no one is against rally point.
some are against queuing.
And why to agree with rally point and not with queuing? Rally point alterning a lot the game play too. Your argument is falacious because totaly selective. Sometimes, you say that altering the charm but sometimes not.
age of empire1 community is non active because its been 20years old. and by this time there was not internet >connection to play multiplayer
Aoe2 is active and the original multiplayer is the same, why aoe2 growth here community and not aoe1?
no one is against rally point.
some are against queuing.
And why to agree with rally point and not with queuing? Rally point alterning a lot the game play too. Your argument is falacious because totaly selective. Sometimes, you say that altering the charm but sometimes not.
age of empire1 community is non active because its been 20years old. and by this time there was not internet >connection to play multiplayer
Aoe2 is active and the original multiplayer is the same as aoe1. Why aoe2 growth her community and not aoe1?
1_ rally point is not the same than production.
introducing queuing remove something from the game. the disparity between people able to master a build order. being absolutely regular in villager and boat production.
absence of rally point on the other hand doesnt bring anything to the game.
so adding rally point doesnt remove any interesting part to the game.
its nothing “hard” to scroll the map and get unit. it doesnt change anything to the game outcome. its just boring
its the proof we have an open mind and always bring the question to the table : will it bring more emotion/strategy?
rally point =yes
queing =no
gate = no
farm = no
you cant compare age of king in 2000 when unlimited internet and fast internet has risen accross the world, with age of empire 1 where it was only a few with stone age access… and multiplauer game was at his birth…
introducing queuing remove something from the game.
Introducing rally point, better pathfiding and atta moove don’t remove something from the game? (or improve in my opinion). Your point of view is realy realy hard to understant
absence of rally point on the other hand doesnt bring anything to the game.
so adding rally point doesnt remove any interesting part to the game.
Just like queuing.
its the proof we have an open mind and always bring the question to the table : will it bring more >emotion/strategy?
Its totally subjective
you cant compare age of king in 2000 when unlimited internet and fast internet has risen accross the world, >with age of empire 1 where it was only a few with stone age access… and multiplauer game was at his birth…
fast internet in 2000 ?? And, it doesn’t refute the argument, if aoe1 is the best, with current internet the community has never grown up.
@Player716208890 said:
What do you think about land trading? Would you like it? I do. I think that, currently, matches in mediterranian-rivers maps last longer than those that take place in maps without water masses. The same system (trading one resource for gold and limited amount of trading) but with markets
introducing queuing remove something from the game.
Introducing rally point, better pathfiding and atta moove don’t remove something from the game? (or improve in my opinion). Your point of view is realy realy hard to understant
No, better pathfinding, it doesnt remove from the game, it improves it
absence of rally point on the other hand doesnt bring anything to the game.
so adding rally point doesnt remove any interesting part to the game.
Just like queuing.
No queuing is a whole part of the game.
it’s something useful to create difference beetween player, with the same build order, some will manage to realize it in 13 minute, while others will manage to do it in 13.30 or 14.00.
That’s plenty to make a whole difference.
its the proof we have an open mind and always bring the question to the table : will it bring more >emotion/strategy?
Its totally subjective
you cant compare age of king in 2000 when unlimited internet and fast internet has risen accross the world, >with age of empire 1 where it was only a few with stone age access… and multiplauer game was at his birth…
fast internet in 2000 ?? And, it doesn’t refute the argument, if aoe1 is the best, with current internet the community has never grown up.
Starcraft1 was more sucessful than starcraft2.
But there is more player of sc2 today than sc1
Starcraft1 was more sucessful than starcraft2.
But there is more player of sc2 today than sc1
So what is your point ?
Sc1 more successful than sc2? How you can said that?
And if you want compare sc/sc2 with aoe1/aoe2-myto-3 , starcraft-BW is still very played comparativly to aoe1.
Starcraft1 was more sucessful than starcraft2.
But there is more player of sc2 today than sc1
So what is your point ?
Sc1 more successful than sc2? How you can said that?
And if you want compare sc/sc2 with aoe1/aoe2-myto-3 , starcraft-BW is still very played comparativly to aoe1.
first its not sc1 its broodwar. so its a lot improved
then
because sc1 has only one newest game : sc2.
while aoe.had aoe2, aom, aoe3, aoe online…
every new game absorb and split the community.
seriously i dont want to discuss such nonsense with u.
moreovr its off topic
no one is against rally point.
some are against queuing.
And why to agree with rally point and not with queuing? Rally point alterning a lot the game play too. Your argument is falacious because totaly selective. Sometimes, you say that altering the charm but sometimes not.
age of empire1 community is non active because its been 20years old. and by this time there was not internet >connection to play multiplayer
Aoe2 is active and the original multiplayer is the same as aoe1. Why aoe2 growth her community and not aoe1?
1_ rally point is not the same than production.
introducing queuing remove something from the game. the disparity between people able to master a build order. being absolutely regular in villager and boat production.
absence of rally point on the other hand doesnt bring anything to the game.
so adding rally point doesnt remove any interesting part to the game.
its nothing “hard” to scroll the map and get unit. it doesnt change anything to the game outcome. its just boring
its the proof we have an open mind and always bring the question to the table : will it bring more emotion/strategy?
rally point =yes
queing =no
gate = no
farm = no
you cant compare age of king in 2000 when unlimited internet and fast internet has risen accross the world, with age of empire 1 where it was only a few with stone age access… and multiplauer game was at his birth…
seriously you make nonsense.
Saying that queue destroys the game is just horsecrap. Remeber that the Rise of Rome expansion even supported queue. And it made the game so much more enjoyable. Nonetheless, since AOE:DE is based on the Rise of Rome expansion it will have support for queue anyway, so this discussion is rather pointless.
"Fun is about to not queue villagers. to be precise to the timing you will click to make another one.
its about looking in statistic after 10mn and see that you have 35villagers and the opponent have 42 and you say “****!”
If you can queue villagers, when you will look stats, all people will have 42 villagers.
its boring."
Well I don’t agree with you there. What if some player is a good tactician, and enjoys trying to outplay his opponent in the field, but he is not too accustomed to effective micromanagement?
You are putting him at a sizeable disadvantage over a faster/younger player more able at multitasking, you might actually be making the game less fun for him
Also, APM is a marker of mechanical skill, which is of course important, but in think the game should focus more on rewarding strategical thinking
"Fun is about to not queue villagers. to be precise to the timing you will click to make another one.
its about looking in statistic after 10mn and see that you have 35villagers and the opponent have 42 and you say “****!”
If you can queue villagers, when you will look stats, all people will have 42 villagers.
its boring."
Well I don’t agree with you there. What if some player is a good tactician, and enjoys trying to outplay his opponent in the field, but he is not too accustomed to effective micromanagement?
You are putting him at a sizeable disadvantage over a faster/younger player more able at multitasking, you might actually be making the game less fun for him
Also, APM is a marker of mechanical skill, which is of course important, but in think the game should focus more on rewarding strategical thinking
well rts is not only about tactics. its about multitasking too, micromanagement and precision
"Fun is about to not queue villagers. to be precise to the timing you will click to make another one.
its about looking in statistic after 10mn and see that you have 35villagers and the opponent have 42 and you say “****!”
If you can queue villagers, when you will look stats, all people will have 42 villagers.
its boring."
Well I don’t agree with you there. What if some player is a good tactician, and enjoys trying to outplay his opponent in the field, but he is not too accustomed to effective micromanagement?
You are putting him at a sizeable disadvantage over a faster/younger player more able at multitasking, you might actually be making the game less fun for him
Also, APM is a marker of mechanical skill, which is of course important, but in think the game should focus more on rewarding strategical thinking
“enjoys trying to outplay his opponent in the field, but he is not too accustomed to effective micromanagement?
You are putting him at a sizeable disadvantage over a faster/younger player more able at multitasking, you might actually be making the game less fun for him”
sorry but you re wrong.
if you want strategy go to play civilisation or any 4x.
aoe is a RTS, execution, micromanaging, multitasking is 70% of the game.
if someone cant do that, he deserve to lose.
thats the proof to me that you are in the wrong game.
look sc2, APM is very important.
so much, that its the absolute base to be a pro player and no pro player have bad APM/multitasking
