Is Aoe3 too one dimensional?

[Garja]

Yes, shipments, smaller maps , hard countering, weaker buildings and snare mechanic all make for shorter, one-battle games.
There is still plenty of room for playing and outplaying tho.

[gamevideo113]

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.

Usually the better player will win because usually maps are somewhat fair. I have seen tournament games though where the map basically just won the game for one player. I have seen my fair share of tournament games. Btw i never said that my standards are what a great RTS needs to meet.
Take this game for example: the map was basically perfect for 8th wonder and he walled with very little effort, inevitably shifting the focus of the fighting on Viper's base. Iirc it was the only game he could take from viper in this series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYh6SUq ... A&index=25

[Dolphincup]

It’s hard though because most people vehemently hate maps like this and refuse to adapt accordingly. E.g. would just do the same cav semi as on any other map and ignore water because they don’t like it. This has been improving a lot recently though, as we can say players are actually willing to try out maps like Indonesia and Ceylon and New England nowadays whereas before they would’ve just refused or made gentleman’s agreements with the opponents to not make warships or something.

I think AoE3 has a lot more potential than we give it credit for, players just need to be pushed out of their comfort zones more often, and forced to try new things.

I don’t think the balance on EP is that bad either on the most standard of maps. Pretty much every civ is playable in most matchups. My biggest concerns are that water still needs tweaking for several civs, and I guess I’m ready to give up on non-TP maps at this point because no one seems willing to make any changes to make more civs viable there.

I think that public decks are biggest reason we don't see adaptation in these cases. It's hard to ignore water when an opponent packs schooners and rendering plant. If decks were private, one would have no choice but to assume his opponent is packing schooners and rendering plant, and both players would probably play water by default instead of no-water by default

I realize that this has been discussed elsewhere, but private decks would also increase variability in game-play and decrease single-dimensionality.

[HUMMAN]

Yea one thing to add more bo's hiding/requiring investment to see oppenents deck. Decks could be the most important scouting value but seeing them requires no investment.

[deleted_user]

Seeing decks is good. Not seeing decks is bad. Gg

[scarm]

Age of Empires 3 uses a 3D-Graphics Engine [...]

There you go. Threedimensional in fact.

Would hiding the decks really change the meta? The problem with "cheese" i feel like isn't really that you know its coming, especially since most creative strats etc don't necessarily need many or any special cards to be executed. Otto or Spain FI Revolt for example could theoretically disguised pretty well, esp. if you are willing to not include Hussar shipments.

[Dolphincup]

most creative strats etc don't necessarily need many or any special cards to be executed.

the 'creative strats' you're referring to were all invented within the realm of public decks. Of course they don't need many or special cards to be executed. if they did need many cards or special cards to be executed, they would not be viable.

[Papist]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but one of the biggest differences between AoE3 and other games in the series is how important natural resources are. Because there's so much food on the map and mills are so expensive and bad by comparison, long term defensive play is not viable the way it is in AoE2. You have to push out to secure more resources and if you don't/can't, the game just ends.

[frostibite]

Aoe 3 is way too imbalanced. Balance is absolutely crucial for an rts to succeed. Almost every strategy post turns into "yeah if you are playing against Germany, India, ottoman, iro just hit resign". That's a huge red flag. I play both aoe 3 and sc 2 and there is nothing more frustrating than in aoe 3 losing to one fucking op unit or getting shit hunts. Way too much luck involved. In sc2, when you lose, you know it's something you did wrong, not something inherently wrong with the game. Aoe 3 pisses me off so much but I keep coming back and I dont know why. Its like being in an abusive relationship

[[Armag] diarouga]

Aoe 3 is way too imbalanced. Balance is absolutely crucial for an rts to succeed. Almost every strategy post turns into "yeah if you are playing against Germany, India, ottoman, iro just hit resign". That's a huge red flag. I play both aoe 3 and sc 2 and there is nothing more frustrating than in aoe 3 losing to one fucking op unit or getting shit hunts. Way too much luck involved. In sc2, when you lose, you know it's something you did wrong, not something inherently wrong with the game. Aoe 3 pisses me off so much but I keep coming back and I dont know why. Its like being in an abusive relationship

Well, people say the same about tvp in sc2 xD.

[juliuscaesar007]

those are just salty ppl lol cant deny aoe 3 has one if not the most random elements of rts games

[[Armag] diarouga]

those are just salty ppl lol cant deny aoe 3 has one if not the most random elements of rts games

Yea but my point is that people (me included) like to complain while the balance is, in fact, not that bad.
If you played aoe3 at high level, you'd know that the balance on the EP is mostly fine.

[n0el]

Civ balance is nearly perfect considering the variations in spawns, crates, maps, treasures, and having 14 civs.

[Mitoe]

those are just salty ppl lol cant deny aoe 3 has one if not the most random elements of rts games

Yea but my point is that people (me included) like to complain while the balance is, in fact, not that bad.
If you played aoe3 at high level, you'd know that the balance on the EP is mostly fine.

Yeah, it’s pretty good, probably the best it’s ever been.

[Interjection]

Next job is to focus on enabling more variety. I'd start with the dead content politicians

[[Armag] diarouga]

Next job is to focus on enabling more variety. I'd start with the dead content politicians

That's a personal opinion though.
I'd keep the civs close to the RE and enable more variety with new maps. Having a totally different game is confusing for the viewers who only play on the RE or the new players, and it's annoying for the players who will have to figure out strategies that will only be viable for a few months.

[gamevideo113]

Next job is to focus on enabling more variety. I'd start with the dead content politicians

Remove sepoys, you'll enable a lot of variety for indian players

[juliuscaesar007]

tbh its kinda dumb u have options in politicians and there are alot never even picked just dumb design also waaaay too many unusuable cards make for too little variety most decks have same or maybe2/3 cards difference depending on preferences wich is very limited design lolz. Changing the politicians to be actual choices and making more usefull cards would bring alot of variety to the game

[juliuscaesar007]

also knowing ur opponent deck is kinda dumb but i guess everyone just used to it lolz. Would create some interesting strats and making decisions more impactful prob. Like in a normal card game for example magic u dont know ur opponents deck so why would u have this free scouting advantage this game? it makes the players lazy cuz no need for scout

[[Armag] diarouga]

You seem to know a lot about aoe3 for someone who doesn't play the game at high level :)

[EAGLEMUT]

Next job is to focus on enabling more variety. I'd start with the dead content politicians

That's a personal opinion though.
I'd keep the civs close to the RE and enable more variety with new maps. Having a totally different game is confusing for the viewers who only play on the RE

This did matter when EP initially released, but as RE is quickly reaching its end-of-life, staying close to RE matters less and less.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Next job is to focus on enabling more variety. I'd start with the dead content politicians

That's a personal opinion though.
I'd keep the civs close to the RE and enable more variety with new maps. Having a totally different game is confusing for the viewers who only play on the RE

This did matter when EP initially released, but as RE is quickly reaching its end-of-life, staying close to RE matters less and less.

Some people like me, like the game as it is on the RE. Furthermore DE will not replace the RE, it will be a new expansion. Thus if people don't like it, they'll stay on the RE.

[Mr_Bramboy]

I wonder what the thought process was behind the age up politicians. Did the developers really think aging with a few sheep would be a viable alternative? Did they playtest any of this?

[deleted_user]

I wonder what the thought process was behind the age up politicians. Did the developers really think aging with a few sheep would be a viable alternative? Did they playtest any of this?

No.

[gamevideo113]

Playtesting happens all the time but devs are usually not great playtesters. The meta always develops in unexpected ways when a game is released.