I am seeing a trend like activating some ability makes units resistant to something. This makes it feel like a fantasy game rather than an AOE game. Let us say an active ability like regeneration or increase in damage, this gives very fantasy game type vibes. A human cannot all of a sudden increase damage just because they heard some war cry or banner. A technology like high quality rations might actually increase, but an aura giving ability does not fit AOE4. This will work well if this game had routing mechanic or morale mechanic.
Instead of these type of fantasy ability why not give mechanical abilities like unpacking and setting some camp,or trample like cataphract, raise shields, Forced march which increases speed but deducts HP for duration of forced march and will recovers over time, or unpack a war camp to get recovery faster. Charge for french knights which do an impact damage on first contact.
It will be great to see abilities which actually do things physically on the world and more mechanical ability rather than simply activate and forget type aura stuff.
thanks and hope team listens to these feedbacks.
2 Likes
There are quite literally examples of this throughout history.
The game doesnât need a morale mechanic to simulate buffs to morale improving unit performance for a limited time.
4 Likes
I was put off by these too when I first started playing, but got used to it. AoE4 seems to put gameplay first, before immersion or historical accuracy.
1 Like
Iâve got bad news for you. Special effects are part of the series since AoM and can be manually triggered since AoE 3, like the Explorer/War Chief:
5 Likes
AOM can have that. AOE 3 I donât know, was never loved by the community much.
1 Like
The age of empires series has abilities that come in three categories:
- Active: abilities that are used at will, normally has cooldown
- Passive: abilities that are active at all times
- Charged: abilities that are activated once a certain threshold is met, normally time but can also be a certain amount of damage received
Age of Empires 4 does have more active abilities among standard units, but thatâs arguably its identity in the age series. French knights get a unique passive ability to heal out of combat, Malian spearmen get a charged ability to throw a spear, but most unique units get active abilities to define themselves.
Hero units in the campaigns through all of the titles have abilities, explorers in AoE 3 have many, and so when they introduced the Jeanne dâArc faction they gave her abilities that are in line with that design. If/when they add more hero variants/civs weâll be seeing more of it there too.
I know it may feel strange coming from titles like Aoe 2, but theyâve been adding more abilities to gameplay since 3. Itâs just a gameplay mechanic that gives players more feedback and control over the game.
2 Likes
nobody can increase their damage by hearing drum, maybe drum makes organization possible which makes more coordinated maneuvers killing more people. To increase damage one has to hit hard or should have good stength by birth and through training.You can hit hard if your confidence is high.
1 Like
What put me off the most in 2021 was that + symbol when a unit is healed, and the Khan abilities. At least when looking at the trailer. Now I donât think twice about it.
Just a part of it. They are not the owners of the saga, and they should not determine what is suitable or not for the saga. Even if they are the majority. They have always had a dogmatic and non-objective judgment about what is good or not for the saga.
As for the topic, I see much more sense in it than converting units with a wololo.
I can swim better or work better when listening to music. The psychological principle is very similar.
1 Like
We know, and also know that they tend to make the associated civs impossible to balance.
Either the ability is so strong that everything else in the civ is nerfed to nothing, or its made to weak/situational that it might as well not even matter.
Why tread a failed road? Thatâs the implied question. Better to just simulate these âactiveâ effects with static stat changes via techs, auras, etc.
I always felt the least balanced abilities were in the passive category, camel unease for example, because they require no management at all.
What are some examples of imbalanced or over powered active abilities?
The only abilities that feel weird to me are those where Joan dâArc pulls units out of her backside. The rest tend to feel fairly logical. Morale and cohesion are huge factors in a battle and this being simulated with a simple damage buff is fine, Iâd actually rather have that than any convoluted morale system or your units actually behaving differently while under the effects of the buff.
Well, in this game Trample, Forced March and Jean D as a whole.
Camel unease is a thing you can predict and account for - what do you do when delhi spearmen just run down and encircle your knights?
Ah, I see what you mean⊠That ability coming in free with Delhiâs civ bonus means that kind of play is on a timer as soon as they reach castle. Combined with an enhanced economy @10 minutes and their scholar production bonus, they could very easily swap to an infantry focused strategy.
Talking about balancing the ability does go into what youâre saying about an ability being either so strong that it is going to make using infantry in this way super useful, or nerfing it (by keeping the units from using attacks during its duration, that way Delhi only uses it to reinforce or retreat) to the point that it is more situational and easy to ignore.
Itâs a tough situation because of that, but I would still prefer active abilities because of what it offers to a player. It gives us more to manage in a game and the payoff from using them well feels more rewarding to me than passive abilities. Thatâs what I think the answer to the implied question youâre referring to, that itâs worth pursuing keeping active abilities because they give the player direct feedback from gameplay. They are probably able to swap some abilities to stat changes, but the active ability component allows a player to have full control over the mechanic.
I can say for certain that many of my opponents have left me stunned with their strategies because of it. It is very frustrating to feel trapped in matchup against a civ that 9/10 times it will do the same play, and I really feel that with keshiks into cataphracts. A bit masochistic of me to admit it, but that challenge is what I relish most in this game. Thatâs mostly why I feel comfortable in somewhat imbalanced metas, but I can totally see how that is not preferable to other people.
I can see the appeal from a gameplay perspective - balance is something that eventually gets figured out, and at the point where civs have a fair set of pros and cons, micro has to be a tie breaker. Active abilities are a great way to add room for micro skills to shine when all else might be equal.
That all assumes a good general balance tho - I really dont trust the devs to manage that at this point.
2 Likes
the problem that the aoe 4 ones are either enough realistic for the game setting that was intended to be. Do i have to recall jean d arc ones? or the other variants that fell ahistorical. Its not the effect itself but the usage of them
1 Like
Immersion is relative. Nothing Joan does is any less realistic than âwololoâ.
Games also shouldnât be seen too literal.
and yet it fails for the game setting. wololo as we mentioned in old previous treads is about the symbolism of the emotional, political, religious bribe /influence from a religious figure like a priest witch became iconic as it is the best representation of it. as @FloosWorld mwntion it hasnt to be literal but only works on concept that are kinda imposible to replicate in the ingame screen so they can go free of guilt as effects.
1 Like
