the new AoE3

[Astaroth]

I just feel this is probably a subjective preference by some people who are most interested in the mechanics department of the game. Maybe there is (in some cases, not always of course) an overlap with people who enjoy LoL or CSGO. Not saying this to put anyone down, of course.

I'm more interested in the strategy side (also eg Total War, EU4 etc) so I enjoy the whole strategic part of the game most. Someone winning due to an ingenious build, strategy crafting etc. I love eg a great trade monopoly build to counter a turtle or Hazza vs Kynesie with India. Or also something like @Kaiserklein (I think) pulling off great counters vs builds by Mitoe or vs Spain as otto in one game (I think 2rax age2 jans with stage into relatively fast age3 and 2 falcs).

[Goodspeed]

I just feel this is probably a subjective preference by some people who are most interested in the mechanics department of the game. Maybe there is (in some cases, not always of course) an overlap with people who enjoy LoL or CSGO. Not saying this to put anyone down, of course.

This really is just false. Have any of my points gotten through to you? There are valid reasons to dislike playing against this sort of style that don't involve a preference for mechanics. For one, I myself was never much about the mechanics yet find the AoE3 turtle style unrewarding to play against. How do you explain that?

What has been your personal experience against it?

[callentournies]

Donald_Artimus giving us Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties Definitive Edition 2

[jesus3]

Age Of Empires DE Expansion: Help, I'm stuck stepbro

[Astaroth]

I just feel this is probably a subjective preference by some people who are most interested in the mechanics department of the game. Maybe there is (in some cases, not always of course) an overlap with people who enjoy LoL or CSGO. Not saying this to put anyone down, of course.

This really is just false. Have any of my points gotten through to you? There are valid reasons to dislike playing against this sort of style that don't involve a preference for mechanics. For one, I myself was never much about the mechanics yet find the AoE3 turtle style unrewarding to play against. How do you explain that?

What has been your personal experience against it?

I don't enjoy playing against a turtle per se, but I generally think it is good for the game if a multitude of strategies are viable, some of which require a specific counter build rather than just playing standard.

I find it deeply unrewarding to know that one player can just do one of like two main builds of his civ (maybe with 1-2 slight modifications) and still have a very high likelihood of winning, regardless of what his opponent is doing, as long as his mechanics are better. I like the theory crafting side of things: e.g. people inventing the otto 3 TC with abus/CA to counter Sioux on EP because 2rax jan rush wasn't really cutting it and other strategies just didn't work. Or, as I said, kaister going for a trade monopoly counter build vs Kynesie (which might even have worked on water if he had defended against petards in time).

Nothing is more boring to me (subjective of course) to just see two players do variations of a similar semi FF, worst of all in a mirror, and then dancing around with skirm/goon/cav, pull-tricking to victory. That is entertaining to see once or twice, but as a standard meta it is just disappointing to me.

[RefluxSemantic]

Yeah, I find this ^^ really true. I understand some people enjoy e.g. a micro heavy game, based mostly on micro, unit control, mechanic ability. That is fine and their prerogative.

I just dislike it if some people then pretend this is the best or only way to play or balance the game, whereas many other strats are considered lame, "not aoe3" or unbalanced.

If say 80% of players at decent level don't enjoy it, consider it's low skill, too strong, etc. Doesn't it become more than just a matter of opinion?

In my post - which he referenced - I suggested a system like old school runescape has. In that game you can vote on changes and they're only implemented with >70% of votes. I like that system for legacy games like aoe3.

[Goodspeed]

I just feel this is probably a subjective preference by some people who are most interested in the mechanics department of the game. Maybe there is (in some cases, not always of course) an overlap with people who enjoy LoL or CSGO. Not saying this to put anyone down, of course.

This really is just false. Have any of my points gotten through to you? There are valid reasons to dislike playing against this sort of style that don't involve a preference for mechanics. For one, I myself was never much about the mechanics yet find the AoE3 turtle style unrewarding to play against. How do you explain that?

What has been your personal experience against it?

I don't enjoy playing against a turtle per se

So not just a preference of mechanical players, then.

but I generally think it is good for the game if a multitude of strategies are viable, some of which require a specific counter build rather than just playing standard.

Variety is good, no argument there, but it's not the only thing that matters. If an overwhelming majority of players don't enjoy (playing against) a certain style, it's not good for the game. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, if a good amount of players have quit playing partly because of this.
You are treating variety as the one and only thing we should strive for in RTS design. But isn't it obvious that enjoyment of a game is at least as important? The two tend to correlate, but sometimes they don't.

I find it deeply unrewarding to know that one player can just do one of like two main builds of his civ (maybe with 1-2 slight modifications) and still have a very high likelihood of winning, regardless of what his opponent is doing, as long as his mechanics are better. I like the theory crafting side of things: e.g. people inventing the otto 3 TC with abus/CA to counter Sioux on EP because 2rax jan rush wasn't really cutting it and other strategies just didn't work. Or, as I said, kaister going for a trade monopoly counter build vs Kynesie (which might even have worked on water if he had defended against petards in time).

Nothing is more boring to me (subjective of course) to just see two players do variations of a similar semi FF, worst of all in a mirror, and then dancing around with skirm/goon/cav, pull-tricking to victory. That is entertaining to see once or twice, but as a standard meta it is just disappointing to me.

I agree with you, and have argued the same point in the past. It's partly why we had such a strong anti-standardization policy in EP. The thing is, you can have variety without insisting on retaining every single play style even if some of them make players not want to play the game. Is it really so black and white in your eyes, that you can either have variety or no variety, and that if you remove things because players don't enjoy them, you are necessarily throwing variety out the window? Shouldn't we strive to make changes that improve both variety AND enjoyment?

I'm not sure if you were around for the game's earlier years, but variety has increased steadily since then and we managed that without making the game less enjoyable to play. So we don't have to give up enjoyment for the sake of variety. And of course, we shouldn't. That should be a no brainer. This is a game, it should be fun to play.

Overall I think you are placing too much importance on the viewer experience as opposed to the player experience. Maybe that's because you're not really playing the game anymore, or idk why else, but I think you would do well to empathize with the players a bit more. They're not just there for your entertainment (I know you know that, but I still think you need to hear it). They are playing the game because they enjoy doing so, and if they stop enjoying it then sooner or later there will be nothing to view, either.

[Astaroth]

Overall I think you are placing too much importance on the viewer experience as opposed to the player experience. Maybe that's because you're not really playing the game anymore, or idk why else, but I think you would do well to empathize with the players a bit more. They're not just there for your entertainment (I know you know that, but I still think you need to hear it). They are playing the game because they enjoy doing so, and if they stop enjoying it then sooner or later there will be nothing to view, either.

There's some truth to this, for sure.

[Kaiserklein]

Overall I think you are placing too much importance on the viewer experience as opposed to the player experience. Maybe that's because you're not really playing the game anymore, or idk why else, but I think you would do well to empathize with the players a bit more. They're not just there for your entertainment (I know you know that, but I still think you need to hear it). They are playing the game because they enjoy doing so, and if they stop enjoying it then sooner or later there will be nothing to view, either.

Very true, and I think that's also something tourney admins don't realize enough.

[gibson]

Yeah, I find this ^^ really true. I understand some people enjoy e.g. a micro heavy game, based mostly on micro, unit control, mechanic ability. That is fine and their prerogative.

I just dislike it if some people then pretend this is the best or only way to play or balance the game, whereas many other strats are considered lame, "not aoe3" or unbalanced.

If say 80% of players at decent level don't enjoy it, consider it's low skill, too strong, etc. Doesn't it become more than just a matter of opinion?

In my post - which he referenced - I suggested a system like old school runescape has. In that game you can vote on changes and they're only implemented with >70% of votes. I like that system for legacy games like aoe3.

Who would be allowed d to vote though? Top 10 players? Top 100 players? Everybody? Cause you'll get very different results.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

Yeah, I find this ^^ really true. I understand some people enjoy e.g. a micro heavy game, based mostly on micro, unit control, mechanic ability. That is fine and their prerogative.

I just dislike it if some people then pretend this is the best or only way to play or balance the game, whereas many other strats are considered lame, "not aoe3" or unbalanced.

If say 80% of players at decent level don't enjoy it, consider it's low skill, too strong, etc. Doesn't it become more than just a matter of opinion?

In my post - which he referenced - I suggested a system like old school runescape has. In that game you can vote on changes and they're only implemented with >70% of votes. I like that system for legacy games like aoe3.

Who would be allowed d to vote though? Top 10 players? Top 100 players? Everybody? Cause you'll get very different results.

Everybody, probably. Ultimately the community consists of everybody. Its just an idea that they applied to Old school runescape. Its interesting to me.

[klonko]

It's kinda impossible to predict that having 2 guaranteed mines and guaranteed hunts would make this game more into boomy playstyle /s.

Hot takes: It's not the player that have been better at handling rushes, it's the map been better at denying rushes.

[Squamiger]

it makes sense from a customer relations standpoint to move the game away from rushes and toward more boomy/late game play, which is easy to forget when you've been playing multiplayer for a while. if you don't you get something like this:

step 1. brand new player sees the huge cities that people build in aoe3 and wants to try his hand at making his own mighty colony in the new world
step 2. brand new player tries multiplayer and gets pike rushed in 5 minutes 30, doesn't get to do anything that he wanted to do
step 3. brand new player is unsatisfied and unhappy, never plays multiplayer again

i know this happens for a fact because in 2008 i tried to get my friend to play aoe3 with me and then I pike rushed him and he didn't want to play a second game

[klonko]

it makes sense from a customer relations standpoint to move the game away from rushes and toward more boomy/late game play, which is easy to forget when you've been playing multiplayer for a while. if you don't you get something like this:

step 1. brand new player sees the huge cities that people build in aoe3 and wants to try his hand at making his own mighty colony in the new world
step 2. brand new player tries multiplayer and gets pike rushed in 5 minutes 30, doesn't get to do anything that he wanted to do
step 3. brand new player is unsatisfied and unhappy, never plays multiplayer again

i know this happens for a fact because in 2008 i tried to get my friend to play aoe3 with me and then I pike rushed him and he didn't want to play a second game

It was your own masterpiece. Don't freaking rush friends, especially noobs lol!

Also AoE2 is better for the sim city feeling. AoE3 you are developping a colony not an empire. So it kinda make sense to have less buildings in your city.

[Goodspeed]

it makes sense from a customer relations standpoint to move the game away from rushes and toward more boomy/late game play, which is easy to forget when you've been playing multiplayer for a while. if you don't you get something like this:

step 1. brand new player sees the huge cities that people build in aoe3 and wants to try his hand at making his own mighty colony in the new world
step 2. brand new player tries multiplayer and gets pike rushed in 5 minutes 30, doesn't get to do anything that he wanted to do
step 3. brand new player is unsatisfied and unhappy, never plays multiplayer again

i know this happens for a fact because in 2008 i tried to get my friend to play aoe3 with me and then I pike rushed him and he didn't want to play a second game

What were you thinking

[harcha]

yeah that's the fastest way to get your friend lose any interest in aoe3

[gibson]

Yea after I 5v1'ed irl friends they stopped playing pretty soon after, albeit they're playing a new game every other week so it was kinda to be expected regardless

[Squamiger]

i was young and stupid ok

[Hazza54321]

I remember playing my first game against @WickedCossack in sc2 where he made dark templars (cunt) and didnt tell me how to reveal them

[look]

I remember playing my first game against @WickedCossack in sc2 where he made dark templars (cunt) and didnt tell me how to reveal them

AHAHA THAT SI CK

I was a master at sc2.

[Goodspeed]

Impressive

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

- go afk during the first game to let them win.
- pike rush them in the next ten games while they are chasing that winning feeling they got during the first game.

[helln00]

It's kinda impossible to predict that having 2 guaranteed mines and guaranteed hunts would make this game more into boomy playstyle /s.

Hot takes: It's not the player that have been better at handling rushes, it's the map been better at denying rushes.

Then the next step is to make more experimental maps, Aoe 2 started doing that after their maps got fixed and atleast it keeps things lively. Though we might get another Thar Desert situation

[Goodspeed]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=15754

I think the majority of players has been in favor of this for quite a while but nothing has come of it so far, as far as I know. Of course, you do need talented and creative map scripters who are willing to do the job and understand the game well enough to design maps that feel refreshing but are also enjoyable to play, and then playtesters to test them. It's not a trivial task by any means.

[n0el]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=15754

I think the majority of players has been in favor of this for quite a while but nothing has come of it so far, as far as I know. Of course, you do need talented and creative map scripters who are willing to do the job and understand the game well enough to design maps that feel refreshing but are also enjoyable to play, and then playtesters to test them. It's not a trivial task by any means.

well i agree with this 100% and of course the meta is driven way more by map design than but balance in nearly every RTS game, AoE3 is no different.
in terms of have map makers that can accomplish this, i feel like the insanely negative feedback that they get all the time, especially from higher level players, is a huge part of the issue with doing this things. even in the past I know that some map makers worked with some high level players specifically to make some maps, and they still got flamed by the rest of the crowd.