Age of Empires 1 Remake

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by lemmings121 »

n0el wrote:I'm afraid that would cost more than that.


its just a streetch, i'm sure assigning one internee to that task wouldnt cost too much, and would bring a huge benefict to the game..

Laurence Drake wrote:
n0el wrote:I'm afraid that would cost more than that.

not if you outsource it to India


or they could do that! haha
Image
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

  • Quote

Post by Dolan »

edeholland wrote:How would you remaster Age of Empires 3? The graphics aren't outdated enough and the multiplayer works fine.

I wouldn't know where to start.

1. Make AOE3 playable on dedicated servers -> this means rewriting the whole game, because the whole game is built around peer-to-peer synching. So it would have to be rewritten to allow client-to-server synching. This would eliminate all lag created by other players. If you lag, it's only on your end, it wouldn't affect anyone else. This, ofc, would mean extra costs for Microsoft to keep game servers up. (Yeah, I know, there is a potential drawback here: they would need regional servers, so, if you want to play with anyone around the world, you have have to join their regional server.) This would also eliminate any OOS issues.

2. Optimise the game engine for multi-threading. Update graphics profiles for integrated GPUs and newer generation GPUs. This means the game would recognise graphic cards easier and wouldn't output so many errors if it didn't recognise a video card.

3. Native observer mode which would run without lag (because native). Make it possible for players to observe a game without being in that game (just like in LoL).

4. Fix pathing issues created by: map tiling system, unit models (units getting stuck in mines) and unit selection issues. Right now unit selection is limited to only 50 units because CPUs back then were much less capable than today. This limit can be increased by modding, but the game lacks the optimisations to properly use more system resources. Sometimes it doesn't even use GPU resources to the maximum. The game was made when video cards had 64MB of video RAM. Video RAM was much more expensive back then, so they wrote the game to run mostly on the CPU.

5. Update the game to support DirectX 12 and Shader model 6.0. AOE3 was written between 2002-2005 to support DirectX 9 and Shader model 2.0. Since then, hardware and software graphics capabilities have increased exponentially. The number of representable triangles in a scene has increased by a few orders of magnitude (we're talking from like 65k triangles to tens of billions). Sound capabilities haven't increased as much as graphics ones, but still, so many sound issues in AOE3 could be solved/improved. And we could have multichannel real surround sound. What about in-game mic integration for team chat? What about game music in FLAC format (instead of MP3, like right now)?

6. Support for seeking forwards and backwards in game recs, as well as for jumping to another time frame in a recorded game.

7. Fix scaling issues for UI when players use monitors which have different aspect ratios: 21:9, 4:3, 1:1, 16:9, 16:10 etc. Right now, the UI basically stretches/shrinks fonts and textures to fit the available screen space.

8. Remove console commands from the UI. Create a whole new system of UI programming that makes it impossible to cheat using console commands (basically make Moesbar hacks impossible).

9. Rewriting the networking part to make it work based on a client-server model should also eliminate lots of FTJ issues.

10. Add horizon and sky in maps on the edges of the game world.

11. Re-make the game UI. Game UIs have evolved a lot in the last 12 years, they have become more modular, you can hide and display only the parts which are useful to you. You can also scale your UI as small or large as you need it to.

12. New physics engine. Surely we can do better today than just ragdoll physics and variable building destruction models. Same for ballistics, particles and so on.

13. Canon animations should be fixed to make them shoot more consistently. Same for caravels and other warships which have a rate of fire which sometimes seems random or not predictable enough to control.

14. Improved map functions for balanced spawns.

15. If the game was rewritten for more modern hardware and software, then it would be able to use more resources (if available) and display more details. It could use bigger textures, more detailed sound, have smoother map terrain, better animations.

I could go on, but I have other stuff to do too.
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

  • Quote

Post by lordraphael »

you do realise that even if they were to give aoe 3 a remaster edition none of the points you mentioned would be implemented. I played aoe hd and normal version and theres virtually no difference except for higher resolution. People even say that hd lags more than the normal version. The aoe remaster editions will always be products where almost no efforts is put in. Its really only to get the maximum money out of a beloved franchise which they dont wanna give a new game.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by edeholland »

Your suggestions are good, but they don't appeal to 99% of the players (of whom most are playing single player anyways) and aren't easy to sell. "Game is now in 4K resolution" just sounds so much better than "Game can now use more resources from your computer"

I'm not saying AoE3 can't be remastered, but looking at what Microsoft has done to AoE2 and now AoE1, I can see why they would have less interest in AoE3.

And like Lord Raffle is saying, it's too much effort for milking out a game.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Dolan »

@lordraphael
I didn't say I'd expect them to implement these changes. He asked "How would you remaster Age of Empires 3?" so I wrote a few points about what I would change in the game if that was up to me.

@edeholland
but they don't appeal to 99% of the players

But that wasn't the question. You asked how I would remaster the series, not if those changes would appeal to most players. And they would surely appeal especially to singleplayer mode players, since better graphics and sound and fewer bugs would sell the game more. Visuals and gameplay is what sells a game. And for casual players, a good storyline with good campaigns.

I never said those are realistic requests. Some of them are actually expensive and would cost a few million bucks (rewriting the whole game engine). Others wouldn't cost that much (new game UI) and could be done faster (with basically just a few devs working a few months tops).
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Garja »

Btw the limit of 50 units isn't even a resource limit but rather a gameplay limit and it is good that way. Same thing for the 200/200 pop thing.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Goodspeed »

lordraphael wrote:you do realise that even if they were to give aoe 3 a remaster edition none of the points you mentioned would be implemented. I played aoe hd and normal version and theres virtually no difference except for higher resolution. People even say that hd lags more than the normal version. The aoe remaster editions will always be products where almost no efforts is put in. Its really only to get the maximum money out of a beloved franchise which they dont wanna give a new game.
While that's true, it's really not needed to put in a lot of effort. People love the game as it is, they just need it to be playable. Working multiplayer and HD support alone will bring many back because it's exactly what people want, same as with AoE2HD.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Garja »

What they should try to do imo is to make a lean version of the game that is focused on multiplayer. So no campaign and not too much complex stuff but rather focus on playability and balance.
They tried the online only format with AOE and it was a good idea except the whole farming aspect of the game was a fail. It pleased many but didn't have anything to do with RTS.
I hope they do something like this with this nre title which by the way it's called "definitive" so it may be something more than a mere remake.

On a side note, unit pathing seems fucked up even in the background animation on their site :uglylol:
Image Image Image
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by EAGLEMUT »

CelticCrusader wrote:
JakeyBoyTH wrote:
CelticCrusader wrote:So hyped! Hopefully there is more in the works for the future. A remastered 2 and 3 could well be on the cards. Cant wait to try the beta for this though.

There is already a remastered Age Of Empires 2 :!:

Well its not exactly remastered, still in the same old engine and the graphics are still awful, it needs bringing into the modern era.

I hate to burst your bubble, but AoE1 ED so far seems to have gotten a very similar treatment like AoE2 HD. It's still the same old engine from 1997, the Genie AoE1 version, so actually they made this from an even older codebase than AoE2 HD (though it's certainly possible they ported over some improvements from AoE2 HD). You should think of AoEDE as an AoE1 expansion pack with no new civs but a big quality-of-life update to the graphics/ui/balance.
Image
momuuu wrote: theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by edeholland »

I'm really hoping there will be actual balance changes. The only competive AoE1 scene is in Vietnam right now and they have to use rules like "no walls" for their tournaments :hmm:
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by pecelot »

Garja wrote:What they should try to do imo is to make a lean version of the game that is focused on multiplayer. So no campaign and not too much complex stuff but rather focus on playability and balance.

Well, what if they can make both as a professional gaming studio? :hmm:

edeholland wrote:I'm really hoping there will be actual balance changes. The only competive AoE1 scene is in Vietnam right now and they have to use rules like "no walls" for their tournaments :hmm:


[spoiler=video]5:03, though I recommend the entire video

phpBB [video]
[/spoiler]

http://upatch-hd.weebly.com/features.html
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by EAGLEMUT »

pecelot wrote:
Garja wrote:What they should try to do imo is to make a lean version of the game that is focused on multiplayer. So no campaign and not too much complex stuff but rather focus on playability and balance.

Well, what if they can make both as a professional gaming studio? :hmm:

So far history has proven otherwise.
pecelot wrote:I recommend the entire video

Indeed a nice video from ZeroEmpires that should clarify a lot of stuff.
Image
momuuu wrote: theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by EAGLEMUT »

Dolan wrote:1. Make AOE3 playable on dedicated servers -> this means rewriting the whole game, because the whole game is built around peer-to-peer synching. So it would have to be rewritten to allow client-to-server synching. This would eliminate all lag created by other players. If you lag, it's only on your end, it wouldn't affect anyone else. This, ofc, would mean extra costs for Microsoft to keep game servers up. (Yeah, I know, there is a potential drawback here: they would need regional servers, so, if you want to play with anyone around the world, you have have to join their regional server.) This would also eliminate any OOS issues.

This would indeed be a massive change, but really it would only improve things for people with good connection and pcs, which seems to hardly be the majority of players. When you think about it, the change could actually alienate a big chunk of the "lagger" playerbase, since they would be always at a disadvantage. FTJ should be fixed by this, though it'd probably be easier to just make the existing network code work better. Not sure why it should fix OOS. Lastly, as you mention, this would increase the costs of running multiplayer for MS by a huge amount. I believe we're talking multiple times more here. I'm afraid it's simply not worth it by any means, any way I look at it.

Dolan wrote:2. Optimise the game engine for multi-threading. Update graphics profiles for integrated GPUs and newer generation GPUs. This means the game would recognise graphic cards easier and wouldn't output so many errors if it didn't recognise a video card.

This would be nice. New GPU profiles should be relatively easy, I guess? Multi-threading would be great, but that's definitely not an easy one.

Dolan wrote:3. Native observer mode which would run without lag (because native). Make it possible for players to observe a game without being in that game (just like in LoL).

Not sure what you mean by "native", since the one we have right now is native by my definition. However, some speed optimizations could likely be made and afaik Aiz mentioned it before. Observe without taking up slots would be nice, but I'm not familiar with how it works on LoL. I'm guessing this would require the dedicated server thing from point number one, otherwise it would create immense lag for the actual players if it's p2p with potentially hundreds of people.

Dolan wrote:4. Fix pathing issues created by: map tiling system, unit models (units getting stuck in mines) and unit selection issues. Right now unit selection is limited to only 50 units because CPUs back then were much less capable than today. This limit can be increased by modding, but the game lacks the optimisations to properly use more system resources. Sometimes it doesn't even use GPU resources to the maximum. The game was made when video cards had 64MB of video RAM. Video RAM was much more expensive back then, so they wrote the game to run mostly on the CPU.

Although stuck units are annoying, I have to say it happens very rarely to me. Unit selection limit is a design decision, as Garja mentioned. That said, the optimizations are definitely lacking, since, as you say, the engine was made in a world of completely different technology.

Dolan wrote:5. Update the game to support DirectX 12 and Shader model 6.0. AOE3 was written between 2002-2005 to support DirectX 9 and Shader model 2.0. Since then, hardware and software graphics capabilities have increased exponentially. The number of representable triangles in a scene has increased by a few orders of magnitude (we're talking from like 65k triangles to tens of billions). Sound capabilities haven't increased as much as graphics ones, but still, so many sound issues in AOE3 could be solved/improved. And we could have multichannel real surround sound. What about in-game mic integration for team chat? What about game music in FLAC format (instead of MP3, like right now)?

Sounds nice, also a load of work.

Dolan wrote:6. Support for seeking forwards and backwards in game recs, as well as for jumping to another time frame in a recorded game.

While cool, as I'm sure you know, this would most likely require trashing the current recorded games system altogether and starting from scratch (for others, see http://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?p=237539#p237539).

Dolan wrote:7. Fix scaling issues for UI when players use monitors which have different aspect ratios: 21:9, 4:3, 1:1, 16:9, 16:10 etc. Right now, the UI basically stretches/shrinks fonts and textures to fit the available screen space.

I guess that's a thing, yeah.

Dolan wrote:8. Remove console commands from the UI. Create a whole new system of UI programming that makes it impossible to cheat using console commands (basically make Moesbar hacks impossible).

Well, not sure if it's needed now that we have EP anti-cheat to prevent exactly this.

Dolan wrote:9. Rewriting the networking part to make it work based on a client-server model should also eliminate lots of FTJ issues.

Covered in point one.

Dolan wrote:10. Add horizon and sky in maps on the edges of the game world.

Nice, I guess.

Dolan wrote:11. Re-make the game UI. Game UIs have evolved a lot in the last 12 years, they have become more modular, you can hide and display only the parts which are useful to you. You can also scale your UI as small or large as you need it to.

Sure. Judging by OBS UI, the current UI system even supports it to some extent, ES just didn't make much use of it.

Dolan wrote:12. New physics engine. Surely we can do better today than just ragdoll physics and variable building destruction models. Same for ballistics, particles and so on.

I guess. Don't really have a problem with the current one.

Dolan wrote:13. Canon animations should be fixed to make them shoot more consistently. Same for caravels and other warships which have a rate of fire which sometimes seems random or not predictable enough to control.

By cannon you mean like falcs? Those seem fixed to me, maybe I don't get what you mean. Warships are indeed awkwardly random though.

Dolan wrote:14. Improved map functions for balanced spawns.

It's not like balanced spawns are impossible, but perhaps it could be improved somehow.

Dolan wrote:15. If the game was rewritten for more modern hardware and software, then it would be able to use more resources (if available) and display more details. It could use bigger textures, more detailed sound, have smoother map terrain, better animations.

Well, seems somewhat like a repeat of some previous points, but yeah.
Image
momuuu wrote: theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by pecelot »

EAGLEMUT wrote:
Dolan wrote:3. Native observer mode which would run without lag (because native). Make it possible for players to observe a game without being in that game (just like in LoL).

Not sure what you mean by "native", since the one we have right now is native by my definition. However, some speed optimizations could likely be made and afaik Aiz mentioned it before. Observe without taking up slots would be nice, but I'm not familiar with how it works on LoL. I'm guessing this would require the dedicated server thing from point number one, otherwise it would create immense lag for the actual players if it's p2p with potentially hundreds of people.

He probably meant a built-in observer mode. On Voobly for AoC it's done in a way that people don't really observe the game live, but watch the recorded game with close to no delay (could be adjusted) without affecting the original match.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Garja »

What I meant actually is that they should consider a lean spin off with just multiplayer, few civs and lean graphics as well.
Kinda like an indie game but with a focus on playability and balance.
It seems to me that when they plan their offer or they manage their portfolio for aoe series they fail to recognize their userbase characteristics.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by pecelot »

Garja wrote:I hope they do something like this with this nre title which by the way it's called "definitive" so it may be something more than a mere remake.

I doubt it, it's more like preventing the same names from their remakes — AoE2: HD Edition & AoM: Extended Edition.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Dolan »

@EAGLEMUT
EAGLEMUT wrote: When you think about it, the change could actually alienate a big chunk of the "lagger" playerbase, since they would be always at a disadvantage.

Well sure, this happens even now with other games. In LoL, if you lag, you react slower to player actions. But why should the other players be punished to play with your lag?
And having regional servers solves this issue too, because this would ensure that you'd only play in an area where your ping is good enough to have a decent quality gameplay.

AOE3 uses a peer-to-peer "diamond" connection to synch player moves, which basically makes every player in the game exchange data with everyone else. This is hugely inefficient. In a client-server model, each player sends their moves to the server and they get back every other player's moves. It's only a 2-way communication. Much more efficient and it decreases the quantity of data exchanged between players.

This would also fix the OOS issue, because if your client goes out of synch with the server, everyone else continues to synch with the server, only you revert to a default position and stay in that position until you're able to re-connect. Same reversion would be played on the others' clients.
this would increase the costs of running multiplayer for MS by a huge amount. I believe we're talking multiple times more here. I'm afraid it's simply not worth it by any means, any way I look at it.

Yep. But there's an opportunity here. If you sell something, it might be even profitable. Like you could sell XP packs for people to unlock cards faster, or skins for explorers, etc. How about uniforms for your units? They would all be available on the server, already synched.
Not sure what you mean by "native", since the one we have right now is native by my definition.

Native as in "observer mode built in the game core", not in maps. Right now, the obs mode only works with particular maps if you also awkwardly install a particular UI file, but if it was built-in natively, you wouldn't need a special UI or maps to be able to spectate. And if that server-client model was in place, you wouldn't even need to be in the game to spectate, and it wouldn't have any effect on how well that game runs. The synch would only take place between you and the server, not you and the players. You would basically get like a delayed copy of the current game.

Btw, I'm not saying this because I don't appreciate Aizamk's work, I think what he did is great, considering the constraints. But in terms of game performance, you don't want to have an observer mode implemented in a map. You normally build that at the game core level (C++ that gets compiled to machine code).
Unit selection limit is a design decision

Not really. One of Ensemble's devs said in a Reddit post that the 50 unit selection limit was chosen for lag mitigation purposes. So, back then in 2005, finding ways to limit lag was top priority, since the game already had very intensive graphics, that very few PCs were able to fully use.
Garja wrote: Kinda like an indie game

Microsoft doesn't make indie products.

-----

But anyway, I think this revival of AOE 1 is actually good news. Until now, all their AOE games were grouped as "legacy" games on their sites. And AOE 1 wasn't even supported anymore, it was officially buried. Now, somehow they decided it was worth resurrecting it. Which means they don't want to kill off the AOE franchise. Maybe, at some point they will make an AOE3 4K or something like that.

If I were advising them, I'd tell them to take the whole franchise and turn it into a LoL competitor, make a free-to-play game with a downloadable client and purchasable custom content. Want a new cool map? 15 bucks. Want a cool-looking explorer? 10 bucks. Want to unlock cards faster? Buy a huge XP pack for 25 bucks.
None of this commercial content should have any impact on gameplay, though. So this should never be about buying faster farm upgrades or some shit like that, because that would be some "Castle siege" retardation level. Just unit appearance or custom maps or XP packs.
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by kami_ryu »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Garja »

Dolan wrote:
Garja wrote:Unit selection limit is a design decision

Not really. One of Ensemble's devs said in a Reddit post that the 50 unit selection limit was chosen for lag mitigation purposes. So, back then in 2005, finding ways to limit lag was top priority, since the game already had very intensive graphics, that very few PCs were able to fully use.
Garja wrote: Kinda like an indie game

Microsoft doesn't make indie products.

Yes it might have been a techinical limitation but it is good that way. Same thing for 200 pop max. New games with thousands of units and huge ass playable area are just trash from a competitive RTS standpoint.

As for the indie thing I know MS doesn't release actual indie games. Indie isn't probably the correct word.
What I meant is that Dota was born as a Warcraft mod and CS was a Half life mod. Arguably the two most popular/competitive multiplayer games. So imo just pick a basic idea and do a spin-off with basic features while focusing on playability. It doesn't have to be an AAA title with all the up to date features you mentioned. That would require an output quality standard that even Blizzard isn't probably able to deliver. And more importantly I'm not even sure there is a userbase that would appreciate it enough to justify the investment.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by Laurence Drake »

kami_ryu wrote:You. I like you. @Dolan

Nice way of thinking. If only M$ could pull it off. LoL and DOTA games are very successful and I've always believed that their model could easily be replicated in the RTS genre.

I believe they tried this already with AoE:O
Top quality poster.
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by EAGLEMUT »

Dolan wrote:Well sure, this happens even now with other games. In LoL, if you lag, you react slower to player actions. But why should the other players be punished to play with your lag?
And having regional servers solves this issue too, because this would ensure that you'd only play in an area where your ping is good enough to have a decent quality gameplay.

AOE3 uses a peer-to-peer "diamond" connection to synch player moves, which basically makes every player in the game exchange data with everyone else. This is hugely inefficient. In a client-server model, each player sends their moves to the server and they get back every other player's moves. It's only a 2-way communication. Much more efficient and it decreases the quantity of data exchanged between players.

This would also fix the OOS issue, because if your client goes out of synch with the server, everyone else continues to synch with the server, only you revert to a default position and stay in that position until you're able to re-connect. Same reversion would be played on the others' clients.

Either way, someone's getting punished, but you're right I understated the benefits of server-based multiplayer, as it would also decrease the lag for the "laggers".
OOS could be solved like that, yeah.

Yep. But there's an opportunity here. If you sell something, it might be even profitable. Like you could sell XP packs for people to unlock cards faster, or skins for explorers, etc. How about uniforms for your units? They would all be available on the server, already synched.

This isn't really an argument for implementing server-based multiplayer, though. As the management would surely point out, it was even already done for AoEO while keeping the matches peer-to-peer no problemo.

Native as in "observer mode built in the game core", not in maps. Right now, the obs mode only works with particular maps if you also awkwardly install a particular UI file, but if it was built-in natively, you wouldn't need a special UI or maps to be able to spectate. And if that server-client model was in place, you wouldn't even need to be in the game to spectate, and it wouldn't have any effect on how well that game runs. The synch would only take place between you and the server, not you and the players. You would basically get like a delayed copy of the current game.

Btw, I'm not saying this because I don't appreciate Aizamk's work, I think what he did is great, considering the constraints. But in terms of game performance, you don't want to have an observer mode implemented in a map. You normally build that at the game core level (C++ that gets compiled to machine code).

True, there's actually a rather massive amount of scripting done in the RMS to make OBS UI possible, guess I can't call that native.

One of Ensemble's devs said in a Reddit post that the 50 unit selection limit was chosen for lag mitigation purposes. So, back then in 2005, finding ways to limit lag was top priority, since the game already had very intensive graphics, that very few PCs were able to fully use.

Hmm, not sure then. They did put in a big button to move literally all military though, so that's kinda weird.

If I were advising them, I'd tell them to take the whole franchise and turn it into a LoL competitor, make a free-to-play game with a downloadable client and purchasable custom content. Want a new cool map? 15 bucks. Want a cool-looking explorer? 10 bucks. Want to unlock cards faster? Buy a huge XP pack for 25 bucks.
None of this commercial content should have any impact on gameplay, though. So this should never be about buying faster farm upgrades or some shit like that, because that would be some "Castle siege" retardation level. Just unit appearance or custom maps or XP packs.

This is really quite close to what they did in AoEO. Unfortunately, this monetization model failed so miserably they had to delete the game off their servers for good just to stop losing money.
Image
momuuu wrote: theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by lemmings121 »

tbh, I think microtransactions is very dangerous, there is a thin line that separates cool and giving a pay2win feeling, even if there are free ways of getting there, sometimes you pass the wrong feeling to the player and they just give up.

If you could buy exp in a new RTS to level up quicker as a new player I would think it would be awfull. I would just think "ok, thats 100 bucks to get the game, and then get reked online because i didnt pay extra 25 bucks to make my civs stronger? no thanks bye."

-"but then you just consider the price to be 125, and you are good to go you stupid lemming!"

Yea not really. I would just feel that if i paid those 125, any day at any sec, they could release a "extra buff for x unit for just 10 bucks!", and again, i'm forced to buy or leave.
Image
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by EAGLEMUT »

@lemmings121 I've been told there is a mode in AoEO where you play competitive games without the pay2win stuff, to prevent exactly what you're talking about.
Image
momuuu wrote: theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Brazil lemmings121
Jaeger
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: lemmings121

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by lemmings121 »

EAGLEMUT wrote:@lemmings121 I've been told there is a mode in AoEO where you play competitive games without the pay2win stuff, to prevent exactly what you're talking about.


but in aoeo they only added that mode after the first wave of people got scared away for that reason... thats why i'm saying that it can be done, but it has to be done right because there as a big chance of killing the game!
Image
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: Age of Empires 1 Remake

Post by EAGLEMUT »

Definitely, AoEO was a real mess at release which turned a lot of players off. I guess me included, to some extent.
Image
momuuu wrote: theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV