You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.109 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Why Set Isn't A Problem (Facts)
Topic Subject:Why Set Isn't A Problem (Facts)
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4  Next Page »
posted 23 April 2003 00:00 AM EDT (US)         
I ran across a great point that forumer:

LKS_Cyanide wrote on MFO :

Quoted From LKS_Cyanide:

"Why SET isn't a problem. Part II.

Civilization Win Pct Games Used
Zeus 44% 13,254 12%
Hades 46% 11,094 10%
Poseidon 52% 12,114 11%
Greek 47% 36,462 32%

Isis 50% 11,234 10%
Ra 44% 4,496 4%
Set 55% 10,500 9%
Egyptian 51% 26,230 23%

Odin 53% 16,412 14%
Thor 51% 13,815 12%
Loki 51% 21,039 18%
Norse 51% 51,266 45%

Source: April 20, 2003 (WEEKLY STAT QUERIE)

As you can see, the winning percentage for SET is 55%, however, only 9% of all those who play, choose Set. If anything, check out the Norse. 53% for Odin...and it's being played by people who are considerably less skilled than those who are playing SET. (As evidenced by the 14% of those who are playing that civ.)

If anything, the evidence suggests that ODIN is more overpowered than SET is.

A good explanation would be that for ODIN to grab early map control, all he has to do is send his Ulfie forward and not get detected. For SET to grab early map control, well, it requires a hell of a lot more micro'ing.

What about the accusations that only the top 20 players are all SET? Well, let's take a look at the PROOF, shall we?

Top 25 Avg 1736 90% 15 16:19 5:43 12:43 21:17 4.73 7.72 8.09 6.32 0.11 Set (22%) 2003-04-20
1. KGB_Skipper 1761 94% 17 14:33 6:00 11:34 19:12 4.73 7.35 6.91 7.55 0.10 Isis (59%) 2003-04-20
2. ZM_YouLose 1750 100% 17 15:51 6:54 11:43 19:40 4.10 6.28 6.90 3.81 0.13 Set (100%) 2003-04-20
3. FOPT_Trial273 1749 100% 14 14:16 5:05 13:16 21:19 4.92 7.85 8.74 6.57 0.15 Loki (100%) 2003-04-20
4. IamWalker 1748 60% 28 22:09 5:47 12:08 27:02 4.48 7.65 8.55 6.43 0.10 Set (64%) 2003-04-20
5. KGB_Brim 1743 93% 16 15:22 5:47 13:30 22:21 4.46 6.64 7.89 6.24 0.08 Isis (50%) 2003-04-20
6. SethTraining 1743 100% 14 13:32 5:49 12:05 16:59 4.40 7.99 7.35 4.27 0.08 Set (100%) 2003-04-20
7. Schattendrache 1741 86% 15 15:53 5:27 11:47 21:48 4.28 8.08 7.67 5.10 0.07 Ra (67%) 2003-04-20
8. BPSK 1736 93% 16 16:15 5:15 12:27 14:42 5.40 8.29 10.35 6.64 0.12 Thor (100%) 2003-04-20
9. Skipper_TBE 1735 100% 12 13:27 5:52 12:08 17:34 4.80 7.26 5.87 6.69 0.17 Zeus (67%) 2003-04-18
10. limpbizkit_com 1735 89% 19 13:43 5:29 19:38 23:31 4.25 5.50 7.30 6.43 0.15 Thor (79%) 2003-04-20
11. Zg_GoBo 1734 94% 19 15:50 5:34 12:51 21:50 4.98 8.42 8.09 6.99 0.10 Isis (37%) 2003-04-19
12. Anne_Nurmi_be 1733 100% 16 18:53 6:30 13:30 23:21 5.04 8.89 8.88 7.32 0.11 Set (75%) 2003-04-18
13. L_Clan_MuambA 1733 100% 11 13:30 5:15 12:05 16:24 4.15 5.30 8.46 5.44 0.10 Thor (100%) 2003-04-20
14. TSoW_Yang 1732 73% 19 21:36 5:32 13:41 22:54 5.43 9.37 9.32 6.99 0.10 Pos (68%) 2003-04-20
15. SysRq 1732 100% 12 14:00 5:47 12:04 16:15 4.17 6.91 6.57 4.94 0.08 Pos (17%) 2003-04-18
16. L_Clan_XP 1732 100% 12 11:40 5:13 12:37 0:00 4.34 7.28 6.28 5.65 0.11 Odin (67%) 2003-04-20
17. IamYaMa 1731 100% 9 16:06 5:17 11:06 16:47 4.69 6.36 7.65 6.73 0.11 Thor (56%) 2003-04-20
18. camarapa 1730 87% 8 16:32 5:19 13:28 24:03 5.04 7.05 8.25 8.50 0.12 Thor (88%) 2003-04-20
19. Twist_Of_Fate 1729 92% 13 16:54 5:39 15:06 19:27 4.00 5.97 6.41 5.52 0.11 Odin (46%) 2003-04-20
20. Qu4rTz 1729 100% 9 20:51 6:06 12:15 23:31 5.38 8.78 8.99 7.53 0.12 Set (44%) 2003-04-19
21. Caliss_ST 1728 91% 24 19:45 6:06 10:50 20:39 5.61 9.90 10.91 6.42 0.12 Ra (79%) 2003-04-19
22. ArgoNaut_ZenZin_ 1728 60% 20 16:01 5:14 14:56 21:16 4.64 8.11 7.12 6.49 0.13 Odin (80%) 2003-04-20
23. BORN_TO_KlLL 1727 100% 11 11:23 5:21 13:09 23:10 4.67 8.01 7.05 5.50 0.11 Odin (100%) 2003-04-20
24. BaMBOoFoReST 1727 100% 10 14:16 5:33 15:27 26:17 4.25 6.86 7.19 6.62 0.04 Pos (100%) 2003-04-19
25. Andy2k3 1727 100% 10 13:56 5:35 13:32 0:00 4.27 6.83 5.73 6.45 0.09 Pos (100%) 2003-04-20

Source: (WEEKLY QUIRIE), April 20, 2003.

22% of all games played in the top 25 ARE SET. Well, well, that *could* explain the 55% winning rate of SET in the grand totals. Only FOUR of the top 25 are persistant SET players. In fact, there are more THOR (5) Whores than there are SET whores. Odin too has quite the following.

I think the mass stats speak for themselves. If anything, maybe RA or ISIS need to be given the Dr. Doolittle Ability too!

Other notes: Greeks continue to Suffer. RA has been decimated (4% utilization!) however, the ISIS revival lives on! "

Now, I didn't write this but I would say the evidence is convincing.

[This message has been edited by JetSolo (edited 04-23-2003 @ 00:04 AM).]

posted 25 April 2003 02:12 PM EDT (US)     91 / 109       

Please "Read" the Aetius thread "What to do about this",,,all&st=150
I told them why I believed that the "Poseidon" player lost the game.

Shortly there after, eveyone stoped posting.

To Start Out

Why was this game even blown up to what it had been? I'd expect more out of the game with all the hype that has been going on. Co_Co(Set Player) is so much better then the Poseidon Player. You can see that in the small things that happen in the game, the way "CO CO" (Set) Walls in all of his towers with Houses and he even goes so far as to keep on doing it. The Poseidon player on the other hand just let the rhino's outside his base get converted without a fight.
If you look at the game carefully, The Set player had an enourmous amount of things going on at one time or another. Whether it's "Micro'ing " 3 priests and also the "4" Scouts , plus the economy and the pharoe.
It was an excellant game of what a great player is capable of doing. Notice how much work Set had to do in the little things such as "remembering" to spam out monkeys and move them to scout.

Poseidon Errors, Ways The Game Could Have Changed

The Set player was just better skilled then Poseidon in all aspects. So here are just a few things that could have helped the "Poseidon" player alot.


Why didnt Poseidon build Houses around his Towers?? Did he just not feel like doing the extra Micro'ing? This one thing, could have held off the enemy longer then the cease fire and the villies could have been safe in there (Providing a higher attack). The towers were not even upgraded to become of use.

Poseidon flat out, didn't want to even try to play defensively. He left his towers just get taken out and he practicly gave up once he saw Sets army. He lost the fight because he gave up, plain and simple.

Villie Micro

At the start of the battle, Set had only 3 spears and around 7 rhino's. If you look closely, the Poseidon player directed his "Villie Arrow Fire" at 2 animals and then both of them died. 2 Rhino's died within the spam of about 7 seconds. Once "Serpents" was called, Poseidon just "Gave Up" on microing his villies to take out the Rhino's. He didn't even do "Retreat and Attack" - Attacks.

It's so simple, Tower Fire + Villie Fire + TC Fire Power + Hippokins and Archers...would have ended or stalled the animal attack. Poseidon just gave up micro'ing the villagers and let the "Set" player build more of an army.

Building Placement

Besides the error of not building houses around the towers, Poseidon made another costly mistake. Poseidon positioned his army buildings too far from Tc Fire and Not even close to the towers (For extra HP , to protect the Towers). Putting the military buildings on the inside of the Tower part would have held those buildings up longer.
The Poseidon player didnt even anticipate that Set would have an army of "Animals" at the start. He just keeped on making the "Hippokins" to take out "High Hack" armor animals. He also just had 2 military buildings up, and didn't even care to make more during the battle. If he isn't going to micro his villies well in battle then I suggest he make toxotes and prepare his economy for that.

Scouting For What's Ahead

Set was controling up to 5 Scouts at one point in time , whereas Poseidon had only 1. That's 1 scout to pay attention to which he didn't. Poseidon didn't even bother to check for a Forward Base (What Set usualy does). This is like playing against Loki and not even looking for a FORWARD BASE. It's just ridiculous how this Poseidon player played, he didn't anticipate or react accordingly.

The Overview

As much as you guys disagree, this is no different then the Loki Hersir Rush. You may complain as long as you want, but untill you realise your mistakes, can you become a better person. This player was simply outskilled by a "Smurf" and it could have been countered a lot better. Poseidon failed to realise that he might be attacked early and this cost him the game. His poor micro skills are apparent when the towers arn't even seen upgraded, or surrounded. The villies are left alone and he doesn't use half the villies to attack.

Now for the flaming which you will all do.

Remember that I have my opinion on what went on during the game. I believe it could have been countered and that Set played a great game. By simply flaming me, you prove that you have no point and you're here to simply be rude. I will *ignore* all such posts that simply flame me and don't talk about the game.


posted 25 April 2003 02:14 PM EDT (US)     92 / 109       
Zeus is currently the weakest god. Look at his win percentage, it is the lowest one - lower than Ra's and Hades.

ESO nick: NerVe_Pierce
Proud member of NerVe Clan
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
posted 26 April 2003 06:11 AM EDT (US)     93 / 109       
If we assume set is overpowered as you say, when in the hands of certain people and on certain maps. This would only account for maybe 5% of the online community.

My fear is that if set is nerfed to the point it is balanced at this level then what about the other 95% of the people. It will become underpowered and nobody will play him (except the 5% of people who find it has become balanced).

Currently (weekly stats on holbert) there are twice as many people playing Loki(18%), the most popular civ, as are playing set(9%). I hate to think how many will play with him if he gets nerfed. Less variety can only be bad for the game.

Ignorance is never an excuse for not having and opinion
I don't want to alarm anyone, but it's time to panic

ESO names: au_skeuu; skeuu;
posted 26 April 2003 03:18 PM EDT (US)     94 / 109       


currently (weekly stats on holbert) there are twice as many people playing Loki(18%), the most popular civ, as are playing set(9%). I hate to think how many will play with him if he gets nerfed. Less variety can only be bad for the game.

Exactly, more civs = more fun

posted 26 April 2003 04:15 PM EDT (US)     95 / 109       
there's also the people who play a civ cause he is "fun". I played only norse first (since the alpha) cause norse are original, different, and just fun. And since most players don't care about if a civ is overpowered or not, those numbers don't really show teh truth I think. If you could pick out 1800+ and check the stats for them only, it'd be a whole different concept, since those players almost always care about how good a civ is.
posted 26 April 2003 11:40 PM EDT (US)     96 / 109       
winning = fun,
loosing = not fun

Ignorance is never an excuse for not having and opinion
I don't want to alarm anyone, but it's time to panic

ESO names: au_skeuu; skeuu;
posted 26 April 2003 11:55 PM EDT (US)     97 / 109       
I don't think there should be an all out nerf on Set because more experienced players have worked out how to get the most out of his advantages. IMO Set is not the kind of god which you can follow a fairly simplistic build order and get instant results... there needs to be a degree of skill there to begin with.

This reminds me of situations in Everquest. An uber guild would go into a zone and work out a way to own all the monsters and get alot of items that were supposed to be rare and hard to aquire. So VI's reaction was to patch that zone so that all the monsters were even harder than before and the items even rarer. Sure, it made it more difficult for uber guilds to get loads of l33t items, but it made it damn near impossible for plebs like me to set more than 5 steps into the zone without getting killed.

posted 26 April 2003 11:56 PM EDT (US)     98 / 109       
I beg to differ, some stupid strats are fun (ie villie rush, tower rush)
posted 27 April 2003 00:50 AM EDT (US)     99 / 109       
Even without nerfing, the Ra FH would probably be an almost dead strat now, because people were picking up on how to beat it... Hence the reason the Loki rush became so popular. Each civ. is going to have its own little "age". hopefuly they are not as long as they used to be anymore.
posted 27 April 2003 07:03 AM EDT (US)     100 / 109       
I think this is something most of you can agree with (even Jetsolo ):

It's harder to play AS set, but it's also harder to play AGAINST a set (if the enemy is any good).

This makes him a very weak god for newbies (can't handle the micromanaging), a mediocre god, like any other, at a higher level, but at a level where microing is a second nature, set's overpowered BECAUSE he's harder to play against.

The real discussion should IMHO be at what level he's overpowerd, not if he's overpowered.

Ohmigod, fancy colour fading!
I blame these purple things.
GFWL: NilePenguin

[This message has been edited by DarkFlame (edited 04-27-2003 @ 07:04 AM).]

The Golden Arm
posted 27 April 2003 07:09 AM EDT (US)     101 / 109       
Looking at Set, it would be hard to Nerf him, and make him playable at all levels. The problem with set is, he needs to be in the right hands to do any good, its not like a rook can go set and skyrocket himself to 1900, if a rook picks up set, its utterly useless, and he will get creamed. But in the hands of an Expert, hes IS overpowered. Must be a real hard job for ES to fix.

ESO =AoA_Disarm_,pR150n_53X
Other Nicks IamDisarm ,When_Apes_Attack ,Run_With_Scissors ,Testament ,The_Golden_Arm ,
Have no way as way
Have no limitations as limitations - Bruce Lee

posted 27 April 2003 07:29 AM EDT (US)     102 / 109       
I think swinger said somewhere something like set was the hardest civ to balance since he is so radically different.

I think josey came up with it, but why not just remove (or just lower it to a max of 2 or 3) the animal attack in archaic? And from there let it scale like the hersir's attack.

Even though animals is the biggest problem, I think the other eggy civs will still be in trouble since his great slingers are almost impossible to ocunter in early classic (food is much more expensive in early classic than for example wood).

posted 27 April 2003 07:34 AM EDT (US)     103 / 109       
"Even without nerfing, the Ra FH would probably be an almost dead strat now"

its just sad to see that strat die like that >< I wish to play against someone who will use it against me someday.. again!!

ESO: IamHades27

Winner of the least favorite forumer AoMH's award 2002!!
posted 27 April 2003 07:43 AM EDT (US)     104 / 109       
there are a few people who use it. Josey uses it, and I think he's 50-50 with it, so it seems to still be viable, just not in the same way it was in pre 1.03.
posted 27 April 2003 12:13 PM EDT (US)     105 / 109       
It is too bad that ra and zeus are almost NEVER played anymore, but isis and hades are getting popular now. My last 7 games have been against 3 isis, 3 hades and 1 set.

I think that set is overpowered, especially in the hands of an expert, but even with anyone who can micro well and knows the game. People whine that "he's too hard to play and micro" but it's not hard. Vision, shift+click on animals w/ priest, send hyena to scout w/ shift+click, and manage econ normally. BAM! If you got a good vision, you can have 4-5 strong animals in their base by min 3-4. Also you can summon essentially FREE monkeys and SET (pun intended) his econ back and force him to advance by min 7, while you are doing fine and dandy back at home.

Yes JetSolo, i play norse (look at my name and sig). Does that make me a bad person?

ESO Names - Lord_Of_Myth777, SK_DeathWielder
Rating: 1600+
Civs: Thor and Odin since the beginning.
I am the messenger of the gods, heralding the second coming of the Ragnarok
posted 28 April 2003 00:05 AM EDT (US)     106 / 109       
JetSolo makes terrific points. And in several ways, he's right.

I worked with LKS_Cyanide last year on his work on game balance in RTS, and read most of the emails regarding the development of F-C Theory. 'Nide has been thinking about publishing the work at MFO, but it's still exam time and we have a LOT of drinking to do Wednesday.

With respect to JetSolo, we're not even sure that posting 10000 words, heavy on math, and having to explain the basics of game theory is even worth it, as we doubt that the majority of the readers will be able to use it.

Besides, it's easy to reject what you don't understand. Why do you think there are so many conspiracy theories? The Proles eat them up because they're consumable.

Actually, JetSolo, you'd do better not trying to rationalize with these people. They see a few examples of SET winning, hands down, and ignore the plethora of other games available at MFO, or the stats.

One smart guy was able to correct and clarify some of 'Nides work, but that was a MFO.

JetSolo...go to MFO and join the main body of strategists there. Beancounter, Realn, Osiris, Kasa. Just to name a few.

posted 28 April 2003 07:40 AM EDT (US)     107 / 109       


JetSolo makes terrific points. And in several ways, he's right.

What kind of crack are you smoking, and can I have some?

posted 28 April 2003 04:47 PM EDT (US)     108 / 109       
Plutonium, so far your posts have indicated that Set is not overpowered because everyone can't just switch over, grab a build order, and shoot up the rankings. If this were true for players of every skill level, then I would agree.

However, the fact that, in your own post, you talk about Set players above 1725 being able to take advantage of greater micro skills.

Quoted from LKS_Plutonium:

Set requires a lot more skill than Odin, which means that it doesn't return as big 'bang' for your skill buck. You'd have to play 35 games to achieve a 1725 rating with SET, but the same person would prolly only have to play 15 games to reach the same skill level with Odin. However,the capacity to get beyond 1725 with SET is that much higher, because of the ability to push the enveloppe further and benefit from your micro'ing skills that much more.

This seems to indicate that, above a certain level, Set is, in fact, overpowered. If he is overpowered at a certain level, instead of all levels, is he not still overpowered? Please point out if I have misunderstood you or my logic has failed.

I understand that overplayed civs can be considered the most powerful due to the "bang for your buck" theory you mentioned. Set is an example of the opposite (least played); yet there are plenty of people climbing the ladder right now with or near 100% win ratios as Set. That kind of statistic has to have some weight in considering the "overpoweredness" of a civ.

Ever had one of those weeks where making a smurf account would instantly increase your rating?
posted 28 April 2003 06:47 PM EDT (US)     109 / 109       
Obviously, you haven't read very many of jet's previous posts.. One post aetius made about a Possy vs Set game, what to do, One of jetsolo's first posts was about Norse being overpowered. wtf??
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames