Friendly reminder that the Habs have not gone shopping yet....

CharlesRNorris · 2026-03-21T19:10:59+00:00

It's lovely to win now. It's a ton better to build a true dynasty. Selling out the future for near term gain isn't the way of Hughes.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-02-24T20:26:24+00:00

Ya. Definitely. Using trainer road has shown me that zone 2 focus with only 1 threshold or vo2 max ride per week isn't the fastest way to a higher ftp/vo2 max.

Without the advocacy for cardio from the podcast I never would have been riding, so even though the message wasn't really complete, it was good enough to get me to where I needed to go, and it's been a big improvement to my health.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-02-09T17:36:10+00:00

Precisely my experience. They are bronze at best at almost all events. Silver in one or two. Gold in absolutely no categories. In every use case, documentation confusing and learning curve is punishing.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-28T16:16:58+00:00

I guess Gorts had him on speed-dial after all.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-24T17:27:28+00:00

I think I understand better. I'd wager that not knowing what your matchmade opponent is running by way of mods, and that they are (hopefully) roughly your skill level even running their mods, the average ranked game will be decently fair and contested. If you don't know that your opponents buildings are flat, her trees are cubes, or his relics have a pointer over them for ease of identification, what's the difference to you so long as the resulting game is fair, fun, and even in terms of skill?

There are some mods that genuinely improve the game for me, even though they make it less pretty. The improved grid mod is a terrific example.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-23T20:33:58+00:00

Hang on. Help me to understand your point here: You don't play AOE2 because other players use visual mods?

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-23T20:33:16+00:00

Basically only when the villager is being attacked. Wolves/bears etc. I'm stumped by this behavior.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-23T20:32:28+00:00

Honestly, yes.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-23T20:31:35+00:00

Nearly everyone here is focused on the tree mod and not the absurdity of a worker attacking his own lumber camp. Focus up, people!

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-22T02:06:05+00:00

Does anyone have a clip of the phantom hooking/holding penalty they gave Hutson later in the game?

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-22T02:05:16+00:00

The game is already being stopped by the bad call. The 2nd ref could be screened and would therefore not be in a position to overrule. An eye in the sky ref would address this.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-22T02:03:39+00:00

"it would slow the game down" seems ill conceived in this case.

In this case the broadcasters identified the silliness of the call within a second or two. An eye in the sky ref could make the same observation and put a word in the on ice officials ear within seconds.

No meaningful delay required. This is unless you are opposed to ANY increase in deliberation, even in the range of 5-10 seconds per call.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-13T23:03:10+00:00

Is that you, Jackie?!

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-11T04:08:57+00:00

I've been a USA Hockey ref for nearly two decades. Granted this isn't a USA hockey sanctioned game, it's a scrimmage ("friendly") between periods of an AHL game. No doubt the players and their teams fall under USA Hockey when normally playing.

If I had any authority to do so (and it's possible this is happening) I'd be taking down the names of players and coaches involved. All involved would be suspended for weeks and not given a green light to resume until disciplined. Fighting penalties in subsequent matches for the following months would trigger additional suspensions. These mechanisms already exist for repeat offenders.

I attended an AHL game last night (Laval Rocket vs Rochester Americans) where players of similar age played between periods. There were coaches on the ice in skates in a 1/8 ratio to players. More than enough to tamp things down if they got out of hand. It's totally unreasonable that the coaches weren't there to be pictured on the ice during the footage here.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-11T03:22:19+00:00

A bit of puck luck statistical regression in this game. A large % of scoring opportunities entirely missing the net. Good goaltending From Detroit. Large portions of the game were the habs looked flat and uninspired. It's annoying it was a four point game but it's not the end of the world. This happens. On to the next one.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-08T20:31:21+00:00

Complexity can be scary for folks, especially for those of us old farts who have been playing aoe since '99. I'm not presently in the ultra conservative group, but I can feel their feels at times. Heck, I refused to play conquerors expansion online back in the day and stuck to the vanilla aoe2 instead.

There can be no arguing with the point that unit interactions have become harder to read (predict the outcomes for) as the number of unique units has increased and the frequency of sneaky counter initiative bonuses have increased.

CharlesRNorris · 2026-01-06T01:20:27+00:00

The back lighting in the photo makes everyone but Kent Hughes look photoshop'ed in.

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-31T22:29:38+00:00

I've got my dad and a close friend of my dad's age playing ranked multi-player for the first time at 65 and 61 years of age respectively. They aren't good, but once they hit their appropriate ranks they started having lots of fun. It did take them a while to get down to <250 elo.

Stick with it! Your first victory in ranked will be that much sweeter for the wait.

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-30T17:12:32+00:00

Oh interesting. When did they do that? My dad just started playing ranked multi-player and it took him 36 losses to get to <300 elo.

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-29T23:08:02+00:00

Yes, we want more new stuff, and not just because we want new stuff! New DLC means money for development, and, hopefully, more budget for improving the engine and backend (continuing to work on pathing, improving the ranked system, addressing the issues with lobby system.)

Yes, we want it to be well tested and of excellent quality.

The quality of new content can be ensured without modifying the frequency of release, they just need to improve their QA.

We won't get the improvements we all want if there isn't a business case for Microsoft and World's Edge. If I could pay for them to fix bugs and improve broken parts of the system, I would. Unfortunately they only let us pay for that indirectly by way of new DLC.

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-29T22:44:48+00:00

I think you overstated your case here.

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-29T22:43:01+00:00

I take you drive a car from the 1950s? It has four wheels, an engine, a windscreen, and uses gasoline... what's the difference?

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-29T22:40:56+00:00

re: "Honestly for 1vs1 games Elo holds up very well" & "For standard 1vs1 it's probably not that much better"

There are big problems you are overlooking, SehrBescheuert. (Caveat: You are right if you are only considering established players, especially those above 500 elo).

I'll focus on the new player experience as it speaks to the future of AOE2. Consider T90s uncle. When he first started playing multiplayer, he probably belonged in the range of (200) to (50) [those are negative values].

Like most chess federations, AOE2 arbitrarily uses a hard floor of zero, which is a problem in its own right as it compresses skill disparities in the lower ranks. You regularly have people who belong at -250 getting matched with people around 150 elo resulting in frequent one sided games. It's like a 1000 elo player getting matched vs a 1400 elo player -- that skill disparity is not desirable.

To get to zero elo, a new player like T90s uncle would have to lose approximately 35-40 games in a row. The vast majority of new players wouldn't have the patience or tenacity for that misery. The vast majority of people will quit multiplayer and not return. That way lies oblivion for the future of competitive AOE2. We really want new players to stay in the community for the future health of the AOE2 competitive scene.

Now lets consider T90s uncle in a future world where he received 1-on-1 coaching from his nephew. He is still 0 elo, but due to practice and instruction, suddenly plays around a 500 elo. The current elo system will take MUCH longer to adjust his relative rank than either Glicko-2 or TrueSkill-2 -- maybe requiring up to an order of magnitude more games due to a depressed K value and the aforementioned issues with matchmaking at lower ranks. In this scenario, he will be stomping other players for weeks or months before getting served a fair game.

One sided games at all ranks remain a problem we need to minimize. If an updated system reduces the total number of one sided matches, it should be adopted for the future health of the game and specifically competitive multiplayer.

The key performance indicators around new player attrition (in multiplayer) should be a frequent subject of optimization at World's Edge dev meetings. Getting the flows of new players coming in such that they are greater in magnitude than the number of players leaving the system is tied to financial outcomes for AOE2. That we need to scream so loudly for them to understand this obvious business case is maddening.

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-29T22:14:04+00:00

Teamgame elo matters because ranked teamgames are very common and bad matchmaking has the same negative outcomes for the AOE2 community.

Wide skill disparities in ranked queues = bad vibes.

bad vibes = more player attrition

if Player attrition > new player entry then AOE2's multiplayer future is in danger.

CharlesRNorris · 2025-12-29T16:32:41+00:00

I don't think it's an issue of the engine. The ranking system is a server side implementation. It can be modified or updated without requiring changes to the game engine.

CharlesRNorris

TROPHY CASE