What do you guys think of indirectly nerfing archers by buffing skirms?

I don't know if it's just me, but my game has turned into "Full Archer Rush Simulator 2" and I hate it. It's not even that it's unbeatable or anything, it just gets extremely repetitive and sometimes downright amazing. I mean, I'm talking I could counter-push with 40 skirms and some infantry, us that infantry to kill every single archery range they have, and the response will be "well I guess I should make MORE ARCHERS" as they build 40 more ranges in the back of their base, as if the only sensible solution is to mass so many archers they can kill my skirms.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I probably lose 50% of the time because I so often win an encounter, raid their eco and then think "surely he wouldn't be stupid enough to keep massing archers," I stick to the skirm army I have, and then omg the dude legit did nothing but mass archers for the next 10 mins and he's counter pushing with it. Yes I have 40 skirms but he has 90 friggin' archers and once he wins this encounter, I will never out-produce him on skirms again. I find this absolutely infuriating because the winning strat seems to be blindly massing skirms, to the point you think to yourself you're stupidly crippling your own eco by investing in what is a completely worthless unit if it's not facing massed archers or massed pikes. It demands a blind leap of faith into massed skirms that, if your opponent simply tech switches, you're EQUALLY fucked. Yes, I can accept it's my fault if I continue to think "SURELY they're not that one-dimensional," but I also think it's time to acknowledge a flaw if being that one-dimensional can actually work as a strat.

I miss playing games that didn't go through a pattern of mass archers ----> mix in onagers to stop skirms OR forward castle ---> rush imp for trebs. I miss legit anything else: infantry rush, cavalry rush....ffs even tower rushes are feeling like a treat now. It's also frustrating in the sense I get the vibe I could jump 200 ELO if I no-lifed Ethiopia since they beat 90% of archer civs at that game, but I also hate the idea of simply selling out to such a strat to succeed, yknow? I'd prefer learning different strats and styles and not going hurrdurr archer and nothing but.

So what if alternatively, they dropped either the skirmisher food cost or made skirms produce faster?

DE had the side-effect where archers are stronger than ever due to pathing. This isn't a flawed design with archers, but rather a flawed design elsewhere that indirectly buffs archers. So why not indirectly nerf them aswell to make things even? What if skirms costed 5 less food? What if they took 17 seconds to produce instead of 22.

A big issue with skirms is half the time it feels like a better solution is to meet an archer rush with your own archers instead of skirms, precisely because skirms cost food, and thus someone archer rushing you can indirectly put you behind in the eco game just by going archers. If Skirms were dirt cheap on food, this makes them more appealing.

It just feels like archers have too much going for them, both in terms of raw firepower and their economical effects (aka costs their creator 0 food, but the counter units all cost food)

What do you guys think?