AOE4 All We Know From April 10th

[Goodspeed]

It wouldn't be in the AoE spirit, but it's disappointing that they didn't learn from Starcraft and made 3, max 4 civs.

We can safely assume, going by the amount and uniqueness of civs, that 90%+ of the match ups will be unbalanced and it will be impossible to fix. They'll likely have to settle for the AoE3 concept of "balance" where civs win a close to equal amount of match ups, and give up on balancing every MU. We can only hope the mechanical skill cap is high enough for it not to be game deciding on even lower levels, as it sometimes can be in AoE3.

But unbalanced match ups will likely be a big thing, even with a high skill cap and regardless of whether or not there's a competent balance team.
If you look at AoE2's tournament rules vs AoE3's, there are big differences when it comes to civ picking, and the main reason is how much more impactful counterpicking is in AoE3. The blind pick format from AoE2 would be unacceptable in AoE3 because many series would be decided by rock-paper-scissors picking luck.

Early on in AoE4 players likely won't understand the game well enough for counterpicking to be as big of a deal as it is in AoE3. But as the meta gets more and more figured out, players will start to understand that there are hard counters. At that point, tournament rules need to change to AoE3's current standard. I hope it doesn't take too long before everyone sees that.

The same applies to ladder matches. Idk how they did it in AoE3:DE but the fact that on ESO, lobbies allowed players to agree on a match up before going ingame is very important when counter civs can make or break a game.

But there may be possible, afaik all less than ideal, solutions to this. I hope but have no faith that the devs treated it as the significant issue that it is, despite how easy it is to underestimate, and actively looked for solutions.

We could draw lessons from unexpected places, like M:TG. Magic is a CCG which features many types of decks, and some decks counter each other. In competitive environments they have dealt with that by enabling "side boarding": Every deck has the option to have an extra 15 cards that are not in the starting deck, called the side board, which they can switch into their deck by replacing cards that are less important in certain match ups. Per match up, you have cards in your side board that help you in that specific match up, but they are not cards you would want in every match up.

What I'm trying to think of are ways to make balance tweakable in individual match ups, as they do in Magic by printing cards that help certain decks in specific match ups, but don't affect them in all match ups. It's important to have the option for balance changes to only affect specific match ups, because if you only have the option to tweak a civ in ways where all match ups are affected, you will never be able to balance every single match up, or even get close, as we have seen in AoE3.

Say you're Brits vs India in AoE3, where India outscales Brits but Brits have a midgame timing which can potentially win the game. And say the balance scales currently tip towards India in this match up, but India is considered a weak civ in general because they lose a lot of other match ups. Changing India in a way that balances it in other match ups but doesn't ruin Brits' chances even further is quite a challenge. Ideal would be if you had a tech or something that is only relevant in Brit vs India.

One possible solution, though a very ugly one, would be simply a boost to all of Brits' units' damage against all of India's units, meaning Brit units get a fixed multiplier against all Indian units. This multiplier is then easy to tweak, in order to balance specifically that MU.
Another is that you make match up specific civ bonuses, meaning every civ would have additional civ bonuses as required in the pursuit of balance, which only apply in specific match ups. So one Brit civ bonus may be: "Versus India, musketeers get +1 attack".

It's unlikely that they would complicate things for themselves to this extent, even if it's the only way to make balance on higher levels of play possible, because making a competitive e-sport RTS doesn't seem to be the goal. This is disappointing to see, because focusing on that could be the one thing that moves the franchise forward, from a series of somewhat niche RTS games to a Starcraft competitor. Companies like Frost Giant are learning mostly from Blizzard RTS. They're not even considering adding more than 4 races. Why? Because it would immediately disqualify their game from being taken seriously by a community that is used to a certain degree of balance. Yes, AoE4 is already disqualified here, by making the fundamentally wrong (when it comes to RTS design) choice of breadth over depth.

So I think we'll be resigned to AoE3-style balance where no one really has the option to specialize in one civ, and good players will be required to know every civ in order to enable counterpicking. And ultimately, tournaments will have to include counterpicking in their rule sets which means that most games will have one player starting with an advantage. From both competitive and tournament viewer perspectives, this kills hype significantly. It could be a reason for many players to drop the game and return to AoE2, where this is not really an issue.

Generally, AoE3's glaring balance issues and the way the community has attempted to deal with them over the years contains many lessons. I hope the devs know it.

This got a bit long. TL;DR: Balance with 8+ unique civs is realistically impossible which ensures that AoE4 will not rise above its predecessors in reach, and will not be an SC competitor, no matter how fun it is.

[RefluxSemantic]

Would you label the final iterations of EP balance as unsatisfactory though? For the most part of it I've always thought the tournament system worked well. To me the bigger problem has always been the match up problems in quick search or casual play.

But to some extend, couldnt these problems mostly be solved if you'd increase the skill requirement of aoe3? Macro and micro is relatively easy, which makes it almost impossible to outplay someone in a bad match up. If you can make up for the deficit then maybe its fine?

[Goodspeed]

Would you label the final iterations of EP balance as unsatisfactory though? For the most part of it I've always thought the tournament system worked well. To me the bigger problem has always been the match up problems in quick search or casual play.

EP only ever strived for the sort of balance where civs win an equal amount of match ups. We never tried to balance all match ups because it's impossible with this much civ diversity. And yeah, the tournament picking rules were the best they could be, after many iterations of tournament rules over the years, because we finally learned to embrace counterpicking.

But such tournament rules are very much not ideal from a competitive perspective. Players shouldn't start games with advantages that big. A game should never be started as one team's game to lose, because it significantly kills hype and lowers the skill cap. In its most extreme form a counter pick means certain victory, which with our current rule set would mean that whoever wins game 1 wins the series, no matter how long it is. At that point, can you really say the best player won, even if it's a best of 21? And given that, how interesting is a series after game 1? It's just going through the motions.

Of course the reality is not that extreme, but it gets closer and closer to that extreme with increased civ diversity and lowered mechanical skill cap. AoE4 seems to be attempting significant civ diversity, perhaps even more than AoE3 did, which will likely bring it closer to that extreme. More on the skill cap below.

Regardless though, this kind of situation is not acceptable to the community of players who is used to a certain degree of balance. I'm mostly talking about the competitive SC community here, which would immediately disqualify the game based on this alone. Even for the AoE2 community this will apply to some extent, because they are used to relatively good balance on higher levels of play, even across individual match ups, because the mechanical skill cap is so high and civs less diverse.

But to some extent, couldnt these problems mostly be solved if you'd increase the skill requirement of aoe3? Macro and micro is relatively easy, which makes it almost impossible to outplay someone in a bad match up. If you can make up for the deficit then maybe its fine?

So yeah, this is true, but does it sound likely that AoE4 will be as mechanically challenging as AoE2? To me, no. Modern games tend to make quality of life "improvements" that make them significantly easier to play. I have no reason to believe AoE4 will be an exception.
And regardless, at the highest level of play, with this much civ diversity, there is almost no amount of skill cap that could fully compensate for the balance issues, which will be glaring indeed.

[princeofcarthage]

You outplay with your strategy, build/counter build order, correct use of map features/unique civ features. Not by simply tapping more keys. Increasing skill level through micro and macro implies higher apm. So instead of basing skill of a player on his mind you are placing it on his physical limitations or not. This is not a bad thing in general but specifically bad for aoe 3 and not a necessity. Of course this is hypothetical since EP and now by extension DE are click fests about who can make the most efficient build.

[RefluxSemantic]

@Goodspeed in practice though, counterpicks have hardly functioned as true counterpicks. It never really seems like this system leads to many blatantly imbalanced match ups and I believe the data backs this up (at least from what I remember, the winrate in counterpicks wasnt really that high). Furthermore I think that in aoe3 the counterpick system is actually a system that favors skill (game knowledge) as figuring out good counter civs and good civs to pick first requires a pretty deep understanding.

Most competitive games actually seem to accept the imbalances that come with diversity. You keep talking about starcraft (and tbh I cant read about sc2 without seeing some balance whining), but that seems more of an exception really. Im thinking about MTG (sideboarding is hardly a fix) hearthstone, smash, overwatch, dota, LoL and all I see is assymetric, imbalanced design. I dont think competitive players care as much as you think they do. Its still a trade off, but I can see why 8+ civs is preferable.

[Goodspeed]

You outplay with your strategy, build/counter build order, correct use of map features/unique civ features. Not by simply tapping more keys. Increasing skill level through micro and macro implies higher apm. So instead of basing skill of a player on his mind you are placing it on his physical limitations or not. This is not a bad thing in general but specifically bad for aoe 3 and not a necessity. Of course this is hypothetical since EP and now by extension DE are click fests about who can make the most efficient build.

When the meta is mostly figured out (and every RTS reaches this point, it's inherent to the genre) there are unfortunately not that many opportunities to out-strategize on higher levels of play. This is especially the case if the match up isn't balanced.

[princeofcarthage]

You outplay with your strategy, build/counter build order, correct use of map features/unique civ features. Not by simply tapping more keys. Increasing skill level through micro and macro implies higher apm. So instead of basing skill of a player on his mind you are placing it on his physical limitations or not. This is not a bad thing in general but specifically bad for aoe 3 and not a necessity. Of course this is hypothetical since EP and now by extension DE are click fests about who can make the most efficient build.

When the meta is mostly figured out (and every RTS reaches this point, it's inherent to the genre) there are unfortunately not that many opportunities to out-strategize on higher levels of play. This is especially the case if the match up isn't balanced.

Which is a balance issue for aoe 3 and design issue for other games. Out of 100+ cards per civ 60% of them useless unless you want to troll. Meaning you can't create legitimate strategies around them. When you say "meta is figured out" it implies it means certain things are almost always infinitely better than others, which is an issue. If you keep room for improvisation at every point in game and are able to get players to actually react to game then there is not going to be a single best strategy and players will have to optimize on the fly. That means every single game is going to be different and will actually come down to how players utilize game knowledge and strategize.

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed in practice though, counterpicks have hardly functioned as true counterpicks. It never really seems like this system leads to many blatantly imbalanced match ups and I believe the data backs this up (at least from what I remember, the winrate in counterpicks wasnt really that high).

When you get closer to perfect play, counterpicks will have higher and higher win rates. In AoE3, since it's not played much, we have the benefit of our best players being relatively far from perfect. If AoE4 is going to be the big RTS we're all hoping it to be, players are going to get significantly closer to perfection. Also, increased diversity and decreased mechanical skill cap both mean counterpicks are a bigger deal. I haven't looked into the AoE4 civs but it seems possible, maybe even safe to say, that it will have both more civ diversity and a lower skill cap than AoE3.

Furthermore I think that in aoe3 the counterpick system is actually a system that favors skill (game knowledge) as figuring out good counter civs and good civs to pick first requires a pretty deep understanding.

Yes by embracing counterpicking rules we created a different kind of skill cap. It's the best we can do given the game we're dealing with. And it seems likely that the same choice will have to be made for AoE4. My point is simply that this will disqualify it in the eyes of many. Possibly even myself tbh.

Most competitive games actually seem to accept the imbalances that come with diversity. You keep talking about starcraft (and tbh I cant read about sc2 without seeing some balance whining), but that seems more of an exception really. Im thinking about MTG (sideboarding is hardly a fix) hearthstone, smash, overwatch, dota, LoL and all I see is assymetric, imbalanced design. I dont think competitive players care as much as you think they do. Its still a trade off, but I can see why 8+ civs is preferable.

I think the most important difference between RTS and all those other games you mentioned is that it's not a big deal to learn extra "civs" in M:TG, HS or dota-like games. When you pick up a new champion in LoL there's a lot to learn, but not close to as much as when you pick up a new race in Starcraft. The process of learning the game tends to naturally mean you learn multiple champions. But people go into Starcraft playing 1 race, and playing other races casually is a thing but they will never be forced to do so competitively. This allows them to specialize and go more in depth when it comes to their strategic understanding of that one race. This "depth over breadth" is a pretty core fundamental of RTS design and one that applies to races/civs as well imo.

You can tell people naturally prefer depth over breadth in AoE3 as well. Even there you will see that up to a relatively high level of play, players will mostly specialize. Some never branch out, pretty much disqualifying them from tournaments. For some, this can be a big road block that might even cause them to drop the game.

[RefluxSemantic]

I think the group of players which wont play the game because it wont have perfect balanace is substantially smaller than you make it out to be. Ideally we would just have only mirror match ups in symmetrical maps, at least in terms of competitive gameplay. But I feel like most people appreciate the increase in content that multiple civs offer. It comes at a price, but I'm willing to bet that thats a price most people are willing to pay.

I want to adress some of your arguments. I feel that in all aoe games, picking up a new civ is about as easy if not easier than learning new heroes in mobas or for example overwatch (Ive owned that game since its release and I can still only play 4 heroes or sth) or even new decks in MTG (dont the pros spent weeks playtesting the decks they end up bringing to tournaments). The difference between these games and aoe3 is the skill requirement (or for mtg the big role that metagaming plays) for those games.

I also dont understand why you think aoe4 will be easier. Everything indicates a return to aoe2 mechanics, which means managing resource dropoff points and no training in batches, which will make macro a lot harder. There might be QoL improvements sure, but I dont really understand what sort of huge improvements you expect (and honestly, I dont see the trend of QoL changes making games easier in general).

[RefluxSemantic]

You outplay with your strategy, build/counter build order, correct use of map features/unique civ features. Not by simply tapping more keys. Increasing skill level through micro and macro implies higher apm. So instead of basing skill of a player on his mind you are placing it on his physical limitations or not. This is not a bad thing in general but specifically bad for aoe 3 and not a necessity. Of course this is hypothetical since EP and now by extension DE are click fests about who can make the most efficient build.

When the meta is mostly figured out (and every RTS reaches this point, it's inherent to the genre) there are unfortunately not that many opportunities to out-strategize on higher levels of play. This is especially the case if the match up isn't balanced.

Which is a balance issue for aoe 3 and design issue for other games. Out of 100+ cards per civ 60% of them useless unless you want to troll. Meaning you can't create legitimate strategies around them. When you say "meta is figured out" it implies it means certain things are almost always infinitely better than others, which is an issue. If you keep room for improvisation at every point in game and are able to get players to actually react to game then there is not going to be a single best strategy and players will have to optimize on the fly. That means every single game is going to be different and will actually come down to how players utilize game knowledge and strategize.

The problem is that you might have some match ups where one strategy is just not stoppable. Some of these match ups feels like you're playing chess from a position where your opponent has mate in 5. Sometimes it really feels like the entire deck is stacked against you and in some cases you cant really play around the deficit.

Thats why I brought up the skill argument. If you get the opportunity to outplay (whether it be micro, macro, tactics or even some smart strategy things) the imbalance doesnt feel as bad. But for example in chess, mate in 5 is simply mate in 5. Nothing you can do about it unless your opponent fucks up.

[Goodspeed]

I think the group of players which wont play the game because it wont have perfect balanace is substantially smaller than you make it out to be. Ideally we would just have only mirror match ups in symmetrical maps, at least in terms of competitive gameplay. But I feel like most people appreciate the increase in content that multiple civs offer. It comes at a price, but I'm willing to bet that thats a price most people are willing to pay.

Ideally we'd have diversity but not too much. You say mirrors on symmetrical maps is the ideal but of course that's not the case. That's pretty much the only way to have a properly balanced game in AoE3, but my whole point is that AoE4 should learn from the RTS that actually managed to have acceptable balance on high levels of play alongside diversity, like Starcraft.

If you tell someone "it's a really fun game but the balance isn't perfect" they likely won't care. But poor balance is a silent killer. Facing the same thing over and over on ladder is one thing, but then going on a forum to figure out how to beat it and seeing that it's just an OP build or your civ doesn't have the tools to beat it and you have to live with playing from a disadvantage is going to kill your hype fast. And seeing nothing but mirrors, or mostly the same match ups, on the pro level is also a big hype killer, especially when you've come to expect a high degree of diversity given the amount of civs that are in the game. It makes the game come across broken.

Perhaps most importantly, pro players like TheViper or Hera are not going to be stuck playing an unbalanced game when they could be playing AoE2. And big personalities like them are the core of your community. Lose them, and see many follow. This applies even more to big SC personalities like Artosis, who will drop the game in a heartbeat over balance concerns. I think you underestimate how many players quit AoE3 early on due to its glaring balance issues. Of course, it's a hard thing to prove either way.

I want to adress some of your arguments. I feel that in all aoe games, picking up a new civ is about as easy if not easier than learning new heroes in mobas or for example overwatch (Ive owned that game since its release and I can still only play 4 heroes or sth) or even new decks in MTG (dont the pros spent weeks playtesting the decks they end up bringing to tournaments).

I disagree that new civs in RTS are as easy to pick up as new moba heroes or Magic decks, with some exceptions (like AoE2), but that's not the only factor. It's not only about how easy it is. It's about whether you want to or not. And the reality is that players tend to prefer depth over breadth in RTS.

I also dont understand why you think aoe4 will be easier. Everything indicates a return to aoe2 mechanics, which means managing resource dropoff points and no training in batches, which will make macro a lot harder. There might be QoL improvements sure, but I dont really understand what sort of huge improvements you expect (and honestly, I dont see the trend of QoL changes making games easier in general).

Fair, if they go back to AoE2 mechanics with some QoL improvements I suppose it's likely it will be relatively mechanically challenging compared to AoE3. The question then is will it be enough to compensate for the inevitably horrible civ balance?

[samwise12]

hey @Goodspeed

[Goodspeed]

sup

[n0el]

I don't know why people think the civs are going to be inherently balanced so poorly.

[Goodspeed]

Lol time will tell

What do we know about the monetization model?

[n0el]

time will tell

I mean, I guess, but the game has been play tested for the last 3 years by a group of 30-40 players, and there are multiple teams affiliated with MS that are testing it all the time.

What do we know about the monetization model?

its a GaaS model afaik, so id expect it to be similar to 2DE and 3DE.

[RefluxSemantic]

I don't know why people think the civs are going to be inherently balanced so poorly.

Goodspeed thinks the match ups will inevitably be a bit imbalanced.

Its probably true but I think he's overstating the effect it will have. Im sure its even more important that the game is fun. Balanace is only relevant when the game is fun in the first place. Thats probably why most devs opt for diversity over balance.

[Goodspeed]

time will tell

I mean, I guess, but the game has been play tested for the last 3 years by a group of 30-40 players, and there are multiple teams affiliated with MS that are testing it all the time.

And AoE3 was live tested and balanced over more than a decade and we're still not close. What I mean by inherently unbalanced is that it's virtually impossible to balance every match up. Making sure each civ wins an equal number of match ups may be possible, but is a different, much less than ideal type of balance.

What do we know about the monetization model?

its a GaaS model afaik, so id expect it to be similar to 2DE and 3DE.

Will there be ways to spend money on aesthetics? Would be ideal if there's something to incentivize the devs to make sure people want to actually keep playing their game, not just buy it, play it for 30 hours and then drop it, only to come back for any future expansions.
The more time you spend playing a game, the more you spend on skins. So if the game includes those, the devs have incentives to focus on replayability.

[duckzilla]

Damn, now I'm somewhat excited and want this game to be published soon.... Their damn propaganda works well on me. The descriptions posted on the previous page sound fantastic. Mechanics seems to be tailored around the unique cultures and historical events of each civilization (e.g. the dynasty thing with China). I could even imagine that mechanics surrounding the HRE in its bordergore glory might be implemented if Germans are added at some point, e.g. by adding some italian, french, dutch, and czech flavor as those were part of the HRE.

[duckzilla]

The more time you spend playing a game, the more you spend on skins.

Would love to see my Landsknechts and Reisläufers in a unique and fancy fashion.

[RefluxSemantic]

Damn, now I'm somewhat excited and want this game to be published soon.... Their damn propaganda works well on me. The descriptions posted on the previous page sound fantastic. Mechanics seems to be tailored around the unique cultures and historical events of each civilization (e.g. the dynasty thing with China). I could even imagine that mechanics surrounding the HRE in its bordergore glory might be implemented if Germans are added at some point, e.g. by adding some italian, french, dutch, and czech flavor as those were part of the HRE.

Its just the arrow animations atm that keep me from becoming completely obsessed with this game. Im super hyped otherwise. Fall 2021 cant come any sooner

[n0el]

And AoE3 was live tested and balanced over more than a decade and we're still not close. What I mean by inherently unbalanced is that it's virtually impossible to balance every match up. Making sure each civ wins an equal number of match ups may be possible, but is a different, much less than ideal type of balance.

AoE3 has cards and unique civilizations, its not like AoE2 where the civs have the same core units and there are some unique units and techs.

[RefluxSemantic]

And AoE3 was live tested and balanced over more than a decade and we're still not close. What I mean by inherently unbalanced is that it's virtually impossible to balance every match up. Making sure each civ wins an equal number of match ups may be possible, but is a different, much less than ideal type of balance.

AoE3 has cards and unique civilizations, its not like AoE2 where the civs have the same core units and there are some unique units and techs.

That is goodspeeds point? Unique civilizations like in aoe3 (and as they seemingly advertise for aoe4) make balancing harder. 8+ civs makes balancing individual match ups impossible.

And then Mart thinks this means the game wont succeed because a large portion of players wont even consider a game that doesnt have perfect balance.

[n0el]

Just because they are advertising unique civs I wouldn't bet that they are that unique.

[RefluxSemantic]

Just because they are advertising unique civs I wouldn't bet that they are that unique.

I saw a civ that can pack up its entire town and move. I'm thinking its more aoe3 than aoe2.