I would say the graphical feedback will be around 50/50. So whom will MS listen to?
I assume the will fix the issues ppl have with the graphics atm (like realistic foliage with far too comical units) aswell as technical issues like animations etc. However they wont change the art STYLE (comical) of the game.
However of course this means 50% of ppl will think their feedback was ignored.
Age 4 has the issue of much much bigger popularity than any of the previous DEs. Therefore much more diversified feedback.
In age 3DE the feedback was pretty one-sided so the according fixes were made. her eit doesnt seem that way. In the beta they will probably focus more on gameplay feedback. But we will see^^
I would not call it deception, rather they had wrong direction.
I mean if we for short re-cap what went wrong also by Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight, Age of Empires Online and many other RTS, it was to create some kind of “new-mass audience” multiplayer game.
Just look how big is the downgrade by the art style from C&C3 to C&C4.
5. What decisions affect unit scaling? Is this still being tuned?
When we look at unit scaling, the first thing we ask is: will this unit/structure/object be readable
and readily distinguishable at game height?
Let this sink in Command & Conquer 4 Developers already used back in 2010 “readable” as an explanation for their design.
Honestly I have the impression 70% of RTS players don’t feel represented by today’s market.
Iron Harvest had a very interesting survey, game was financed by Kick-Starter = Developers asked people on internet to pay them in advance to make the game. They had a very transparent development.
Can anybody imagine on Kickstarter to see an AAA MOBA or Battle Royale game by a no name developer to be successfully funded ? By RTS this did happen at least twice like Iron Harvest and Planetary Annihilation. Let that simply sink in how frustrated people are with the current market direction.
I know very well about iron harvest, Actually I studied with one of the junior game designers of the project and was a very early backer therefore (at least one of us is making big games now and actually game designer, not QA for browser games like sudoku, mahjong etc xD but I wouldnt want to be a game designer as job, to much pressure on creative designs to be successful. Anywas, different topic)…
So, back to the pie chart - its interesting, because the pie chart did show the results of surveys, but probably at least a part of the ppl answering were backer or already interested in the game. And it seems that 75% of feedbacks would focus on the SP aspects and not on MP. Which is probably why the devs (small team) prioritized campaigns and didnt lay focus on many MP maps for release. Now the “fun” part is, that in most reviews of magazines regarding the game, This is the main critique- too few MP maps
Just find that interesting, not sure at all what to get from that, or what RTS players want
But I cant agree with your last paragraph. or maybe I misunderstand what you try to say.
The fact that currently RTS do go well on Kickstarter is because there is no good AAA RTS (real rts, so i dont count total war). Is that what you meant by being frustrated from the market direction, I am with you. But then again, thats great for Age4, since ppl WANT a good RTS
If you mean they dislike the way age 4 seems to go, and therefore rather back smaller RTS, I doubt thats the case
Yes, despìte the image that Starcraft BW projected, RTS players are mostly SP, the vast majority never even plays ONE MP match in most of their games.
Starcraft 1 made the RTS scene look like a massive MP-centric Esports crowd, but the reality, most will not even touch MP once. This is why most all subsequent MP-centric RTS games that have launched since, have been massive disasters.
The RTS crowd wants a lot of campaigns and SP content, not MP competitive content.
Well my personal observation is, PvP or Single-player have by RTS a completely different expectation.
While it’s very hard to please the PvP crowd, Single-player has zero to no lobby.
From Publisher side a game is something online with bare minimum of objects where you sell hundreds of DLC hats. Meanwhile, Magazine reviews don’t comprehend RTS complexity. And a crowd of people who play online clearly are more active and over presented, than people who play games offline alone. And this situation simply breaks the games, from the Single Player perspective.
Well, many of those users who still complain about the graphics are people who already abandoned the game, several seasons ago, and don’t know about the current changes. Also, there is actually a big difference between the graphics when the game came out and how they are now, and only those who have played between Seasons and have noticed the changes know that.
I personally really like the graphics “As they are now”. If you play the game even at Medium quality with the particles on high it looks pretty good. That and since the previous season the Landmarks and Wonders are now bigger, I especially like the HRE one which now looks impressive.
Of course, it must be emphasized that part of the improvement is in the “ENVIRONMENT”, because the units already had good models, but the terrain, flowers, stones, roads and dirt was very wooden, it had no detail, and It took quite a few seasons for the graphic quality of these to improve.
1.- BETA of the Game
The game was in fact made with the requests of many of those who played the beta. Some are criticizable, (Like they took away the ability of archers and crossbowmen to fight with daggers in close combat, or the fire arrows that do siege damage to buildings), and others are not, but the community was happy to contribute in the development of the game. (Positive Feedback: ++)
2.- Bell when clicking the Urban Center (Corrected)
At the request of the players, the sound that always came out when clicking the Urban center was changed. (Positive Feedback: +++)
3.- Preview of Seasons (PUP)
The game in the past offered players to test new patches for upcoming seasons in advance. This made users feel good, because they felt that their comments improved the balance of the game. (Positive Feedback: ++++)
4.- Smog Wars - Smoke from Siege Weapons and Mass Armies (Corrected)
At the request of the players, the Smoke caused by siege weapons when moving, and even armies, was too much, and was reduced because it was annoying. (Positive Feedback: +++)
5.- Rebalanced Marine Combat System (Corrected)
Many people didn’t play sea maps because they felt the system wasn’t well balanced. In fact some ships were very broken, and not all civs had ships with spars. With season 3, a balance came to the marine system. Later they even dared to give more differences between the civs, with the French having 2 unique ships, the Ottomans and the Byzantines having 1 unique ship, etc. (Positive Feedback: +++++)
6.- End of the first Siege Wars (Corrected)
During the Beta, and the first season, the Siege was Overpowered. In fact, this can still be seen in the first campaigns, where making a lot of mangonels and springalds can decimate entire armies. This was possible because the minimum range of siege weapons was almost non-existent, and worse, their attack was absurdly high, especially the Springald. Furthermore, melee units could only damage him with torch attacks, which were slow and could also be cut if the animation was cut. (Positive Feedback: ++)
7.- Only 1-way Stone Wall Gate System (Corrected).-
Less than 1 year ago, the gates of the stone walls had to be built in 2 directions, one for the villagers to climb, and the other for “Nobody” to climb. This was annoying and caused a lot of problems when building walls. Eventually it was changed to a 2-way system, and now you build gates without fear that your villagers won’t be able to climb the wall on one side or the other. (Positive Feedback: +++++)
8.- Palisades are difficult to build, covering forests and even walls (Corregido)
In the early seasons, building palisades and walls was an art, and a very difficult one to master. These could not pass through gold mines, and in some forests they did not even stick to the last tree. Many know the BUG of ““Cut down a tree”” to open an enemy palisade or wall. We had to wait until the start of this season 6, but finally, palisades now have the same ease and fun to build as in AoE 2 (crossing forests, mines and even walls and building where you can)… nAH, even BETTER, because now they can rotate 360 degrees. (Positive Feedback: +++++)
9.- More unique units and Historical Representation in Landmarks, Plus “Balance”
Since season 4 we have new unique units for the classic civs, which increased in season 5, and apparently we are encouraged to expect the same in season 7, as long as there is historical material to support it. Also, it is notable that to Balance certain Landmarks that NO ONE used, such as the English “Abbey of the King”, it was considered that in its historical simile “Almost all kings were crowned”, and therefore, it could now create a king. Or also, the case of the Khaganate Palace, which changed its effect to producing soldiers recruited from the “Conquered Civ” of the Mongols, and even a unit created by Muslim engineers, the Hui Hui Pao, that was great.(Positive Feedback: +++++)
10.- Better graphics for the environment
It was requested from season 1, or even from the Beta, but the terrain left something to be desired, with a lot of grass and no dirt, or quite ugly dirt, like cardboard. And now, after several patches, and in season 6 it is much better. Let’s not even talk about water, the change is abysmal. (Positive Feedback: +++++)
11.- Size of certain Landmarks and Wonders enlarging
There were always complaints that some buildings were too small for their size, especially those that should stand out precisely because… well, they are called LANDMARKS in English for a reason. Curious note: Spanish players prefer to call them Landmarks, because the Spanish translation is “Place of Interest” or “Distinctive Buildings”, and it doesn’t sound so “Cool”. (Positive Feedback: +++++)
If you have noticed, most agents and moderators 100% dislike everything you have mentioned there. And there are paid trolls to defend those ridiculous decisions with their brave heart.
There is no hope to see the most wanted community changes here.
Only the 1% of the player base is the crucial one here (esports). Not the casuals.
(at least one of us is making big games now and actually game designer, not QA for browser games like sudoku, mahjong etc xD but I wouldnt want to be a game designer as job, to much pressure on creative designs to be successful. Anywas, different topic)…
