If those were handled as two separate events, it would work "correctly", but the corpse would have converted color. It's most likely that in the conversion event logic, the game fires of a suicide event before switching the unit's side but the score for conversion itself is already updated or the logic is committed to the path to update it without any additional check for heresy. I assume suicides don't give any points to the oponent, it would be unworkable in games with more than 2 players. Either way, conversions are funky, if you convert a unit that is not affected by heresy but it gets immediatelly killed by its former comrades, the conversion and kill scores cancel each other, right? But tactically it's the same as if you killed the unit and for a normal kill you would gain points.
Shouldn't the actual effect be that the Convert doesn't lose any points at all, and the Converter loses the unit's worth of points then? It was the Converter's unit that was lost, so they should lose that unit's worth of points, while the Convert's points should stay the same because, while yes they just lost a unit, they also killed one right after that? And since we know it doesn't work that way, and you lose the points after a conversion, and 2x the points after conversion and that unit being killed by heresy... Shouldn't that mean that if a unit gets converted an then lost later (without heresy) it's the original owner of the unit that loses the points of that unit again, thus the actual drop in points is the same, with or without heresy, just delayed up until the point when the convert kills their converted unit? Or is there some kind of cut-off point, some time limit after which the converted unit becomes "truly yours" after which the game treats it being killed as if it was your unit that just died, and docks your points?
@@paletz well when the unit dies I guess "someone" must take the L, and it's either the source player or the receiving player. Maybe a workaround would be giving the unit to gaia before it dies
The AI uses score to determine who to attack. This is very noticeable in coop vs AI - once someone gets a lead, the AI attacks that person, which gives a lot of kills to that person, raising the score even more.
The interesting thing can also be where you are a better macro player but a worse micro player. You'll tend to trade inefficiently, giving more score to the enemy, but are probably winning because macro tends to be more important until you get to really high elo. If you're producing 20% more resources and using them to keep up the pressure, you may lose a lot but are steadily attriting down the enemy and preventing them from catching up on macro. In the words of Day9: "in the battle of more vs less, more tends to win"
@@WiscoDrinks there was a competative supreme commander player 5ish years ago who played like that. He just had the macro mastered so hard that he could afford losses that other players usually couldnt.
The late game score weighting prior battle results rings so true in long, dragout games, where one player might have more score, even by a large margin, but what's more important is the way the game is trending going forward - both in score, and the on-field forces.
My personal rule is: if the opponent has twice or more points as me, it is probably time for declaring gg. By that point usually not even a clean transition to the perfect counter to the enemy composition can save you the game.
2:38 on the other hand you can guess that the other player who is not scaling with you is probably not scouting properly and thus has less view of the map. which you can take to your advantage.
Obligatory comparison with AoE3: Early jumps in points tell you when a player has received shipments from their home city, unit shipments are especially apparent. Generally, scores largely rely on the number of units controlled. A quickly ballooning score probably means they are building up an army for an imminent attack. A high score in the mid to late game usually means massive economic output AND a solid defence.
@2639theboss All three are different. AoE3 is faster because aging up is far more important, due to a) unit upgrades being a lot stronger, b) you get age up bonuses and c) shipments (in a nutshell bonus units, resources or techs you can send for a certain amount of experience points collected) are stronger for the same amount of XP. Basically, the meta is largely tech rush, then rush, then boom, not much turtling . Defensive buildings are less useful due to advanced artillery and grenades, therefore an army is also your best defence. The atmosphere is also worth mentioning. AoE2 is often quite gloomy, putting the dark in dark ages. AoE3 is about exploration and global empires, so more bombastic.
Sounds like some sort of score decay to lower the weight of points amassed earlier would help, maybe something that kicks in only after 20 min of in game time?
When i was young i was always behind the AI with score, by a lot. Despite playing on lower diffficulty. I was just bad, but the low AI also sucked. So i would very slowly build a big army, go with everything towards the AI, kill everyone, destroy everything, win. The superiour AI score did not matter when they where dead. I did not make enough villagers since they took up potential army space. I did not know what a scout was supposed to do, so i let him help defend against the tiny groups of raiders, lower AI sends. Scout did mostly distarct, baits them while the village shoots at the raiders. I also did not know about hidden stats, only that spears do destroy horses. But the low AI often made such a small army that my horses could still defeat their spears with ease, or that my army would defeat a army that was strong agains my army
I wish I could make in the scenario editor something like "if the game goes to an hour, give the guy with the best score a bonus." Something small, like maybe 3 Cavalier every 10 minutes.
8:49 My guess is that in the code that calculates the score, before heresy was a thing there were 2 seperate functions. One function calculates the amount earned by the player that got the unit kill and the amount of score lost by the player that lost a unit (Something you explained earlier in the video where you said that the killer player gains the 20% of the cost of the unit they killed and the player who lost the unit loses the same amount) And the second function with the exact same calculations but instead of a kill it's a conversion Then later in the development period, the heresy tech was added and the code for calculating score as it relates to these two functions stayed the same. And so what I think is happening is that the game triggers both functions. Now you might think, but wouldnt the monk player receive double the points? Well I think that the way it is written is that the monk player only gets points for a succesful conversion or maybe there are seperate functions for the player that kills a unit and the player that loses a unit. I don't know bro. haha
To come back on my last point, one way you could test that hypothesis I suppose is by suiciding a unit, My guess is that it makes sense that there would be seperate functions for players, because if you suicide a unit there's no 'killer player' to assign the winning points to. So assuming there are seperate functions for players 1 function for the killer player 1 function for the death player (the player that loses a unit) the way it's coded is probably something like this; Function 1 (Conversion points added) 36 points for conversion
Maybe the devs could add a small scoreboard to the left since the right is already full and it can show us the economy points tech points millitary points... Also if this is made player specific you could still know what your situation is but you wouldnt know if the opponent is booming or raising an army or vise versa. This can already be seen after you finish the game in the scoreboard tab if the devs could add it INTO the game it would be fantastic.
10 million IQ play: research Heresy and raze as few buildings as possible to give yourself a score disadvantage to make the opponent think they're further ahead than they are
I think the important part about the doubled points for destruction is not that it gives you double the points compared to building since you also destroy the resources so the finished building and also the destruction are really worth that much but rather the fact that the points are also subtracted from the builder
Wow. Learned a lot of things. I guess. Score matters but not so much. I do feel a perfect correlation to wining. And when I am “turning the game around” with a good battle I can tell ok the score. I will start doubting score more now that I know a lot of things. I have a question if you have building with discount cost such as Cumans breaking archery ranges or stable cost the same as houses?
Thank you for your hard work, I enjoy your videos. It's not much but here is a comment to boost engagement for the algorithm as a token of appreciation.
Very interesting. I wonder if a score mod could experiment with showing score trending over the last, say 3 minutes - rather than the score accumulation since game start. This score trend snapshot might give a better view of recent dynamics (at the cost of accounting for past performance) - so it would show you that you're outcompeting the other by score accounting - but it doesn't give you much of a baseline of where the two players are at right now.
People discussing when you should give up in relation of scoreboard and I am here, in the corner, just walling my last villager. Never give up people. Every minute in the game is a minute that your opponent would disconnect.
I would like a video explaining how should one distribute the 120 vills in a imperial situation. How many on wood, food, to maintain trash production etc
yeah I wonder what would be more accurate - maybe something like - 100% from eco units, TCs, and Feitorias - 20% from military, techs, and most buildings - 10% from stockpile - 10% from queue - 1% from razed buildings, slain units, and total gathered resources (except market) - 500 for scouting
Could even make it 5% for total resources gathered and destroyed since having both sides of that coin would balance out and keep the score more accurate
damn very clear and easy to understand of an otherwise esoteric dynamic of the game i feel - noice ! maybe the heresy thing factors in what damage your units would have otherwise incurred by converted units but i guess that's the whole point of heresy - ya weird 11
Enemy : 10000 score = plentiful resources, many villagers, few upgrades, focus on exploration, many buildings, small army Me : 3500 scores = scarce resources, villagers less than 20 (most of them died on failed boar lure attempt), lazy exploration (scout cav auto explore), few buildings+wrong farm placement, only upgrade loom, SPAM MILITIA
SOTL you probably forgot to say that the main and probably only one reason to keep an eye on the scoreboard is when you see a substantial dropp in the enemy score, so you will notice the enemy is aging up, that's an huge intel bonus on your side! ❤
Hey, what about killing discounted units? It means attacker gets less points because owner of killed units have discount bonuses? From player perspective having discounted units sometimes equals to having eco bonus and paying full price, but score wise is better to have eco bonus. U can field same army, for example 50 cavaliers with slavs' 120 vills, and and 50 cavaliers with berbers' 100 vills at the same time mark - easier boom with slavs, more res, more vills, more points, worse boom with berbers, less vills, less res, still same army, less ponits.
Its the same mindset as k/d ratios in a capture the flag/domination gameplay. A person can have 30 kills and 0 deaths but still lose to the other team.
8:47 I guess without heresy, you still can kill that converted unit, giving you the points back? (I'd argue a normal conversion should give the monk player more points than a killing of the same unit.)
If two players are straight booming, say on arena or BF, what does a significant score lead mean? Let’s say at 25 mins they have a 500 pt score lead when they’ve both just been producing vills from castle age. Does this mean they’re building army too? Or booming on more TCs
About the heresy score, does converting a previously owned unit raise the score? If it doesn't, then I think what happens is that after the unit is successfully converted, it immediately gets converted back and then commits suicide.
It depends greatly on your strategy. You can bloat your score with early units but its quite meaningless. Someone underscoring can have economical potential that will evolve rapidly.
The point of the score system is originally for the score victory, so I assume they want people to be proactive when giving more points to killing and razing opponents.
Score has uneven weights to certain actions because its trying to incentivize aggression in the one game more where score actually matters, time limit score victory
When I play against the AI with my friends and victory appears to be in sight, I always grab every single tech I can to boost my score and look good. Heated shot and all the dock techs on Black Forest, whatever. The system works.
Interesting stuff, I didn't know how score was calculated. That being said, it still seems too opaque and jenky of a system and I will continue to ignore it
i remember in long games vs my friends back at lans i sold all my ress in late game to buy stone so my score would be as low as possible and they dont surrender :D
In team game it should be disabled. Lot of time the team behind in score just drop at the beginning of the first fight it is ridiculous. This is one of the reason why age 4 is better design than age 2 (most of people prefer age 2 because we are all nostalgic people).
It's like video game achievements, in my perspective. Look, I want to enjoy my beloved single player game (say, Halo: The Master Chief Collection up to Reach), not wanna play some all too demanding co-op separate campaign experience with an ending that makes your efforts a bit too moot and then leads to two weak games I'd rather not play or replay, one of which doesn't have a PC port (looking at Halo 4's Spartan Ops). Either way, thanks for analyzing those strange numbers, SotL.
I know one thing. I suck donkey ball at RTS games. I love the genre, can't play competitive to save my life. Score itself is just a nail to my proverbial coffin here. Seeing how I always lag behind. There are plenty of reason I avoid multiplayer like a plague.
If you are in Forest Nothing still having under 250 and your opponent is above 1500-4000, then yes :D If you see a dude being in 600-800 for more than 8 minutes, well, he's Booming, after that he gonna suddenly jump to 3000 out of nowhere ˇˇ Yeah, lets build some houses and get a score from it..Heheh...Uh... (Huns). Measuring score when 575 food worth Bohemian Monk converts your fully upgraded unique unit with Heresy. .. Or when Spanish Supremacy Villagers destroys your Castle...80 Villagers dead..Totally worth it (thumbs up) ! ( - : What I have seen, in the middle of the game, when besieged by Cumans from all sides, is that what Burgundians did is that they did the Flemish Revolution. Their economy died instantly, all the resources they were still carrying were gone and all Flemish Militia were killed in less than 2 minutes. Should've stick to Coustilliers my boy. It was like watching something going from 4000 to 1000, like grasping utter defeat from jaws of total victory. Cumans wouldnt have any chance, but no, the genius had 160 villagers with many towers and castles, just so he can go for heroic charge. Dude had not even a single ram with him xD
If the score is this esoteric and complicated, how is it useful for the common player? Sure, maybe you can get a "feel" for the flow of the game from it, but unless you know all these details or you're at a pro level who understands the game better than the score does, it seems like a pretty useless feature. It makes me wonder what the devs were thinking when they implemented it. Perhaps some research into that could be an interesting video. (Or maybe a "what if" video to make the score seem more representative of the game?) Great stuff, as always, digging into the details.
the score doesn't really matter. it's more about destroying their econ. It's totally possible to win if the higher scorer player gets lazy or distracted I've won more that a few that way.
I get 500 or 600 points behind before castle and just surrender. I know im beat and early. Which is why i have an Elo of around 300. Despite having this for 20 years i never win unless people tank.😂
Yes, immediately resign once you're 1 point under in the Dark Age.
ACCM just woke up in a cold sweat and doesnt know why.
Terrible. Take a lap
I would say that you could at least wait until you’re 2 points behind, but after that you’re cooked
Skill issue. Resigning at any point before your 3 points behind in dark age is just throwing
That's what I do
The reason why Heresy likely subtracts a lot of points is that your units gets converted and *then* instantly killed off.
If those were handled as two separate events, it would work "correctly", but the corpse would have converted color. It's most likely that in the conversion event logic, the game fires of a suicide event before switching the unit's side but the score for conversion itself is already updated or the logic is committed to the path to update it without any additional check for heresy. I assume suicides don't give any points to the oponent, it would be unworkable in games with more than 2 players.
Either way, conversions are funky, if you convert a unit that is not affected by heresy but it gets immediatelly killed by its former comrades, the conversion and kill scores cancel each other, right? But tactically it's the same as if you killed the unit and for a normal kill you would gain points.
@@paletz If it works like AoE3 xp gains the score gain on suicide would be divided evenly among your opponents
Shouldn't the actual effect be that the Convert doesn't lose any points at all, and the Converter loses the unit's worth of points then? It was the Converter's unit that was lost, so they should lose that unit's worth of points, while the Convert's points should stay the same because, while yes they just lost a unit, they also killed one right after that?
And since we know it doesn't work that way, and you lose the points after a conversion, and 2x the points after conversion and that unit being killed by heresy... Shouldn't that mean that if a unit gets converted an then lost later (without heresy) it's the original owner of the unit that loses the points of that unit again, thus the actual drop in points is the same, with or without heresy, just delayed up until the point when the convert kills their converted unit?
Or is there some kind of cut-off point, some time limit after which the converted unit becomes "truly yours" after which the game treats it being killed as if it was your unit that just died, and docks your points?
@@IndependentObserver In theory, yes. But I assume its just an oversight of the 1999 code.
@@paletz well when the unit dies I guess "someone" must take the L, and it's either the source player or the receiving player. Maybe a workaround would be giving the unit to gaia before it dies
The AI uses score to determine who to attack. This is very noticeable in coop vs AI - once someone gets a lead, the AI attacks that person, which gives a lot of kills to that person, raising the score even more.
When I play with a friend, the AI seems to attack the weakest of us
@@afz902kthat’s cuz the weakest is the most effected from attacks. The strongest usually kills them easily
@@andrewstanford4071 exactly, so why would the AI attack the strongest? Maybe depends on difficulty settings
The interesting thing can also be where you are a better macro player but a worse micro player. You'll tend to trade inefficiently, giving more score to the enemy, but are probably winning because macro tends to be more important until you get to really high elo. If you're producing 20% more resources and using them to keep up the pressure, you may lose a lot but are steadily attriting down the enemy and preventing them from catching up on macro.
In the words of Day9: "in the battle of more vs less, more tends to win"
When your eco is solid but your war strategy is shock troops into the meat grinder
@@WiscoDrinks there was a competative supreme commander player 5ish years ago who played like that. He just had the macro mastered so hard that he could afford losses that other players usually couldnt.
the good ol' Soviet Strategy
Me: Being in top score in Dark Age 😁
Also me: Realized that my opponent might already click up 💀
30 vils in dark
50 in feudal
60 in castle
My villiger numbers are how i know when to tech up.
The late game score weighting prior battle results rings so true in long, dragout games, where one player might have more score, even by a large margin, but what's more important is the way the game is trending going forward - both in score, and the on-field forces.
My personal rule is: if the opponent has twice or more points as me, it is probably time for declaring gg.
By that point usually not even a clean transition to the perfect counter to the enemy composition can save you the game.
It is always a treat to get a SotL video outside weekends!
With the amount of smurfs and beginners in the same lobby, turn the score off and have fun.
That bit about Heresy sounds like something that would be patched shortly in the future because SoTL shines a spotlight on it
what if it was always a feature?
Finally a answer to a question that someone with no self confidence like me always had
2:38 on the other hand you can guess that the other player who is not scaling with you is probably not scouting properly and thus has less view of the map. which you can take to your advantage.
Obligatory comparison with AoE3: Early jumps in points tell you when a player has received shipments from their home city, unit shipments are especially apparent.
Generally, scores largely rely on the number of units controlled. A quickly ballooning score probably means they are building up an army for an imminent attack. A high score in the mid to late game usually means massive economic output AND a solid defence.
How do you like AOE3? I tried AOE4 and wasnt a fan, but i enjoy AOE2. Which one does it compare more to?
@2639theboss
All three are different. AoE3 is faster because aging up is far more important, due to a) unit upgrades being a lot stronger, b) you get age up bonuses and c) shipments (in a nutshell bonus units, resources or techs you can send for a certain amount of experience points collected) are stronger for the same amount of XP.
Basically, the meta is largely tech rush, then rush, then boom, not much turtling . Defensive buildings are less useful due to advanced artillery and grenades, therefore an army is also your best defence.
The atmosphere is also worth mentioning. AoE2 is often quite gloomy, putting the dark in dark ages. AoE3 is about exploration and global empires, so more bombastic.
I was always worried about this. Thanks for the video.
Lesson learnt from this video - Never research Heresy.
That will be heresy towards this game point calculation system.
Since i started playing 40k dawn of war i can't research the h word anymore
the heresy thing is probably the points of convertion + the points of a kill
Sounds like some sort of score decay to lower the weight of points amassed earlier would help, maybe something that kicks in only after 20 min of in game time?
When i was young i was always behind the AI with score, by a lot. Despite playing on lower diffficulty. I was just bad, but the low AI also sucked. So i would very slowly build a big army, go with everything towards the AI, kill everyone, destroy everything, win. The superiour AI score did not matter when they where dead.
I did not make enough villagers since they took up potential army space. I did not know what a scout was supposed to do, so i let him help defend against the tiny groups of raiders, lower AI sends. Scout did mostly distarct, baits them while the village shoots at the raiders. I also did not know about hidden stats, only that spears do destroy horses. But the low AI often made such a small army that my horses could still defeat their spears with ease, or that my army would defeat a army that was strong agains my army
I wish I could make in the scenario editor something like "if the game goes to an hour, give the guy with the best score a bonus." Something small, like maybe 3 Cavalier every 10 minutes.
Hey SoTL, can you make a video explaining what wind speed would be needed to make windmills spin as fast as they do in game? 11
8:49 My guess is that in the code that calculates the score, before heresy was a thing there were 2 seperate functions.
One function calculates the amount earned by the player that got the unit kill and the amount of score lost by the player that lost a unit (Something you explained earlier in the video where you said that the killer player gains the 20% of the cost of the unit they killed and the player who lost the unit loses the same amount)
And the second function with the exact same calculations but instead of a kill it's a conversion
Then later in the development period, the heresy tech was added and the code for calculating score as it relates to these two functions stayed the same.
And so what I think is happening is that the game triggers both functions.
Now you might think, but wouldnt the monk player receive double the points?
Well I think that the way it is written is that the monk player only gets points for a succesful conversion
or maybe there are seperate functions for the player that kills a unit and the player that loses a unit.
I don't know bro. haha
To come back on my last point, one way you could test that hypothesis I suppose is by suiciding a unit, My guess is that it makes sense that there would be seperate functions for players, because if you suicide a unit there's no 'killer player' to assign the winning points to.
So assuming there are seperate functions for players
1 function for the killer player
1 function for the death player (the player that loses a unit)
the way it's coded is probably something like this;
Function 1 (Conversion points added) 36 points for conversion
Maybe the devs could add a small scoreboard to the left since the right is already full and it can show us the economy points tech points millitary points... Also if this is made player specific you could still know what your situation is but you wouldnt know if the opponent is booming or raising an army or vise versa. This can already be seen after you finish the game in the scoreboard tab if the devs could add it INTO the game it would be fantastic.
Sometimes I wish AoE2 rules/formulas were more straightforward, but then we wouldn't get as many Spirit of the Law videos!
10 million IQ play: research Heresy and raze as few buildings as possible to give yourself a score disadvantage to make the opponent think they're further ahead than they are
Don't think I've ever knowingly looked at scores during or after a game 🤷🏻♂️
Oh how I miss the guitar intro...
Miss the old animated opening as well
That is just for major videos. He still uses it, just not in short ones like this.
I think the important part about the doubled points for destruction is not that it gives you double the points compared to building since you also destroy the resources so the finished building and also the destruction are really worth that much but rather the fact that the points are also subtracted from the builder
Wow. Learned a lot of things. I guess. Score matters but not so much. I do feel a perfect correlation to wining. And when I am “turning the game around” with a good battle I can tell ok the score. I will start doubting score more now that I know a lot of things. I have a question if you have building with discount cost such as Cumans breaking archery ranges or stable cost the same as houses?
I've never looked at the score in game but I have learned from ACCM that you don't quit until you are 5000 points behind!
Thank you for your hard work, I enjoy your videos.
It's not much but here is a comment to boost engagement for the algorithm as a token of appreciation.
What a good video man!
Very interesting. I wonder if a score mod could experiment with showing score trending over the last, say 3 minutes - rather than the score accumulation since game start.
This score trend snapshot might give a better view of recent dynamics (at the cost of accounting for past performance) - so it would show you that you're outcompeting the other by score accounting - but it doesn't give you much of a baseline of where the two players are at right now.
More history videos!
does that mean you can have negetive score with heresy and possibly underflow to maximum score?
kind of shocked this video didn't mention water score, possibly the biggest distortion of score relative to position in the game.
People discussing when you should give up in relation of scoreboard and I am here, in the corner, just walling my last villager.
Never give up people. Every minute in the game is a minute that your opponent would disconnect.
I would like a video explaining how should one distribute the 120 vills in a imperial situation. How many on wood, food, to maintain trash production etc
yeah I wonder what would be more accurate - maybe something like
- 100% from eco units, TCs, and Feitorias
- 20% from military, techs, and most buildings
- 10% from stockpile
- 10% from queue
- 1% from razed buildings, slain units, and total gathered resources (except market)
- 500 for scouting
Could even make it 5% for total resources gathered and destroyed since having both sides of that coin would balance out and keep the score more accurate
Personally i rather be an under dog and help, than be a top dog, and fail the whole team.
damn very clear and easy to understand of an otherwise esoteric dynamic of the game i feel - noice !
maybe the heresy thing factors in what damage your units would have otherwise incurred by converted units but i guess that's the whole point of heresy - ya weird 11
Hint: if u r playing against vietnamese, check if his score explode at the begining, that mean he is going to lame u
Tributing resources abck and forth with your ally (with banking) also boosts your scores IIRC.
3:27 So Ceteres paribus
Often times I realize the huge difference in points after I lost because I was far to busy fighting back. 😅
just started 5 matches ago and i lag behind in score as soon as opponent reaches castle .. they exponentialy become much more poweful
Thanks. This work for AoM too
Enemy : 10000 score = plentiful resources, many villagers, few upgrades, focus on exploration, many buildings, small army
Me : 3500 scores = scarce resources, villagers less than 20 (most of them died on failed boar lure attempt), lazy exploration (scout cav auto explore), few buildings+wrong farm placement, only upgrade loom, SPAM MILITIA
That failed castle drop at 5 minuts though.
SOTL you probably forgot to say that the main and probably only one reason to keep an eye on the scoreboard is when you see a substantial dropp in the enemy score, so you will notice the enemy is aging up, that's an huge intel bonus on your side! ❤
03:47
@@eMpTy0911 thanks Sir for noticing me im wrong, i missed it while reading the numbers on the screens
Hey, what about killing discounted units? It means attacker gets less points because owner of killed units have discount bonuses?
From player perspective having discounted units sometimes equals to having eco bonus and paying full price, but score wise is better to have eco bonus.
U can field same army, for example 50 cavaliers with slavs' 120 vills, and and 50 cavaliers with berbers' 100 vills at the same time mark - easier boom with slavs, more res, more vills, more points, worse boom with berbers, less vills, less res, still same army, less ponits.
Honestly I find people get overconfident if they got a bit of a lead only to fuck up and lose due to underestimating
I don't mind the gap per se, i look at the score to asess how the gap evolves over time.
Wow, I wish I knew this sooner..
Its the same mindset as k/d ratios in a capture the flag/domination gameplay. A person can have 30 kills and 0 deaths but still lose to the other team.
8:47 I guess without heresy, you still can kill that converted unit, giving you the points back? (I'd argue a normal conversion should give the monk player more points than a killing of the same unit.)
Seeing this title immediately makes me think of the pirate meme "well yes but actually no"
If two players are straight booming, say on arena or BF, what does a significant score lead mean? Let’s say at 25 mins they have a 500 pt score lead when they’ve both just been producing vills from castle age. Does this mean they’re building army too? Or booming on more TCs
About the heresy score, does converting a previously owned unit raise the score?
If it doesn't, then I think what happens is that after the unit is successfully converted, it immediately gets converted back and then commits suicide.
What happens to the civilizations that are left on the map after you have won and left the game?
So to humiliate an enemy I should wait for him to research Heresy then convert everything. Got it.
It depends greatly on your strategy. You can bloat your score with early units but its quite meaningless. Someone underscoring can have economical potential that will evolve rapidly.
The point of the score system is originally for the score victory, so I assume they want people to be proactive when giving more points to killing and razing opponents.
Score has uneven weights to certain actions because its trying to incentivize aggression in the one game more where score actually matters, time limit score victory
ACCM: I'll resign when there's a 20k score difference
When I play against the AI with my friends and victory appears to be in sight, I always grab every single tech I can to boost my score and look good. Heated shot and all the dock techs on Black Forest, whatever. The system works.
I love this video! I feel called out 😂😂😂
Another way your score gets tanked (especially post-imp) is using the market because you're at a net loss of resources
Interesting stuff, I didn't know how score was calculated. That being said, it still seems too opaque and jenky of a system and I will continue to ignore it
I've been playing since age of kings. I've never really paid attention to the score.
Humans like round numbers and 1000 is a big, round number, so I think that's the reason for that
i remember in long games vs my friends back at lans i sold all my ress in late game to buy stone so my score would be as low as possible and they dont surrender :D
So... can heresy make you end up with negative points?
In team game it should be disabled. Lot of time the team behind in score just drop at the beginning of the first fight it is ridiculous. This is one of the reason why age 4 is better design than age 2 (most of people prefer age 2 because we are all nostalgic people).
good videos ❤️
Sometimes I forget to do scouting then I see my opp is like a lot of points ahead. After I scout the map Im like tons of points ahead XD
It's like video game achievements, in my perspective. Look, I want to enjoy my beloved single player game (say, Halo: The Master Chief Collection up to Reach), not wanna play some all too demanding co-op separate campaign experience with an ending that makes your efforts a bit too moot and then leads to two weak games I'd rather not play or replay, one of which doesn't have a PC port (looking at Halo 4's Spartan Ops).
Either way, thanks for analyzing those strange numbers, SotL.
Hey Spirit, you did this topic before!
1:03
The game is never over until you lose.
I know one thing.
I suck donkey ball at RTS games. I love the genre, can't play competitive to save my life.
Score itself is just a nail to my proverbial coffin here. Seeing how I always lag behind.
There are plenty of reason I avoid multiplayer like a plague.
Yes you should worry about score. It can predict the inevitable
play to enjoy 💛🔥🇵🇸
You should worry if you're behind in score if you're playing a score match. Otherwise, no.
If you are in Forest Nothing still having under 250 and your opponent is above 1500-4000, then yes :D
If you see a dude being in 600-800 for more than 8 minutes, well, he's Booming, after that he gonna suddenly jump to 3000 out of nowhere ˇˇ
Yeah, lets build some houses and get a score from it..Heheh...Uh... (Huns).
Measuring score when 575 food worth Bohemian Monk converts your fully upgraded unique unit with Heresy. ..
Or when Spanish Supremacy Villagers destroys your Castle...80 Villagers dead..Totally worth it (thumbs up) ! ( - :
What I have seen, in the middle of the game, when besieged by Cumans from all sides, is that what Burgundians did is that they did the Flemish Revolution.
Their economy died instantly, all the resources they were still carrying were gone and all Flemish Militia were killed in less than 2 minutes. Should've stick to Coustilliers my boy.
It was like watching something going from 4000 to 1000, like grasping utter defeat from jaws of total victory.
Cumans wouldnt have any chance, but no, the genius had 160 villagers with many towers and castles, just so he can go for heroic charge. Dude had not even a single ram with him xD
If the score is this esoteric and complicated, how is it useful for the common player? Sure, maybe you can get a "feel" for the flow of the game from it, but unless you know all these details or you're at a pro level who understands the game better than the score does, it seems like a pretty useless feature. It makes me wonder what the devs were thinking when they implemented it. Perhaps some research into that could be an interesting video. (Or maybe a "what if" video to make the score seem more representative of the game?)
Great stuff, as always, digging into the details.
Hey Aoe2 fam, can you tell me why you're not playing age of mythology?
cannot wait until some crazy guy starts "watching matches" and telling us whats happening solely by the score, because humans...
the score doesn't really matter. it's more about destroying their econ. It's totally possible to win if the higher scorer player gets lazy or distracted I've won more that a few that way.
Ain't there any new Squarespace projects, let's say Spirit of the Score?
i never worry about being behind on score on arabia, bc i know thats pure water score.
keep up
Make a best halberdiers video🎉
24 mins!!! New HIGH SCORE
I just realise how absurd sheep scouting is 😂
Short answer yes, long answer yes 😅
I get 500 or 600 points behind before castle and just surrender. I know im beat and early. Which is why i have an Elo of around 300. Despite having this for 20 years i never win unless people tank.😂
Score should be hidden
I'm behind in score in real life. Don't ask me how I know
capoooo clap clap
I hate sheep scouting and it's genuinely a reason I prefer to play aoe4
Nah, I like coming from behind until I'm on top.
What?
cringe
@@thebobman69 Virgin