Daily "Fix Pathing, Please" thread

[4th]

I'm tired of my army walking the wrong way when I move them.

[Moist Butt]

4th a écrit :

DMg Halt a écrit :

I don't judge a players skill level by their ELO score. I judge it by the amount of hours played. Or the amount of games played overall. That is my preferred way to gauge a players level of experience, and in my opinion is much more accurate. www.aoe2lobby.com

You can probably go to aoe2insights and look at my ranked games and see that the last one I played was probably years ago. But if you take a look at my profile on Steam, you'll notice that between AoE2 HD, and DE, I have over 10,000 hours. And that's not counting the hours spent on IGZ, Voobly and Gameranger (which took place before HD). Put it all together, I'd say I have 15k + hours of experience. The only reason I bring this up is because my credibility was called into question by Moist Butt. I'm not here to brag buddy, but I am not lying to you when I provide my experiences and perspectives on the subject matter.

Agreed. I'm one of those people. My elo says 900 but I haven't played ranked for 2 years and have over 2k hrs played since then and generally win games against 1200s or lower, even a few 1400s and 1500s.

If only hours played was shown in-game.

Both measurement for skill level have problems. Elo doesn't work as a skill indicator if players don't play ranked, haven't played enough games, or aren't "active" anymore. In the case of experience and time we have the problem that players don't improve at the same rate or some might not even improve at all. So just because someone has invested a lot of time into something doesn't make them objectively better or superior than someone that has invested in less. Now I talk a lot of theory so how about some stats?

A quick glance at the leaderboard for 1v1 filtered by matches on aoe2insight should be evident that experience + time doesn't really tell us anything. The guy (yummy900130) with the most matches (14k) is currently rated at 951. In the first page u can see there are quite a few sub 1k and a bunch that are mid range level 1000-1600. And of course there are some 2k+ here and there. Viper one of the best players in the community only has about 5k total matches played. There's no concrete relationship to conclude here. You can play the most and still be below avg.

If you managed to beat a few 1400s and 1500s then good for you. Maybe if u played ranked now u wouldn't be 900 elo anymore. This goes back to what I said earlier about elo not working if players aren't active. The 900 elo rating of your isn't accurate anymore.

With that said if players do partake in the elo system and does it correctly then it does a good job of assessing someone's skill level. I hope I dont need to explain why this is the case, but I can if you want (too long already).

Anyways believe in what you want. The experience + time invested method just doesnt make sense for me. I can't conclude anything from it. The elo system while has it flaws it does work when players actually uses the system. The best I can do for unranked players is to assume they are 1k and for non active player is to assume their old elo. I did say that's a fair assessment considering they haven't shown otherwise (update their elo).

[Quintem]

Moist Butt a écrit :

4th a écrit :

Agreed. I'm one of those people. My elo says 900 but I haven't played ranked for 2 years and have over 2k hrs played since then and generally win games against 1200s or lower, even a few 1400s and 1500s.

If only hours played was shown in-game.

Both measurement for skill level have problems. Elo doesn't work as a skill indicator if players don't play ranked, haven't played enough games, or aren't "active" anymore. In the case of experience and time we have the problem that players don't improve at the same rate or some might not even improve at all. So just because someone has invested a lot of time into something doesn't make them objectively better or superior than someone that has invested in less. Now I talk a lot of theory so how about some stats?

A quick glance at the leaderboard for 1v1 filtered by matches on aoe2insight should be evident that experience + time doesn't really tell us anything. The guy (yummy900130) with the most matches (14k) is currently rated at 951. In the first page u can see there are quite a few sub 1k and a bunch that are mid range level 1000-1600. And of course there are some 2k+ here and there. Viper one of the best players in the community only has about 5k total matches played. There's no concrete relationship to conclude here. You can play the most and still be below avg.

If you managed to beat a few 1400s and 1500s then good for you. Maybe if u played ranked now u wouldn't be 900 elo anymore. This goes back to what I said earlier about elo not working if players aren't active. The 900 elo rating of your isn't accurate anymore.

With that said if players do partake in the elo system and does it correctly then it does a good job of assessing someone's skill level. I hope I dont need to explain why this is the case, but I can if you want (too long already).

Anyways believe in what you want. The experience + time invested method just doesnt make sense for me. I can't conclude anything from it. The elo system while has it flaws it does work when players actually uses the system. The best I can do for unranked players is to assume they are 1k and for non active player is to assume their old elo. I did say that's a fair assessment considering they haven't shown otherwise (update their elo).

People like to use time = skill. When it's effort + time (probably) = skill. You can see this from the great human experiment that is MMORPGs. You have players with thousands of hours played and still don't know the basics. They've been carried the entire way in any group content. They also seen many brag "I've played the game since X, you don't know what you're talking about", it's like cool. You're still a clown.

I'd say 80-90% of the time (pulling this from my own experience and a bit of a guesstimate). It's like a handful of core things that can be fixed by using Google and a guide or listening to somebody that half decent at the game when they say, "hey buddy I noticed you're doing X wrong, try Y". I'd say half the time they don't listen most of the rest whine about you being an elite or you don't pay for my game, but I have to endure your insufferable ass and play.

Sad part unlike say an RTS where it can take many hours to get things down. It probably takes 15-30 minutes to get yourself from trash tier to functional human pressing somewhat the right buttons in an MMORPG.

My little side rant.

EDIT: PS if you have two people of roughly equal skill and one has more time played. You'd bet on them winning more often. Experience with more situations means they're less likely to get thrown off by an usual ploy or something. It would be like heads vs tails. Slight advantage to the experienced player.

[Moist Butt]

Quintem a écrit :

Moist Butt a écrit :

Both measurement for skill level have problems. Elo doesn't work as a skill indicator if players don't play ranked, haven't played enough games, or aren't "active" anymore. In the case of experience and time we have the problem that players don't improve at the same rate or some might not even improve at all. So just because someone has invested a lot of time into something doesn't make them objectively better or superior than someone that has invested in less. Now I talk a lot of theory so how about some stats?

A quick glance at the leaderboard for 1v1 filtered by matches on aoe2insight should be evident that experience + time doesn't really tell us anything. The guy (yummy900130) with the most matches (14k) is currently rated at 951. In the first page u can see there are quite a few sub 1k and a bunch that are mid range level 1000-1600. And of course there are some 2k+ here and there. Viper one of the best players in the community only has about 5k total matches played. There's no concrete relationship to conclude here. You can play the most and still be below avg.

If you managed to beat a few 1400s and 1500s then good for you. Maybe if u played ranked now u wouldn't be 900 elo anymore. This goes back to what I said earlier about elo not working if players aren't active. The 900 elo rating of your isn't accurate anymore.

With that said if players do partake in the elo system and does it correctly then it does a good job of assessing someone's skill level. I hope I dont need to explain why this is the case, but I can if you want (too long already).

Anyways believe in what you want. The experience + time invested method just doesnt make sense for me. I can't conclude anything from it. The elo system while has it flaws it does work when players actually uses the system. The best I can do for unranked players is to assume they are 1k and for non active player is to assume their old elo. I did say that's a fair assessment considering they haven't shown otherwise (update their elo).

People like to use time = skill. When it's effort + time (probably) = skill. You can see this from the great human experiment that is MMORPGs. You have players with thousands of hours played and still don't know the basics. They've been carried the entire way in any group content. They also seen many brag "I've played the game since X, you don't know what you're talking about", it's like cool. You're still a clown.

I'd say 80-90% of the time (pulling this from my own experience and a bit of a guesstimate). It's like a handful of core things that can be fixed by using Google and a guide or listening to somebody that half decent at the game when they say, "hey buddy I noticed you're doing X wrong, try Y". I'd say half the time they don't listen most of the rest whine about you being an elite or you don't pay for my game, but I have to endure your insufferable ass and play.

Sad part unlike say an RTS where it can take many hours to get things down. It probably takes 15-30 minutes to get yourself from trash tier to functional human pressing somewhat the right buttons in an MMORPG.

My little side rant.

EDIT: PS if you have two people of roughly equal skill and one has more time played. You'd bet on them winning more often. Experience with more situations means they're less likely to get thrown off by an usual ploy or something. It would be like heads vs tails. Slight advantage to the experienced player.

I think u missed one more ingredient which is talent. Reality is the world isn't fair. Some ppl are just naturally better at certain things. We see this in life all the time not just in video games. There also tends to be a hardcap for skill level for most players unless they do something drastic to fix it. I mean we all have been there if u play competitive games. I am talking about the hardstuck experience where u just can't climb higher aka can't improve anymore. So just because you are playing more it doesn't mean u are improving or at least not at a rate that is significant.

Agreed to the MMORPG thing. Usually a few min vid or a simple guide will fix a lot of mistakes for raid/dungeon or what have u.

I did say a lot of things can be easily fixed for lower elo in RTS. I mean I practically taught my nephew how to play aoe2 and he managed to achieve 1.1k in 1v1 despite being only 10. I wager he can climb higher if he actually likes this game enough to play consistently. But yeah imo it is fairly easy to get to 1.1k since the mistake isn't that hard to fix imo. Then again his dad is only 1.1k too so idk. 11.

[Blackout4711]

The arguing here is cringe I'm just gonna bump this and say that high ELO people don't experience it as bad because they micro everything so damn much.

But if you aren't a sweat and just want to sit down and play some age after a day at work... And command a whole army of 40 units with attack move to an enemy, go to look after your eco, assign some vills, etc and come back and see your whole army either decided to stop mid-way to the enemy, or became separated and picked off by an attacking force which wouldn't have happened if the pathing did what it should have, and none of it was your fault at all the game just screwed you... It's enough to make you wonder why you're even playing the game in the first place.

[Blackout4711]

Not everyone only plays 1v1 Arabia and just micros archers some people actually play the game not to get on the ranked leaderboard but to just chill out and play with friends or with/against AI

[Quintem]

Blackout4711 a écrit :

The arguing here is cringe I'm just gonna bump this and say that high ELO people don't experience it as bad because they micro everything so damn much.

But if you aren't a sweat and just want to sit down and play some age after a day at work... And command a whole army of 40 units with attack move to an enemy, go to look after your eco, assign some vills, etc and come back and see your whole army either decided to stop mid-way to the enemy, or became separated and picked off by an attacking force which wouldn't have happened if the pathing did what it should have, and none of it was your fault at all the game just screwed you... It's enough to make you wonder why you're even playing the game in the first place.

Blackout4711 a écrit :

Not everyone only plays 1v1 Arabia and just micros archers some people actually play the game not to get on the ranked leaderboard but to just chill out and play with friends or with/against AI

You literally missed the point. Microing archers AND having pathing issues are tied together, Which is why I'm complaining and others. It's not some high level thing to move your archers away from melee units and try to shoot as you retreat. It's just freaking common sense. Top pros to vs. AI enjoyers. Have made comment on the issue.

You're the one being cringe here.

[4th]

Blackout4711 a écrit :

Not everyone only plays 1v1 Arabia and just micros archers some people actually play the game not to get on the ranked leaderboard but to just chill out and play with friends or with/against AI

This is probably the worst take yet

[Blackout4711]

Prove me wrong.

Not everyone micros everything all the time and only plays the stale meta on ranked. There's heaps of people who just PVE, PVP casually, or even just do the Campaigns.I'm saying obviously the more you micro the less it effects you, not saying it doesn't at all. Playing low pop games and finishing in Feudal or Castle before you can even get to larger armies and macro tactics like in big community games or 8 player diplo is a whole different ball game with how bad the pathing is.

Imagine having 3 or more armies you have control grouped trying to do a few things at a time: one on attack move to hit trade, 2 armies converge on a front to get an enemies main army focused on that, and one army attacking at the back to try and get into the eco or going for a king snipe, you've timed everything meticulously... Then you're wondering why only one army has arrived at the front for the distraction, finding out the other just randomly went idle after you commanded it to move. Your strategy is busted and you've lost almost a guaranteed win because the pathing is a turd I mean like 40 units just stop for no reason. I don't think there's something nearly comparable in a game that might finish in 30 minutes or less where there's smaller groups of things to worry about.

[Quintem]

You do realise to more to try to micro currently the worse it actually gets, less micro is better.

[Moist Butt]

Blackout4711 a écrit :

Prove me wrong.

Not everyone micros everything all the time and only plays the stale meta on ranked. There's heaps of people who just PVE, PVP casually, or even just do the Campaigns.I'm saying obviously the more you micro the less it effects you, not saying it doesn't at all. Playing low pop games and finishing in Feudal or Castle before you can even get to larger armies and macro tactics like in big community games or 8 player diplo is a whole different ball game with how bad the pathing is.

Imagine having 3 or more armies you have control grouped trying to do a few things at a time: one on attack move to hit trade, 2 armies converge on a front to get an enemies main army focused on that, and one army attacking at the back to try and get into the eco or going for a king snipe, you've timed everything meticulously... Then you're wondering why only one army has arrived at the front for the distraction, finding out the other just randomly went idle after you commanded it to move. Your strategy is busted and you've lost almost a guaranteed win because the pathing is a turd I mean like 40 units just stop for no reason. I don't think there's something nearly comparable in a game that might finish in 30 minutes or less where there's smaller groups of things to worry about.

Sure. Pathfinding affects villager movement as well. You can in theory never micro any unit and u will still be affected by bad pathfinding. Villagers bumping into each other and behaving like a "fool" are due to pathfinding problems. It literally affects everyone. Even attack move is affected by pathfinding which u brought up earlier. If u just want to say its more noticable for decent+ players then sure. Lower skilled players probably have other things to worry about then their unit moving in a way they dont expect.

Also I am not sure why u are separating ranked like they are a different species. I am not even that active in ranked anymore and primarily play quick play with my family members now. I micro my units in unranked too so I dont see why u have to make a distinction. Honestly seeing your reply makes me think u didn't comprehend what was actually said about ranked and elo. No one is shaming unranked players or saying unranked players are bad here. No one is saying u have to play a certain way or there is only one way to play a game. If someone has played ranked and is active then we have a pretty accurate assessment of their skill level. Ppl that don't play ranked are hard to judge and might as well be a mystery card regardless of how much hours they have put into the game. I think I provided enough support to show that.

[BirbNotBird]

Blackout4711 a écrit :

Prove me wrong.

I have to say, the pathfinding is a problem, but it's not pvp exclusive.

Played many campaigns and a lot of times rams just go back before going straight ahead.

I can win any map without micro? Yes. Frustration when seeing your units waste 5s to go back formation and then go forward? Yes also. It rarely appears, but baffles me everytime I'm in a middle of a good battle.

I'm a casual but pathfinding "bug" is clearly existed. This is like playing AOEDE or SC1 pathfinding standards for modern RTS, it's simply just frustrating.

Can hardly suggest anyone to play the game when people just see some cases and say "That thing just designed to waste my time".

[D]

This is a big problem and it honestly severely impacts the gameplay to a point of not even wanting to boot up the game.

[[{******---Dead4Life---******}]]

D a écrit :

This is a big problem and it honestly severely impacts the gameplay to a point of not even wanting to boot up the game.

Yeah, same, it happens in AoE 3 and is as bad in AoE 4. lol

[His name is Robert Paulson]

Suggestion to everybody here. In case you own AoE2 HD (from 2013), install it and give it a try. The pathfinding there is *significantly* better than the current pathfinding in AoE2DE. They've made it worse than it used to be in the same game before they "improved" it. There's no excuse for it. Stop defending them.

[DMg Halt]

I think if you limit yourself to Ranked games only, you miss out on a lot of new things that you would otherwise never see in a regular ranked 200 pop game on normal speed.

A lot of the techniques that I learned actually came from unranked games. DeathMatch, Michi, Forest Nothing, Amazon Tunnel 2v2v2v2/ FFA, then there's CBA. Exposing yourself to other play styles and higher population limits can help expand your tactical arsenal. Playing ranked every day, you don't get that exposure because everyone is playing the meta for each civ. (Which is why I don't play ranked, IT'S BORING).