AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

[gamevideo113]

I think he is talking about CM @lordraphael

In my opinion if decks had 30 cards you would already be able to perform any strategy with it and have some lategame back up eco cards. What i find more limiting is actually the max 10 cards per age, as some civs have many good cards stacked in the same age (eg spain has vills, unction, crates, unit upgrades, units, advanced armory etc in age2, sometimes i struggle to make them all fit). But if the limit was increased to, e.g.,12 per age, some civs might benefit more than others, so i'm not sure about the hypothetical impact of this change.

I also agree with mitoe. Having 140 cards decks would probably be confusing. In order to have niche card be used more we should buff them if necessary. I like the idea of having potentially infinite possibilities but i also like the concept of decks. After all you can also create infinite decks, and choosing a good/appropriate deck is also something that makes a good player good.

[_H2O]

Show hidden quotes

Having every option available would prove broken and benefit some civs more than others.

how?

I'm not sure if it would truly be broken, but it would definitely benefit some civs more than others in certain situations.

For example:

Say you're playing Germany; with the deck system it is simply not worth it to have economic upgrades in your deck because you risk sacrificing your mid-game, which is where Germany is strongest.

Now, your opponent is playing Iroquois. A civ whose military could arguably compete with yours in the mid-game.
...

Sure but this would have very little impact in real games, let alone be broken. Any impact it does have is positive the way I see it. As you said it improves scaling for civs which often only focus on the early game. That way you get less of a disparity between civs when it comes to scaling. That disparity is one of this game's bigger flaws imo. Early game civs may actually have a follow-up if their timing doesn't work. This can only be good for the game imo, especially considering the average game is increasing in length.

Exactly, there are unintended consequences to any change. We should approach any suggested changes cautiously and look for how we will break or make things worse. I am all for making changes, but when you recommend a change you need to have answers to all of those kinds of questions.

Lol classic Ryan post. Gotta ask what's your actual opinion on the change?

I have one deck for most games I play. I dont think decks are an issue.

It might be worth upping the card limit to 30 and keeping the ages capped at 10 cards.

[Goodspeed]

I know it's not an issue but the point is attracting players who think it is.

[gamevideo113]

There is only so much you can do for that though. If a player dislikes decks he most likely has very little experience and understanding of decks so i'm not sure if it is wise to change something for someone who isn't even actually interested. Generally criticism about this for aoe3 comes in a mix-mash of statements about cards, decks and experience as a whole, i don't think that changing decks alone would make a lot of people look differently at AoE3. We surely need new players but i don't know if we should look for them among those who dislike the decks/cards/experience system. Saying that it has been reworked by removing leveling should already be a good enough incentive for many players to try the game again and actually understand the card system as it is (and it is good ). If they still don't want to give it a chance, there is not much we can do.

[EAGLEMUT]

@Goodspeed It seems to me you're trying to fix an issue that doesn't exist in the first place. The top complaints I've seen around are asking for removal of the leveling system or removal of cards altogether (which is obviously bad).
I don't believe deck removal is an attractive change that would bring in more players.

[Jaeger]

I think many people are too proud to put this card in their deck. This card is just OP when your TC is on top of the last food on the map and then suddenly that position becomes unattackable omce you ship that card.

i disagree not that card but the other card is OP. Why people always talk about that card if the should be using this card instead.

Quote it helps.

I don't understand

[martinspjuth]

2) I disagree about building rotation being included. I know that this is a controversial point within the community, but I actually strongly disagree with the sentiment that "It adds another line of depth to the game with regards to base defence and simcitying": If anything, I think it actually removes a degree of depth from base-building, as you no longer have to think as much about where or how you place your buildings, you simply rotate them into the most advantageous position regardless of the situation.

Building rotation is great for scenario building and singleplayer, but I personally believe it has no place in competitive play.

I want to add that for treaty, and especially nr55 building rotation is quite important. When you are trying to keep 200/200 pop constantly you need a lot of training facilities in a small area, the rotator helps with that. On some maps, for example orinoco where nr55 is most popular, not using the rotator to build your base create a much larger probability for bad pathing and stuck units.

Having the rotator doesn't make balance (or whatever reason you have for not wanting it) much worse, if at all, for standard play. But it does help the part of the community that plays treaty, and especially nr55. Even though nr55 players ain't a big part of ESOC, they are still a decent part of the AOE3 community, please consider them too.

Also I don't see how this can be right: "I think it actually removes a degree of depth from base-building, as you no longer have to think as much about where or how you place your buildings, you simply rotate them into the most advantageous position regardless of the situation."

With rotator you get more choices where and how to put down your buildings, should create more thinking and variety than without, where you simply just have a few choices where to put them. There are still restrictions for building placements, in fact the restirctions are the same, only with rotator you can rotate the buildings to avoid more of the restrictions (trees, water, cliffs or what ever it is), creating more possibilities and options, i.e INCREASING the dept of base-building.

I also would like to add it would be great if settlers could stop moving on mills/plantations (then resourse gathering efficiency would be less vulnerable to lagg). Or at least stop settlers from getting stuck in them (and hunts stuck in mines).

[deadrising78]

@Goodspeed It seems to me you're trying to fix an issue that doesn't exist in the first place. The top complaints I've seen around are asking for removal of the leveling system or removal of cards altogether (which is obviously bad).
I don't believe deck removal is an attractive change that would bring in more players.

This. Dont fix it if it isnt broken.

[_H2O]

I know it's not an issue but the point is attracting players who think it is.

I think the issue is in the requirement to level up to build decks, not the decks or even the cards themselves. I think if they rebranded the deck and cards to another name and made them all unlocked always that solves any issues people had.

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed It seems to me you're trying to fix an issue that doesn't exist in the first place. The top complaints I've seen around are asking for removal of the leveling system or removal of cards altogether (which is obviously bad).
I don't believe deck removal is an attractive change that would bring in more players.

While HC levels has been the top complaint, my experience has been different. Players most often seem to complain about:
- Cards being unlocked with HC levels
- Being locked into a certain playstyle before the game starts
- Balance

And while the top complaint is not all that important to the more serious players, the bottom two are. Among them is one we can fix by removing decks.
But it's clearly unpopular.

[Likansing]

I did not read the full post for this topic, so maybe I will say something someone did already or maybe not.
The first thing I can image that will be very nice to have on next AOE is a feature in the game support tourney management. Like I can create a tourney, people can join and the game can manage it, its results, etc like the community does. Also, keep records of tourney results, champinhon, etc...

[gamevideo113]

While HC levels has been the top complaint, my experience has been different. Players most often seem to complain about:
- Being locked into a certain playstyle before the game starts

Is it true though thast decks lock you into one strategy? This complaint often comes from people who haven't really played the game all that much. I wouldn't consider it valid criticism, unlike balance (possibly) and HC levels. I also often hear that AoE3 is just unit shipment spam and who spams the most wins, but it's not a good reason to remove unit shipments
If decks has 28-30 cards they would be able to contain enough cards for any stage of the game, if anything we should look into this change imo.

[Goodspeed]

While HC levels has been the top complaint, my experience has been different. Players most often seem to complain about:
- Being locked into a certain playstyle before the game starts

Is it true though thast decks lock you into one strategy?

No but that doesn't really matter if the people who think it is true never even try the game because of it. Besides the change would be good for the game imo. But I seem to be one of the few who thinks this.

[yemshi]

It creates more confusion than anything.

[gamevideo113]

While HC levels has been the top complaint, my experience has been different. Players most often seem to complain about:
- Being locked into a certain playstyle before the game starts

Is it true though thast decks lock you into one strategy?

No but that doesn't really matter if the people who think it is true never even try the game because of it. Besides the change would be good for the game imo. But I seem to be one of the few who thinks this.

If people are biased without even trying the game then it's not the game's fault in my opinion. Sadly there is not much you can do about it unless you want to radically alter the game and make this big change your selling point. I am still convinced though that as an alternative game mode it could be very interesting, and maybe it would even benefit the game, but it's hard to evaluate

[Aizamk]

@Goodspeed

While the "removal of a cap on the number of cards you can select from in a given age", or even just increasing the limit to 30, is certainly an interesting idea, it would probably change the game too much, and require a lot of re-balancing.

For example, one of the reasons why Japan is perfectly comfortable with <staying in II while their opponent goes III>, or <engaging in a prolonged age II war>, is (aside from their mini factories and practically unraidable food source) their x2 card mechanic. This means that in a war of attrition in age II, at some point their opponent runs out cards to send, while Japan has maybe 4+ that are still usable. That can make a big difference.

I actually encountered this kind of situation a lot in nilla. Namely, the 20 card system meant that in the long age II skirmishes that are synonymous with evenly-matched nilla scrub matches, resources on the map eventually run out and you end up with 4 cards stacked up that you aren't able to use, unless you had the great foresight to put 300 wood in your deck.

Well I mean it'd still be an interesting option to explore for a new game mode, though.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

While HC levels has been the top complaint, my experience has been different. Players most often seem to complain about:
- Being locked into a certain playstyle before the game starts

Is it true though thast decks lock you into one strategy?

No but that doesn't really matter if the people who think it is true never even try the game because of it. Besides the change would be good for the game imo. But I seem to be one of the few who thinks this.

If people are biased without even trying the game then it's not the game's fault in my opinion.

It can be the game's fault but I would agree it's not in this case. Either way the only way to do anything about it is to remove or change aspects of the game those people found problematic. The "if you all don't like it just stay away" attitude doesn't work when trying to gain players. The (potential) customer is king and all that.

@Aizamk I know it would have an impact but I'm not at all convinced it would be major. Some slight rebalancing would probably be preferable, especially with changes to the cards, but not necessary.
Yes one of the reasons Japan is comfortable staying colonial is the 2x mechanic, but it's a very minor reason. If that was removed, I can't imagine any scenario where Japan would opt to age where they now wouldn't. There are other, much more significant reasons Japan tends to stay colonial.
Anyway if this slightly encourages more colonial-focused play, I again see that as a positive rather than a negative. Also, keep in mind there are only so many good cards per age. You may still have cards to send, but not good ones.

Anyway yeah it would work as an alt game mode.

[Likansing]

Adding more suggestion to the original post from @Interjection

Other Suggestions from the community

- Add feature to enable players to talk each other (it should have the capability to be enabled/disabled as per player decision during the game)
- Add feature to build an online tourney where admin of tourney can:
# assign others players as Admin as well of tourney, with full rights or it can be selected on the game by original adm to define other Admin rights, will be used to have more people to support on manage the tourney
# Define number of player on tourney (maximim for example)
# Registration due date
# Player level (minimum required)
# Tourney format definition (like brackts, elimination phase, and number of matches during the toureny phases
# Maps definition (including brackets and elimination phase and definition on possible maps on which touney phase
# Match schedule (to be define buy players bedore matchup (it can be nice to facilitate match schedule and OBS) - Also visible to all other players after agreed. But need to have a re-schedule option, that can be used if needed by the players that will play that match.
# Link to other player have access to game record from tourney matches
# definition on 1v1, 2v2, etc, tourney type
# Definition on civ pick range (if desired can be setup for some specific civs or just all)
# Tourney history maybe the saved as a historical information
# Another feature to tourney may be a Clan tourney metodology, like we can define the can participation size (like 5 players per clan, etc.) then schedule matches betwenn clans - matches can be chosen by clan on agreement on selected by each one every other game to define who will fight who)
- Add the OBS feature to enable viewers
- Add better UI (like the amaizing one from Aizamk) to Viewers when OBS. Will be nice to see it for recorded games as well. All UI feaures from Aizamk UI.
- Remove the PR reduction wen player have not played for some time. Player military patent will not go down because player was not playng for a while.
- I liked the idea that PR will move up on matchmaking only - it will avoid combined matches to raized up level
- Player introcution: It mean a player can upload a quick/small video to introduct himself - feature to use it should be avaialble to be changed
- Please do not change the game style too much... I like AEO because it is simple, like couple military unit facilities and unit types
- Add a feature to a player share screen. Nice to explain / learning

[kami_ryu]

Do we know anything definitive about release and so forth?

[Dsy]

I know it's not an issue but the point is attracting players who think it is.

You are just wrong in this question in almost every detials.

You basicly want to remove deck making option from the game to gain popularity. But if you just check some really famous games (i guess all know at least one) you will see some people actually love deck making aspects. They love so much that they play some games only for that.

And the other thing that gamevideo mentioned: only those people complain who are biased and havent even really played the game. I dont know any person who played a lot with aoe3 who didnt love deck making option. They always were hyped and asked me what cards do they need. There are even several discussion on this forum on which cards fit in the deck aswell.
Its like if 100 people wants to kill 10 innicents and 50 dont want and you say the more popular option should be chosen. Its completely wrong. Listen to those people who can build cool stuffs even if they less than who those cant. We need to looking for value instead of popularity. And until that there is a value to fight for.
Without creating any value its a dead end.

[EAGLEMUT]

Do we know anything definitive about release and so forth?

No. The only definitive thing we know about this edition is that it's definitive.

[Goodspeed]

I know it's not an issue but the point is attracting players who think it is.

You are just wrong in this question in almost every detials.

You basicly want to remove deck making option from the game to gain popularity. But if you just check some really famous games (i guess all know at least one) you will see some people actually love deck making aspects. They love so much that they play some games only for that.

AoE3 isn't Hearthstone. More generally, an RTS isn't a cardgame.

[zoom]

I know it's not an issue but the point is attracting players who think it is.

You are just wrong in this question in almost every detials.

You basicly want to remove deck making option from the game to gain popularity. But if you just check some really famous games (i guess all know at least one) you will see some people actually love deck making aspects. They love so much that they play some games only for that.

AoE3 isn't Hearthstone. More generally, an RTS isn't a cardgame.

Do you really have to be a dick just because we're talking about a deck?

[supernapoleon]

What did they respond?

[Imperial Noob]

What did they respond?

what? u drunk?