What's stopping you from playing AoE4?

[Goodspeed]

I think we all overestimate a bit the entry barrier. I also thought it would be daunting to learn a new rts from zero, but in the end its still aoe. everyone here is a competent age3 player: if you just open aoe4, make vills and spend money in shiny units you are already top 20% in aoe4 (or aoe2) before even learning the unit counters. After that is just a matter of if you are having fun or not. If you are, watching streams and playing ladder is natural, and before you realize you know enough about the game and the meta to be competitive.

If you've been good at an RTS before, being in the top 20% it still feels like you're a total noob (and you are). Barrier of entry is one thing, but people are likely to compare their performance to how they did in other games rather than comparing to other beginners.

I didn't have this problem in AoE4 but I suppose it's similar to the feeling I get when I try to play AoE3: Frustrated because I'm failing to execute things that should come naturally

[iNcog]

luckily for me I was so trash at aoe3 that it's refreshing to play a new rts that isn't figured out so that I comparatively suck less

I think as an rts player I'm quite dumb. like I'm not thinking when I should be thinking. I just autopilot micro/macro and then wonder why I lose. aoe3 had immense strategic depth that I guess I never figured out.

[chronique]

I am conq1-2 in aoe4 so everybody here can be conq without any doubt ^^.
The biggest issu i have with aoe4 (the rng but that can be fixed), nothing is epic. How fun it was to rect a bunch of strelet with my two falc? or to hit a perfect timing where military pop jump from zero to hero, there are no "WOW" things in aoe4 (maybe the wololo but it never happens) and even at pro level, the game is boring to watch (plus unique units are usless so every civ use the same compo most of the time).

[RefluxSemantic]

I dont have the drive to compete in games anymore. Its just too stressful and time consuming to be part of my current life.

Sucks that aoe4 released just a bit too late for me to have had the opportunity to enjoy it.

[SoldieR]

Saddest thing about aoe4 is exactly that lack of wow moments, very little exciting moments, even a double mango shot that does kill a dozen archers is kinda meh since the physics are just shit compared to aoe3. We really got spoiled with how great visuals were for aoe3 even back in 2005. The micro and pops and explosions in aoe3 are so much more satisfying, you can feel that shit in your body! Lol

[aligator92]

Nothing better than 10 +10s appearing and a musketeer flying halfway across the screen

[r4go]

the game is unbalanced too much. It is a different game about age3 where u need more skills. The game is similar to an age2 for nohands players.

age4 is so many steps backwards compared to age3, and has only a better graphic compared to age2.

and the OOS is like the 99% of the games

[duckzilla]

I never got warm with the game. For some reason even the campaign is not much fun to me.

[blackwidow]

I'm sure a lot has changed since but design wise I feel like it's just lacking depth. You know how a game will go in the loading screen and the mechanics aren't interesting enough to warrent that imo. Plus the competition is a bit dry.

Might try a bit soon anyway though, dont think I ever even played ranked since its release

[spanky4ever]

It is to fast, and I am to slow. I cannot bother to learn the mechanics and all the new civs in a new game.

[SoldieR]

I'm sure a lot has changed since but design wise I feel like it's just lacking depth. You know how a game will go in the loading screen and the mechanics aren't interesting enough to warrent that imo. Plus the competition is a bit dry.

Might try a bit soon anyway though, dont think I ever even played ranked since its release

Was very surprised to see you stopped playing, you could have made a lot of money.

[callentournies]

gs's bro is the rts's rts player

[spanky4ever]

gs's bro is the rts's rts player

explain for us noobs pls

[blackwidow]

I'm sure a lot has changed since but design wise I feel like it's just lacking depth. You know how a game will go in the loading screen and the mechanics aren't interesting enough to warrent that imo. Plus the competition is a bit dry.

Might try a bit soon anyway though, dont think I ever even played ranked since its release

Was very surprised to see you stopped playing, you could have made a lot of money.

Didn't find it fun enough to put all of my free time into it ^^ Nor did I want to quit my job for a game that had no business getting the amounts of prize money as it did. Still baffles me sometimes, to see the tourney prize pools that high compared to viewer numbers.

[acergame09]

I haven't played AOE4 since its launch in 2021 but in my opinion its a fundamentally flawed game due to its design. Also, the game went from having approx. 60k+ to like under 1k viewers on average. If I recall correctly, the game seemed to take up too much time per game like 30+ minutes.

Here's some of my thoughts:
1) The launch was disappointing. Starkly put, the game is overly geared towards competitive RM play. It should of included a scenario maker like AOE2 had. The scenario maker is why many noncompetitive players would play an age game. Maybe even have a treaty or deathmatch ranking as well.
2) It lacks originality as it's essentially an unholy mash of previous AOE games. Whereas I'd say each age game (AOE 1,2,3 and mythology) was unique.
3) The game play was stale. They apparently tried to design realistic mechanics which weren't that immersive nor fit for the AOE game category. The stonewall mechanics were annoying, aging up to have swords which were basically arrow proof wasn't exciting like mercs in AOE3, and microing things by running away to re-charge your knights or having your spears hold ground was bleh. The early tower harass was way too good for the mongols creating frustrating gameplay. I think AOE2 has similar tower harass mechanics early on. The original developers seemed to retract from that frustrating game play by adding 4 sentry towers in the mythology series and totally disallowing buildings to be placed by the original town center in AOE3 providing for more exciting game play. I'd say AOE3 is overall a better game due to its "tech mechanics" because the in game strategic decisions were more impactful than AOE4s. Ideally, I'd say the age games should focus more on strategic decisions building your empire opposed to SC2's emphasis on macro/micro. I also personally didn't like the tree mechanic where you could build an expensive wall just to have your opponent send a vill and do like 2 chop animations to enter your base.
4). The game takes too long on average. People don't want to spend 30+ minutes on avg per AOE game. For a game like Civilizations, 5+ hour games work but not for an AOE game format. The sacred site victory and wonder mechanic is too overly used when imo the majority of games should be won via domination.

[iNcog]

I'm sure a lot has changed since but design wise I feel like it's just lacking depth. You know how a game will go in the loading screen and the mechanics aren't interesting enough to warrent that imo. Plus the competition is a bit dry.

Might try a bit soon anyway though, dont think I ever even played ranked since its release

Was very surprised to see you stopped playing, you could have made a lot of money.

Didn't find it fun enough to put all of my free time into it ^^ Nor did I want to quit my job for a game that had no business getting the amounts of prize money as it did. Still baffles me sometimes, to see the tourney prize pools that high compared to viewer numbers.

microsoft $$$$$$$

there are some big changes just announced though I'm not sure if they're going to do anything other than mix things up without improving quality

[SoldieR]

I think a lot of the early issues I agreed with but I'd say a lot of that has changed for the better. Making progress but way too slow. Like predicted at launch that the game would take a year to finish like a proper finished product but even that was wrong as it still isn't what I would consider finished.
It's also nowhere near as fun and addicting as aoe3, I find it difficult to maintain desire to keep playing after 2 or 3 games in a row.

[Narida]

The hotkey was the biggest reason for me. The lack of "select all units of this type" basically made it impossible to group reinforcements efficiently which is super annoying when you have individual batches.

I aoe3 for example if i have my muskets in control group 1 when I see a batch finishing i select group one, "select all units of this type" and add to group one. Do not even need to look at the rax and in aoe4 i was literally searching the whole map for my units it honestly was gross. When you need to learn a new game already the last thing I want to relearn is stuff like that.

Also having to click two buttons to build a house or whatever was really annoying too but that I probably could get used to.

[look]

if you make a comparison of resources, you can clearly see how inferior and how much it has receded
a lot of things like taunts hotkeys etc etc, and the graphics are clearly bad for the technology we have these days.
so
if I'm looking for fun, it's definitely not the game I need to play.

[lemmings121]

I'm not sure if they're going to do anything other than mix things up without improving quality

I dont think anything can be done at this point to do a 360 turn in the game, if you look at this thread, there is no particular theme for why people dislike it, so there is no possible patch to fix it. Just like aoe2 crowd never played aoe3 for their reasons, after someone had a bad impression with aoe4 is very hard for them to come back.

to my pov is the best rts available atm, (RIP EP), so I play it until stormgame comes out then I can reevaluate what to play







and then there is @look who played a hundred games going knight archer rush with fre every game, never hitting castle age, reached gold league, and quit because of reasons

[r4go]

The game is in a pretty good state right now, for most of the users on the forum. It's got custom hotkeys and good balance. Custom games and whatnot aren't what they should be but the ladder experience is good.

I'm playing age4.

Personally age3 is 1000 time better then age4.

Age4 is calle age of noobs, age of nohandsplayers and i can be agree.

Agree becouse you do not need so much skills as u need in age3 or SCII or other RTS.

Few strategies, few apm needed, few micro.

It is a little game for not skilled players.
Easy to learn to play if you are a new players instead of age2 or age3.

It is more a teatry then a supremacy game.

Age4 is not going so good even if Relic is making tournaments whit moneys.

It is a horrible simply copy of age2.

Age2 is the most played becouse was the only amazing game a generation had played and so people that actually are 33-45 are playing it (gold memories).

The most beatifull is age3.

Age4 is shit compared to the others.

But it is easy to play, Slow and just get the op civ and win. If you think age3 is unbelanced let's see age4

[iNcog]

I feel like that's a simplified viewpoint but hey I'm not one to argue. :p

[dicktator_]

The game is in a pretty good state right now, for most of the users on the forum. It's got custom hotkeys and good balance. Custom games and whatnot aren't what they should be but the ladder experience is good.

I'm playing age4.

Personally age3 is 1000 time better then age4.

Yea I prefer aoe3 too

Age4 is calle age of noobs, age of nohandsplayers and i can be agree.

Agree becouse you do not need so much skills as u need in age3 or SCII or other RTS.

Few strategies, few apm needed, few micro.

It is a little game for not skilled players.

Idk who calls it age of noobs. And Aoe4 has good players. Last premier tournament had Leenock and MarineLorD (ex-sc2 pros), TheMista (AoM/AoEO pro), and TheViper (aoe2 pro) to name a few. Even if I don't like the game that much I still think the competition is pretty high, higher than aoe3 for sure.

Easy to learn to play if you are a new players instead of age2 or age3.

I don't think there's a such thing as an RTS that is easy to learn for people new to RTS.

It is more a teatry then a supremacy game.

Not at all, lmao

Age4 is not going so good even if Relic is making tournaments whit moneys.

This is true, really low viewer counts for the amount of money they put in as blackwidow pointed out

It is a horrible simply copy of age2.

Funny thing is aoe2 players were saying it's not enough like aoe2. I don't think it felt like aoe2 at all. If it did I probably would've played it more tbh.

Age2 is the most played becouse was the only amazing game a generation had played and so people that actually are 33-45 are playing it (gold memories).

Idk, from what I understand the community grew a lot in the past like 6 years. https://escharts.com/tournaments/aoe?search=hidden+cup check out hidden cup view counts, they were constantly growing from 1-4.

But it is easy to play, Slow and just get the op civ and win. If you think age3 is unbelanced let's see age4

Idk how aoe4 balance has been, but it's hard to imagine that they had anything dumber than Hakkapelits before the most recent patch

[lemmings121]

Idk how aoe4 balance has been, but it's hard to imagine that they had anything dumber than Hakkapelits before the most recent patch

Surprisingly good tbh. just as any aoe game with a hundred diferent MUs there is always a particular mu a particular map that feels really bad, but on average in ranked map pool with vetos its solid. Having played aoe3 RE then EP then DE, I'm pretty sure current aoe4 balance is above any of those. maybe late EP had a similar level of balance, but you cant even compare aoe4 balance to re/de

[r4go]

@dicktator_

if you are looking on REDDIT or streaming of age2 often some players called age4 ageofnoobs or nohands. But not for the lack of pro players. In the game there are 6-8 players that are ex pro in other games. What they mean is that compared to age2 (and also age3) you need less skills. The game has less micro, strategies, apm then age2-3. This becouse is a easier version of age2. The gamestyle is similar and the games are long and slower compared to age 3. A fast game in age4 on average of 20 minuts (and it is usually when a pro player meet a normal players, like a brigadier vs a captain in age3). If you are playing for sure you have noticed games are long to be played, stone wall, and some civs are too broken. Look HRE, malians, mongols, ottomans. The fight is just "who have the mass whit the lame units win", looks at HRE whit can win a game mono MAA and his heavy cavallery become too up. or the trade? some civs make a broken eco just doing it.

actually i'm playing age4. To be honest it is good for me that i can play few times after 12h of working becouse is slow, less frenetic etc etc. BUt age3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> age 4 in my opinion