Is Aoe3 too one dimensional?

[juliuscaesar007]

btw i love aoe3 and every game im a huuuuge aom fan becuz i love mythology but i dont consider mythology to be a real competitive rts game cuz there are balance issues ofc but i would even say aoe3 has more random factors too it then other rts wich is fine ofc its nice to watch and creates many options but is also unbalanced if u look at it objectively.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Aoe3 has a lot of random factors, and that's an issue. Unfortunately, half of the community doesn't want this to be changed so it doesn't get fixed.
Regarding balance, top players complain about balance in every game. I don't know if they do that in aoe2 (though I'm sure that some MUs are really bad there), but in starcraft 2, pro players complain about the balance all the time. It's just the same in aoe3, people like to complain about balance.

[gamevideo113]

Imo aoe2 isn't that much harder than aoe3 tbh. It's just a matter of habits. Macro is surely harder on aoe2 but imo micro is harder on aoe3.

Anyway the balance isn't terrible on aoe2, i think the level of balance of the game would be comparable on the level of balance of EP for aoe3 right now. The devs have been a bit more diligent in delivering balance patches lately.

not to be rude but do u play multiplayer games on aoe2, sc2 or/and aoe 3 and what is ur rank?

Best i got is 2k HD/1k6 voobly on aoe2 and PR25 on aoe3.
Anyway i stated that this is my opinion. I don't really feel like arguing against people who think xbow focus firing with the occasional split and mangonel micro , or maybe galley micro which btw isn't even a thing anymore (which admittedly or not are your bread and butter micro in aoe2) are harder than microing e.g. coyo mace puma warchief / falc skirm goon huss, because i simply disagree and if that might be true for you, that's not the case for me, and we are totally good.

[Interjection]

@juliuscaesar007 You're arguing more about the small things now though. This thread is broader than crate starts & the balancing of 14 civs. I feel like we're discussing the overall 'feel' of AoE3 & AoE2 in this thread

Balancing 14 very different civs is tough. Maybe impossible. Especially when some of them have mega scaling potential like Brits and others are Otto and have little need for eco at all. Some matchups will just be tough for one civ and not for the other. Regardless though, I'd say the vast majority of games at the LAN were relatively fair matchups. If you do somehow end up forced into a bad matchup though, the civ picking rules favour you as the winner of the previous match always picks first in the next game. And people don't tend to queue into bad MUs on ladder either so I'm not sure it really matters in relation to this topic. It's not like people are constantly playing bad matchups against each other.

And yes, crate starts are semi random (you always get the same crates then 1 extra mirrored random crate). This does admittedly sometimes helps one civ out more than another in some matchups (e.g., an extra wood crate as Germany allows them to build a TP asap). Maybe something should be done about this. Maybe nothing. Some people think it's dumb for the reasons you've pointed out. But actually, varied crates leads to a varied early game. The first 4 minutes of AoE3 can often be very different. With the matchup, crates, treasures & map to consider I'd say there's a lot of finesse to getting a good age 1 that goes under appreciated.

The top players always seem to magically pull off impressive age 1s that me & players around my level can't always replicate. There is skill to it for sure.

[juliuscaesar007]

Imo aoe2 isn't that much harder than aoe3 tbh. It's just a matter of habits. Macro is surely harder on aoe2 but imo micro is harder on aoe3.

Anyway the balance isn't terrible on aoe2, i think the level of balance of the game would be comparable on the level of balance of EP for aoe3 right now. The devs have been a bit more diligent in delivering balance patches lately.

not to be rude but do u play multiplayer games on aoe2, sc2 or/and aoe 3 and what is ur rank?

Best i got is 2k HD/1k6 voobly on aoe2 and PR25 on aoe3.
Anyway i stated that this is my opinion. I don't really feel like arguing against people who think xbow focus firing with the occasional split and mangonel micro , or maybe galley micro which btw isn't even a thing anymore (which admittedly or not are your bread and butter micro in aoe2) are harder than microing e.g. coyo mace puma warchief / falc skirm goon huss, because i simply disagree and if that might be true for you, that's not the case for me, and we are totally good.

Ok just asking cuz some ppl have these opnions about this is harder and have played vs AI and some new players and thats kinda dumb.
I agree that aoe 3 has better micro then aoe2 i never said it didnt i said the macro was way less in aoe 3. Btw dont compare that coyo mace puma warchief / falc skirm goon huss micro vs sc2 micro its not even close XD especially not with aoe 3 pathing
At the end of the day aoe 3 is way less popular then both aoe 2 and especially sc2 and if u think that is only cuzz ppl´s preference then ur kidding urself. People like fair games where the skill of a player is shown and they like to play fair game. Im not saying aoe3 is every time unfair and bad game its just the most random of the 3 and by far actually. In my opinion less random means more requirement of skill wich translates in a good game and i feel aoe 3 is lacking in many departements. Altough the HC shipements the cards the crates and stuff are all unique it creates unbalanced games sometimes wich is a shame ofc.

[gamevideo113]

Why aoe3 did worse than aoe2 in a nutshell (as i see it):
-No historically based campaigns, many casuals just dislike this, and usually people transition to multiplayer from singleplayer;
-It wasn't a proper aoe2 sequel, despite being a good game by itself;
-It has card system which was grindy af and prevented a lot of ppl to get into competitive multiplayer;
Overall perception of the game was quite bad, and that's why it didn't do well. To this day, if you go into an aoe2 community and mention aoe3 you get memed into oblivion, because some people just seem to be missing a couple of neurons and unfortunately aoe3 gets a bad reputation from those people.

Honestly random maps in aoe2 can fuck you up way more than random crates in aoe3. I don't think aoe3 tends to be particularly unfair in general, at least compared to other aoe games. I'm not even mentioning starcraft because i've never really been interested and i don't know it.

[Mitoe]

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

[Riotcoke]

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

The game was actually very successful in terms of sales, it sold more than aoe2 for example.

[gamevideo113]

I mean, something i find particularly irritating in aoe2 is
-random spawn of sheeps, can screw your dark age up;
-scouts that have literally like 3 LoS and exploring the map is a pain in the butt, you really can't gain much information and plan your expansion on the map in advance, also because you end up losing the scout by the enemy tc quite often unless you're 100% focused on it;
-hill spawns and map spawns in general: sometimes your map is so bad that you might as well resign immediately. All your resources are up front and you have no natural cover, on top of that you are in a pit so your opponent will have a huge advantage when pushing you and maybe on top of that your woodlines and gold mines are on a hill so you won't even be able to place your tc there. People say that if you have a bad map you should go aggressive, but it's really a cheap "solution" to the problem because your opponent with a good map will have the choice of either going aggressive or staying defensive. Why would a game like this ever be considered fair? One player can choose his strategy because good RNG and the other player cannot because bad RNG? Nonsense

And these (except the scout) are all huge RNG factors that people seem to forget when thinking about aoe2.

[scarm]

People always seem to forget that a certain amount of (symmetric) randomness is required for a good game. A large majority of people wouldn't play a game with 0 randomness because it gets boring and repetitive, especially for the masses of consumers, which aren't hardcore gamers. And adjusting to either a coin or a wood start really isn't crazy RNG or anything.

[Astaroth]

Thank you for all the thoughtful replies!

Especially great post by @Interjection, sums up my thoughts very nicely.

Ultimately, Aoe3 and Aoe2 are just very different games that I enjoy watching for different reasons: aoe3 has fast paced action, neat builds, lots of diverse, fun units that often make the same old aoe2 xbow knight dance pale in comparison. However, aoe2 seems more like a game that is about strategic decision making that goes beyond choosing a build order, adapting, reading the opponent etc. Aoe3 seems a bit more execution focused.

[Goodspeed]

I mean, something i find particularly irritating in aoe2 is
-random spawn of sheeps, can screw your dark age up;
-scouts that have literally like 3 LoS and exploring the map is a pain in the butt, you really can't gain much information and plan your expansion on the map in advance, also because you end up losing the scout by the enemy tc quite often unless you're 100% focused on it;
-hill spawns and map spawns in general: sometimes your map is so bad that you might as well resign immediately. All your resources are up front and you have no natural cover, on top of that you are in a pit so your opponent will have a huge advantage when pushing you and maybe on top of that your woodlines and gold mines are on a hill so you won't even be able to place your tc there. People say that if you have a bad map you should go aggressive, but it's really a cheap "solution" to the problem because your opponent with a good map will have the choice of either going aggressive or staying defensive. Why would a game like this ever be considered fair? One player can choose his strategy because good RNG and the other player cannot because bad RNG? Nonsense

And these (except the scout) are all huge RNG factors that people seem to forget when thinking about aoe2.

I don't think people forget about them as much as don't care, because they aren't as impactful as for example finding 200f in treasures in AoE3. You are especially overstating the influence of the map spawns. It's common for players to only get 2 map restarts in a best of 9 (and there is no such thing as an admin restart, which happens all the time in AoE3), and often enough the 2 restarts that they have don't even get used. Even when one player has a clearly better map, the best player will often still win even at the top level. So should we be calling it a "huge" factor? Meh.
Being on top of your scout when it could potentially be nearing an enemy TC is fairly basic stuff. Can hardly blame RNG for losing it.

[edeholland]

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

The game was actually very successful in terms of sales, it sold more than aoe2 for example.

Sales don't mean much if people stop playing the game after a couple hours.

[gamevideo113]

@Goodspeed
Fortunately it's not often that you spawn on really bad maps, and tournament usually are played on custom maps that tend to be more balanced, but if you take the starting set of maps, which is still quite commonly used by the community you will be facing this kind of issues. If you take arabia, usually you will also find that one or more of your woodlines are "consumed up" by a little oasis/pond which is terrible.
Bad maps are kind of prevented in competitive play, that's why you don't see restarts in aoe2 that often. They can still be an issue though, and the fact that people tend not to call a map restart doesn't mean that the map is necessarily good. More often than not people decide to keep playing even of they have e.g. all golds forward because 1) it's annoying to call a restart and 2) you might need the restarts for an even worse map or a worse start later (not finding sheeps/boar etc), you never know.

In regards to the scout, as a matter of fact i said it is RNG unrelated. I just included in the list of things that annoy me because i find it definitely overpunishing. Imagine if TCs two shot explorers in aoe3. Would you say it would be a good game mechanic to have such a high punisment (lose explorer in a matter of seconds) for the simple mistake of walking a little too far with him?

Yes treasures are in fact probably the biggest RNG factor of AoE3. That can't be argued against. But between a gold start with japan on aoe3 and a bad map on aoe2 i'd take the gold start every day.

[juliuscaesar007]

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

The game was actually very successful in terms of sales, it sold more than aoe2 for example.

Sales don't mean much if people stop playing the game after a couple hours.

This

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed Fortunately it's not often that you spawn on really bad maps, and tournament usually are played on custom maps that tend to be more balanced,

So like EP maps?

[thekeyideas]

Yes, some times I do feel like that!
Maybe some UI improvements and an increase in the player base might boom it!
Currently, hardly my friends play AOE so yeah gets one dimensional at times.
Thank and regards,
https://thekeyideas.com

[Riotcoke]

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

The game was actually very successful in terms of sales, it sold more than aoe2 for example.

Sales don't mean much if people stop playing the game after a couple hours.

I'm not 100 percent sure of this, but that's only true for the multiplayer. I wouldn't be surprised if more people, when the game came out, only played the campaign and skirmish than the online multiplayer.

[juliuscaesar007]

i think u overestimating the map thing of aoe2 alot tbf like goodspeed says the better player will win there regardless of map if u dont believe go watch some high level tournaments. And things that annoy u arent a standard for a great rts lolz.
@scarm yes that is indeed a great point its also more fun for viewers but i feel rts is a genre where we should strive for as less of rng as possible this ofc is my own opinion as i like fair games where the most skilled and best strategic mind wins.

[zoom]

I think AoE3 partially suffers from a lack of creativity / poor maps / bad balance forcing certain strategies in the past.

Recently however I think that games (at least between top players) have been getting less one dimensional all the time. There were some games at the LAN that followed by your criteria, but there were also lots that did not.

Comebacks can be hard to make happen though. I think this is for a couple of reasons:

1) Plantations are too expensive. This makes map control even more important and game deciding than it already is.

2) Lategame isn’t nearly as well balanced as the early game is. Some civs have massive advantages. Personally I think that super-lategame we should try to make sure every civ has some solid tools to make use of so that there’s a reason to stay in the game and try to make those comebacks, instead of quitting the moment you fall behind against a civ that outscales you.

A quality post. For one thing, I wish to test 600w Plantations.

[zoom]

On the contrary, I've always thought AOE3 was less one dimensional than most RTS games due to its unique home city system. I think home cities help to speed up the pace of the game and introduce many different variations to builds, since you don't depend entirely on natural resources scattered around the map. Also, unit shipments and minutemen make it relatively easy to hold off rushes and cheeses, not to mention that players aren't even allowed to build too close to the enemy town center. I'm not sure about how frequent comebacks are, but I've seen some really great ones (like the French vs the Indians game on the LAN between Kaiser and Raphael) and I think snowballing is less of an issue in AOE3 due to the home city mechanic.

As for map control, it is an important feature in almost all RTS games as far as I know. Like in real war, army positioning and controlling certain resources are crucial to victory and they force players to think more strategically. If anything, I've observed that it's the insignificance and lack of map control that often frustrate players when playing against certain civs (*cough* Japan *cough*). Some games become really dull if all your opponent has to do is wall off, never leave their base and still have a decent chance of winning. I'm not saying camping should never work, but it should be hard to pull off.

The same goes for build orders. They are very common in RTS games and it makes sense the game should reward those who carefully devised their strategies and practiced them. I agree that improvising should be encouraged and makes the game more fun, but you shouldn't be surprised that better plan/build order leads to better chances of winning.

It could have been. I just think it's fundamentally flawed, and poorly implemented.

[juliuscaesar007]

On the contrary, I've always thought AOE3 was less one dimensional than most RTS games due to its unique home city system. I think home cities help to speed up the pace of the game and introduce many different variations to builds, since you don't depend entirely on natural resources scattered around the map. Also, unit shipments and minutemen make it relatively easy to hold off rushes and cheeses, not to mention that players aren't even allowed to build too close to the enemy town center. I'm not sure about how frequent comebacks are, but I've seen some really great ones (like the French vs the Indians game on the LAN between Kaiser and Raphael) and I think snowballing is less of an issue in AOE3 due to the home city mechanic.

As for map control, it is an important feature in almost all RTS games as far as I know. Like in real war, army positioning and controlling certain resources are crucial to victory and they force players to think more strategically. If anything, I've observed that it's the insignificance and lack of map control that often frustrate players when playing against certain civs (*cough* Japan *cough*). Some games become really dull if all your opponent has to do is wall off, never leave their base and still have a decent chance of winning. I'm not saying camping should never work, but it should be hard to pull off.

The same goes for build orders. They are very common in RTS games and it makes sense the game should reward those who carefully devised their strategies and practiced them. I agree that improvising should be encouraged and makes the game more fun, but you shouldn't be surprised that better plan/build order leads to better chances of winning.

It could have been. I just think it's fundamentally flawed, and poorly implemented.

Exactly the ideas are good for this game if maybe some too ambitious but they implemented it so badly its very sad this could have been a very unique and good rts. now its a unique decent rts wich i still love playing and watch cuz probably the best thing about aoe 3 is the community altough small and sometimes chaotic is very nice.

[edeholland]

Show hidden quotes

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

The game was actually very successful in terms of sales, it sold more than aoe2 for example.

Sales don't mean much if people stop playing the game after a couple hours.

I'm not 100 percent sure of this, but that's only true for the multiplayer. I wouldn't be surprised if more people, when the game came out, only played the campaign and skirmish than the online multiplayer.

Probably, but that doesn't make the game successful or popular.

[Riotcoke]

Show hidden quotes

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

The game was actually very successful in terms of sales, it sold more than aoe2 for example.

Sales don't mean much if people stop playing the game after a couple hours.

I'm not 100 percent sure of this, but that's only true for the multiplayer. I wouldn't be surprised if more people, when the game came out, only played the campaign and skirmish than the online multiplayer.

Probably, but that doesn't make the game successful or popular.

Successful for the company it does.

[edeholland]

Show hidden quotes

I feel like if AoE3 had somehow launched in the same state as it is even on RE TAD (not to mention EP), it would’ve been much more successful. The reason the game is unpopular is not because it’s actually bad, but more because the game was a huge mess of problems at launch and for a couple of years afterward.

The game was actually very successful in terms of sales, it sold more than aoe2 for example.

Sales don't mean much if people stop playing the game after a couple hours.

I'm not 100 percent sure of this, but that's only true for the multiplayer. I wouldn't be surprised if more people, when the game came out, only played the campaign and skirmish than the online multiplayer.

Probably, but that doesn't make the game successful or popular.

Successful for the company it does.

It's not really refuting Mitoe's argument though. The game definitely would have been more successful if it launched in a better state.