Joe_doesnt_know The fact that the civ has way too many units and abilities that to counter other civ's, Others civ's have 2-3 units and abilities that separate them from other civs,
English: Long bows, Farms, Keeps that make units, network or citadels and, Gold gen from farms.
Abbasid: Ghulam- Counters all infantry with over 300HP. Camel archers, counters spears and calv units and trades with everything else. Camel Riders, counter infantry and calv, Makes siege on the field with rams in dark age. Eco upgrade Makes for massive booming at reduce cost with 0 penalty for being greedy. Each of the upgrade wings have huge benefits that. And no matter what you decide to go, even after you hit age 4 you can still get the 4th wing. Influence radius for buildings, giving it a huge buff for production time, after all upgrades Abbasid farms out power English farms.
You can do this all day with the Civ, Every unit counters the unit that is suppose to counter that one. the whole damn civ is beyond busted.
There needs to be a system for balancing the civ where there is checks and balances on how many unit and upgrade types it can have and benefits. You want Camels to have the states and perks they have fine, minus 20% health from them. You want rams in the game, make them 3 pop each. You want upgrades that booth research and booming, fine take away unit production bonuses.
This entire game is a laughing stock of games when it comes to being balanced.
Play however u want there’s so many ways to win wars. Stalling mental fortitude can be one
i've thought the aoe4 maps are mostly abysmal for the entirety of the game's existence, so i think it's great that this is finally coming up in this kind of forum. and that's no hate to the devs-- map design is low key as hard as game design in general is.
Thats true. On aoe2 you never see people cut the map in half they just box there base
Interesting that AoE2 has the exact same problem now: map pool
Holy Island in the Map Pool, been waiting forever!! but i completely agree with this!! PLus stone walls to Castle Age please!! Love where the game is at though :)
I don't watch pro aoe4 but can't you win with a wonder? How can a game draw out that long even if it's a stalemate?
the map change suggestions are to 1. reduce effectiveness of markets. 2. reduce effectiveness of walls. I hate both of these things - they are the cause of every long boring game i have in all modes. Infinite resources is not a fun concept. I'd love to see markets/trade removed and walls cost a hell of a lot more so that you can only use them sparingly in key strategic locations - not spanning half the map , often in multiple layers.
if youre playing ranked, they should get rid of wonder victory...its so freaking lame..its already kinda dumb where everyone just sit at their base turtling/booming
I've watched a lot of your videos but did you think campaign was any good?
Noob question here: why is splitting the map bad? Can someone pls explain i don’t understand
Splitting the map in half means that both players have to camp into their base without doing anything. Now what Beasty wants to say is: This is a problem leading us in longer matches in RANKED. Because sometimes matches in maps being split in half means we have a 50 min+ match. Beasty mentions that in ranked there has to be more open maps so that both players have to attack each other and keep the fight going representing that way their skill. Now another problem splitting the map in half is that, the player who started trade early, got to imperial and produced army, automatically wins. Hope that covers your question buddy.
@@ItsMeKon awsome and very informative reply! Thanks a lot! I actually thought that maps beeing split was a desirable thing for rts games but i guess it depends on the game itself. (Maybe you could expand on this principle - do you think this is an AOE issue because of trade and other mechanics or does it affect other rts too?)
Games being 50min plus is surely not a good thing tho so I definitely understand now why beasty was talkin about this :)
@@RapThorX4 Find me in game to tell you more if you want 3 fkin scouts my name is
disagree with no market maps tbh
Going down this road of map standarts will only lead to the plain, tasteless map situation that Starcraft 2 has reached - things there are so standartised that the only things that meaningfully affect the game is whether your Natural has a ramp or not, and how defensible your 3rd is . Map creativity there has been reduced to just the color and doodads theme- absolutely shit variety gameplay wise. So many maps just leave 0 impression in people(beside visuals).
I think having varied maps,even if you have to cope with some suboptimal/"terrible" maps is the preferred situation.
Abbasids mass ghulam are so imbalanced, I heard that ghulam means slave, a slave has fking huge amount of hp as a knight, and beat elites men at arms so ez, just unrealistic and insane, need nerf so mad.
it's funny: beasty never says this outright, but "having no market" or having bad trade is mentioned in every map that beasty says is good. food for thought.
I wonder if it would be a good idea if neutral markets have diminishing returns?
Having only a certain amount of gold they provide via trade, but once they are out they give only 10% of the usual gold?
It would make them more of an alternative to gold mines and not a full on replacement / unlimited gold source.
I was thinking of making them like deep sea fish. So start full and then run out but slowly replenish. So maybe each neutral market can only support like 10 or 20 traders
The problem are the wonders are too useless in 1v1s. Fix wonders, make them cheaper and quicker to build, and reduce the win timer and make it so that games are instantly lost if you lose your wonder. and TADAHH no more 40minutes+ games
İ dont agree with you. Main problem is map banning system we should pick maps like aoe 2
current state of game prevents healthy environment for new payers skill curve goes way too high way too fast preventing organic new player growth ensuring game will die especially due to matchmaking.
So much data.. i feel like i am attending an uodate and training meet 😂😂
since the beginning of aoe4 there was one thing i wanted more than anything else:
Just let me play more fucking dry arabia.
the game is just so much more fun when playing this map but sadly it seems a lot of people ban this map so its kinda rare.
Could we not have a map vote instead of map preferences. It would solve a lot of issues
I would prefer that because sometimes I want to veto more than 3 maps lol but I think the cue times will be long as fk because most people don't agree on the map preferences. I think fixing the map pool would solve that problem directly
@@MrAtaguas the truth is that most people are casuals and they dont want to spend time learning new maps.
Personally i would be fine playing dry arabia only
I like Highview, but they should move the sacred sites to the middle.
I understand that it's important to thoroughly review maps, especially water maps and the lack of strategic variability.
What I don't understand is the complaint about trade being in the corners or being acceptable on open maps (except in the late game), knowing that the metagame clearly leans towards a fast 2nd TC opening or a semi-fast 2nd TC opening in most games unless you have an aggressive civilization.
Trade is an issue in late game, not in the opening.
@@inkarnator7717 If the Sacred Sites are neutral and the resources are more spread out and it would be very difficult to wall in the center of the map, trade would be the least of the problems.
Boy do i wish we had dry river in ranked map pool.
man you just mentioned the best maps and them being the issue with having a lot of resources not cool, low resource maps are boring AF.
I agree the sacred sites being ass on many maps
neutral market in the middle of the map?
with the amount of "good" map i dont think map is a problem. I do think having camping map as an option is good even in tournament, tho it will be bad if it takes up more than 40% of the map spaces.
agreed, now we can reinstate castles to their former glory. After all, that certainly was a non-issue
Great analysis.
Move stone walls to castle age
if you take out split maps all the sim city players will stop playing
isnt there a sizeable portion of the playerbase that likes camping?
I think they should change the sacred site to something similar to victory point in company of heroes. It gives a incremental objective that will eventually lead to victory.
I had the idea of a "Turbo-Sacred" tech that if you are holding a relic on a sacred it boosts the gold income / timer.
@@MatthewDoughten great idea. I would add, the timers on sacred do not reset when decapped. They become frozen or count backwards. However, the timer fully resets only when captured by an enemy monk.
Idea: On a long lasting stalemate game.. send AI raids to both sides until one falls earlier:D
Yeah I would love Rocky Canyon on ladder
So your solution is to remove trade from every map ? (or put trade post in the middle which is basically the same)
no, he didn't said that
*clap clap* Gamers !!
Do how to ottoman
Just take out Trader in game. I think that will solve a lot of problems
I've never liked the pit, its a little too arcade'y. most maps feel like some real geography but the pit is yucky.
Split map scenarios is literally all about skill issue. “People camp something” yeah no shit lol that’s literally king of the hill. If you know how the map works contesting stuff from early on is also part of the fun. Not every game has to be 2 tc boom into castle/imp… Also some people enjoy mashing armies into each other nonstop in team games. Who are you to knock on what people want and have fun with? “Games go on for so long” wow people with equal skill level can’t find a way to kill each other quickly what a surprise. These are all monka takes to appeal to the baddies to convince them to play more because the reason for their loss is the map LOL comon beasty just say it, tell people they’re bad. “Ottomans are top 2 winrate in conq when they’re bottom civ.” Ever consider the fact you might be wrong? LOL. If you just wanna relax and have fun just queue for a normal name lol why put yourself in a sweaty tanked queue and complain it’s sweaty? “I just wanna have a nice walk through downtown Kensington” and then complain you see needles and addicts everywhere. People are beyond reason nowadays. If you really wanna change maps and maintain balance, either make every starting position have forward or backwards gold mine. Having a frontal gold vs your opponent having back gold is a bigger game changer than each player having a sacred site behind their base.
10:36 besides your abbasid more or less they just use trash units also malians/rus/hre should be quit dominant on maps like this endless free gold (rus and malians are the bigger problem)
I like hunger game style. The map starts shrinking, or waves of mutual AI enemies spawn.
When a late game expert like beasty says there's a problem with stalemates you know there a problem. I think there should be a time limit on matches. I.e. if you can't kill each other off then at let's say the 1hr mark the player with most score or most eco value + army value wins. Or something to that effect. Because if you are in a stalemate then chances are both of you have plenty of resources and are cancelling each other's armies in each battle so neither player is probably better at micro nor macro in which case the existing resources and it's translated value in army should be a clear cut decider on who wins.
MegaRandom is the best map, change my mind!
So the sum it up most ladders maps have terrible objectives and too many free resources. And oh also guess what Trade(endless free gold thats almost good as a villager) and walls makes the game worse
i understand your points but shouldnt they provide all kinds of types of maps and you just choose wich one you gonna play and then there are lowelo player and teamplayer like me
They should, but there tends to be a lot of more closed maps in the pool, too many imo.
would be nice to chose the maps you want to play like in aoe2@@brubie7584
imo 1v1 its boring you get stuck in the same things often no dynamic things like 2v2 3v3 or 4v4
Age of empires 3 maps are still so much better than the rest of the aoe series, very dynamic and interactive. You really have to adapt your strategy uniquely for each map. Hope that dynamic comes to age 4 eventually
I love thouse long ass camping games :*
Ouchie
what in the soy is he going on about
I don't think the maps are a problem. But introducing mega random as the standard for every game is better.
The maps got balanced on the last update, for example the first 3 sheep are always shepered automatically to your TC.
At this point I don't even care what maps they will add to ranked, but I just want to see anything else than what we have now...
TL;DR; remove trade ;)
Biggest problem with team games are leavers. There should be more of a punishment for ppl who just quit in the first 10mins of a game.
It's funny how people constantly talk about races in RTS. It's always the maps. I know the races can be unbalanced but you can never even make that call in the absence of what maps you're playing on. Companies seem really shy about experimenting with maps. They just all have to be milk toast free half map. I love me some split mapping. But only when you have to earn it or fight over the last snippets in a dangerous area.
The one water map on the ladder right now would be so much more fun with one more sacred site in the top corner. Once you win water you can take the island site and there is literally one point the other player has to attack to break a sacred site victory. There should be 2 on the land part so that land and water can balance against each other rather than the winner of the water getting to pin you down to one point of interest on a large map.
It's hilarious that people keep saying BW hasn't been patched. The ASL organizers do a balance patch every season. It's the map pool. It always has been.
Sounds like it's time to return to AoE2! 😉
Yes please go
biggsest issue of this game in my oppinion is that evry race fells the same, units are super boring every game plays out the same. macro is good, fighting/micro is pure garbage tier
"every race fells the same" - I don't get it, every civ has different start/BOs & army composition, it should feel the exact opposite. Like try to compare a game as English and one with Malians, they are 2 different games.
Bro this is not video about AoE II
@@tadeasjanout699 so u think this game has exiting micro and interesting/multiple strategies? i hope someday u will experience a good rts
@@ContattodiSparta not rly. if i face england i know 100% what they will do. if i play vs. zerg they can kill me in dozens multiple ways
this game is very grounded historical game, there's nothing else they can do to make it different, they need to make sci fi AoE or high fantasy AoE