BoS AoE tournament (1 Viewer)

[Gilbert1]

Thats right its the BoS Age of Empires2:conquerers tournament. Prepare to get your nerd on.

You have until sunday June 17th to obtain, familiarise yourself and join the tournament.

Starts: June 17th 2007
Finishes:June 24th 2007

Rules:
Play as many games as you want in the given week.
You obtain scores from winning games.
The amount of points is built up from the amount of people who you have versed.
All map settings must be agreed upon by all users in each match.
Matches of 2+ people ARE allowed
Team Matches ARE allowed

Points work like this:
If you beat one opp, you will recieve 1points.
If you beat 4 opp you will recieve 4points.
If you are working in a team of 2v2 and you win, you shall recieve 1point.
If you are in a match of 2v1 and you win you shall win .5points (yay fractions)
If you are in a match of 1v5 and you win, you shall win 25points! (five for the opp's you beat, plus x5 because they were in a team of five).

Both winners and loosers must PM me results for clarification.

Who's up for it?

www.limewire.com

 

[Ennaybur]

omg <3 aoe

/geek

I don't have it on my laptop

 

[S1M0]

I might. But i gotta brush up my AoE skills though.

 

[stephenchow]

Starcraft is better

 

[DeathB4Life]

i just got my harddrive with my copy of it wiped a few weeks ago.

ill try see if another copy is "obtainable"

are we going to be playing over hamachi?

edit: tournament during the exam period. not cool.

 

[The_highwayman]

aw. i only have AoEIII

 

[PoP 'n' Fresh]

edit: tournament during the exam period. not cool.

agreed

 

[Gilbert1]

Sorry I don't really know when exams are on. If I push it back a week or two does that help?

 

[DeathB4Life]

yep 28th would be good.

an aoe2:tc + SC tournament. the battle for the ultimate BoS geek bragging right.

 

[Gilbert1]

Someone else organise the SC tournament. I think once it gets going the AoE one will be enough work for me

 

[DeathB4Life]

i think its better to have 'best out of 3 (maybe 5) games against each opponent' rather than just a 'free for all dualing session' in which the winner would probably be the person who plays the most games or beats the same person opponent over and over.

for a tournament styled play i think its better to have pre-defined settings that each player is aware atleast several days prior to the beginning of the tournament.

also having different tournaments for different map settings. deathmatch and standard maps are two very different styles of play and i dont think should contribute to the same pool of points. theres just too many ways to get a GG within the first 5 minutes of a post-imp deathmatch game and doesnt leave the player much time to scout, adapt or apply strategy. deathmatch games should have atleast 5 matches between players before a winner is decided.

online, before zone stopped supporting aoe, the competitive matches generally had the following settings:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game: Random Map

Map Style: Standard
Location: (chosen by players)
Size: (recommended player size * 1.5 to 2) i.e a 3 or 4 player sized map for a 1vs1 round.
Resources: Standard
Population: 200
Reveal Map: Explored
Starting Age: Standard
Victory: Conquest

Teams Together: ticked
Lock Teams: ticked
All Techs: unticked

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game: Deathmatch

Map Style: Standard
Location: (chosen by players)
Size: (recommended player size)
Population: 200
Reveal Map: Explored
Starting Age: Post Imperial Age
Victory: Conquest

Teams Together: ticked
Lock Teams: ticked
All Techs: unticked

------------------------------------------------------------------------

the above were generally used and i guess were accepted as the most balanced/fun settings.

it would also be cool if everyone who enters the tournament would record the games so we can all watch the replays.

 

[Captin gay]

AoE is seriously gay. WE HAVE TO PLAY STAR WARS GALACTIC BATTLEGROUNDS WITH THE CLONE CAMPAIGNS EXTENSION, I KNOW SOME FUCKING AWESOME MAPS. SWBG RUNS ON THE AOE2 ENGINE.Liek theres this one where units keep on spawning and the battles in the middle are just so fucking awesome /

I've got it. I could RapidShare it for everyone?

 

[DeathB4Life]

anyone who wants a copy, ill be glad to upload both aoe2 and conquerors expansion if you need it.

my upload speed generally isnt much more than 25KB/s so itll take about 10-12 hours to upload both games which total 1GB.

 

[PoP 'n' Fresh]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game: Random Map

Map Style: Standard
Location: (chosen by players)
Size: (recommended player size * 1.5 to 2) i.e a 3 or 4 player sized map for a 1vs1 round.
Resources: Standard
Population: 200
Reveal Map: Explored
Starting Age: Standard
Victory: Conquest

Teams Together: ticked
Lock Teams: ticked
All Techs: unticked


the above were generally used and i guess were accepted as the most balanced/fun settings.

aww it least make it proper tournament style...
For two players, size Tiny
Revealed Map: the blackest possible (think its called standard oO)
and the map could be decided on, or if theres no agreeing, random map.

 

[DeathB4Life]

AoE is seriously gay. WE HAVE TO PLAY STAR WARS GALACTIC BATTLEGROUNDS WITH THE CLONE CAMPAIGNS EXTENSION, I KNOW SOME FUCKING AWESOME MAPS. SWBG RUNS ON THE AOE2 ENGINE.Liek theres this one where units keep on spawning and the battles in the middle are just so fucking awesome /

I've got it. I could RapidShare it for everyone?

 

[DeathB4Life]

aww it least make it proper tournament style...
For two players, size Tiny
Revealed Map: the blackest possible (think its called standard oO)
and the map could be decided on, or if theres no agreeing, random map.

tiny size didnt really encourage any map control imo. it made the action too concentrated in one spot and it was usually GG once one player had the slightest military advantage which doesnt leave enough room for alternative strategies.

i think most people prefered explored (you have knowledge of the map/resource placement/chokepoints) but its greyed out as you have no unit line of sight.

i guess most of the settings can be decided upon by the players, but there are a few crucial settings that are required for balance.

 

[PoP 'n' Fresh]

But thats just taking the hard aspects out of the game...

map control? I dunno maybe its just me that I kill off someone before the whole "lets do the massive army" thing starts, and if a player doesnt have the military advantage, that means their strategy is bad (assuming totally equivalent starting positions, which are usually close enough to be the same).
Also, for hypothetical situations if you had an 8 player game, the map size couldn't be 12 or something... it'd be 8. just to make it standardized, num of players = size of map imo

You didn't know there was that gold near your base there? too bad! explore and you shall find.

 

[DeathB4Life]

But thats just taking the hard aspects out of the game...

in a way having map revealed means less exploration is needed and makes the game "easier", but with the randomised maps it can result in far too much land being needed to be covered before you have enough knowledge of chokepoints and entrances into your base. it forces rushing and gives too much of an emphasis on luck

map control? I dunno maybe its just me that I kill off someone before the whole "lets do the massive army" thing starts

by map control i mean:
*having resources defended
*having a chokepoint defended which secures a certain section of the map allowing for farms/wood harvesting/trade routes to be safely massed
*having fall back positions set up so a broken force can flee without getting mowed down by chasing cavalry
*having land secured which allows attacks from multiple fronts
*having scouts patrol an area to give prior warning of an incoming attack
*being able to ambush an army as they enter a section of the map youve secured and they have no intel of (cavalry to ambush an army from behind and pick off their seige/archers with an army of infantry/archers ready to engage as the enemy force starts to break)

the standard tiny sized maps dont give enough room for these strategies imo and generally result in the victor being decided after the first battle or two. again, im not stopping anyone from playing the settings they want, but the "tiny" maps were far too small imo.

and if a player doesnt have the military advantage, that means their strategy is bad

eventually the victor will be required to overpower the opponent, but what i mean is that the round isnt always decided by the first person to get the most militia in 5 minutes and attack. a few examples of being able to win without power in numbers:
*guard tower + wall to give time to boom economy before the enemy has seige weapons
*have a choke point covered with walls/towers/catapults which requires a numerically superior force to take.
*use small groups of cavalry to pick off villagers/trade carts to destroy the enemy economy
*have a defended camp outside the enemy base to deny them access to the rest of the map and resources.

rather than relying on brute force military advantage to win (which tends to happen in the tiny sized maps) there are alot more styles of play which are encouraged with larger maps.

 

[PoP 'n' Fresh]

But those are all useless in AOE with the unblanaced civs. If you really really wanted to take it to those levels, the same civs will always win.

 

[DeathB4Life]

But those are all useless in AOE with the unblanaced civs. If you really really wanted to take it to those levels, the same civs will always win.

the mentioned tactics are do-able by nearly all the civs. theres not really any single dominating strategy that can be performed by any civ that cant be countered.

the only time ive really noticed civ imbalances are in custom maps where using a single unit was enough (viking warship bonus in water maps, franks using entire paladin army in post-imp deathmatch prior to the halberdier in the expansion, britons when playing an archer only custom map). with a standard map using standard settings i dont think any of the bonues are large enough to be considered overpowered as they would only effect a specific few units.

most of the civ bonuses are only 10-15% and generally only effect a small portion of a balanced army consisting of a good mix of units. its far too easy to adapt a counter to an opponent who uses a single unit.