The one that is worrying is the following Senior Game Designer job for Age of Empires 4 which states they need someone to work on the progression system:
"Specifically, we have immediate openings in the following disciplines:
Social Systems and **Progression**
I really hope I am wrong but this (strengthened by the industry’s trend today for progression/loot crates/in-game-transactions) hints heavily on the fact that they plan to follow a design with a progression system, which is the number 1 concern about a strategy game like AOE4, like we discussed on these forums.
I would be really surprised in a negative way if they decided to go with this ruinous path from scratch especially since there’s an overwhelming outrage/media-war out there right now against these mechanics in AAA fully priced titles (see SW Battlefront 2, Shadow of War, Destiny 2, AC Origins etc).
I really hope they are way more inspired than this, since they have the clear advantage of analyzing today’s industry flaws and dodging them instead of copying them.
Tremendous. A good progression system that gives us things to work towards while keeping the game competitive for every player is exactly what we need. And the more social the game is, the far, far deeper players can get. Look at Castle Siege. Tons of AoE players swarmed the game just because of its title and regardless of the fact that it isn’t a proper RTS. It’s on its face a simple game. But three years later, the game still attracts daily players just because of the friends they have in their 50-person alliances.
If AoE4 gave us that, it would live forever.
And anyone who thinks MS hasn’t learned its lessons from AoEO’s fatal early mistakes simply isn’t paying attention. AoE’s executive producer has given industry-wide speeches about how AoEO’s business model failed them.
There are many ways to have progression systems without making the game pay to win.
We are in good hands. These people are in charge of AoE4 because they deserve to be. I suspect they are well aware that this is the single most important game of their careers. They are building Age of Empires 4. It will define them. Fortune favors the bold.
A system which allows you to progress in stats is not competitive by any means, no game out there with such a system is competitive. Now AOE is an RTS which should be competitive as well by default, so this is exactly what we do not need. Castle Siege is a mobile game, the spin-off AOE Online was a totally different genre too. I think you are a bit confused about what AOE really is and you are actually looking to play other type of games.
Your citation literally contains four words: “Social Systems and Progression.” It says absolutely nothing about “a system which allows you to progress in stats” that affects player v. player or any other competitive aspect of AoE4. You are assuming things not in the record. You can accuse me all you want of being confused but I am not the one confusing the job description for anything more than it says. You are as free to see the word progression and lose your mind over it as anyone else is to see it, calm down, look around, and realize that there are many ways one could progress in AoE4 outside of improving the stats of PvP units. AoE is in good hands.
It’s more a case of “what if” and, as I said, the current trend in the industry forces me to make that “if”.
Im not accusing, we’re just discussing. And I really hope I am wrong, especially since I think the game is in good hands too, Relic being one of my favorite game dev companies out there.
Just play 0 AD. It’s probably the closest thing to AOE series. I can bet you my Steam account+$12 in it that AOE 4 would be more like today’s RTS than anything we are use to with actual AOE series. Don’t pre-order before watching the gameplay. Reviews are always biased and paid, so don’t go from there. And if watching gameplay gets your hopes down then remember today’s gamers and trend have changed. Again play 0 AD. People making that game actually listens to gamers and age fans. Lot of feature we discussed actually made into the game, slowly but surely.
dont think you guys except for andy p understand what a progression system means. it can just be like league where you level your account, not in the game itself. every game you play gives you points to buy skins for your units with for example. and people who do not have time can buy them with real money. so anything would be obtainable for free. people need achievements and something to accomplish besides playing in ladder and doing the campaign. something that keeps people playing the multiplayer, and grind for points. like new cool avatar icons like in diablo(where the icon gets cooler and cooler). or ways to custimize your towncenter for example with a different statue in the town. or new backgrounds for your profile in the multiplayer.(hoping they add match history and other stats, like we have in league)
either way progression is a good thing in the game, just aslong as they dont go pot of greed mode.
That description is pretty vague. A progression system could be anything from progression within the span of a single game (which, like, no ■■■■■ duh), to progression over the course of a campaign (also pretty standard), to something akin to the Home Cities in Age 3, or something more similar to those Clash of Clans style games. We simply don’t have enough to go off of to say anything intelligent here.
“Research and develop cutting edge real time strategy game AI at multiple levels including, squad, session objective, and campaign”
This kinda hints not only on squad mechanics but also a modern setting. What do you folks think?
I seems to me that they are using their DOW, COH and Homeworld knowledge for squad mechanics, and progression system of impossible creatures, and DOW 2-3. Oh well… I hope we are wrong. Speculations at this point are not possible because we haven’t even seen a proper trailer (from the game) and the gameplay.
I am more concerned on squad mechanics being implemented, an almost disregard for macro and base building, micro that revolves mostly around ability usage, hero units, and a heap of other mechanics that could make AoE4 a game I do not want to play.
Progression, if used for a league system, cosmetics, and anything that doesn’t involve essentially adding power to players is a fairly minor concern.
In fact, we do not have many elements to say that “the progress and progression system” can be a bad or good. We know so little about AoE 4, and above all we know so little about what Relic can apply the advancement and progression system. Even the passage of era can be a progression of progression, applied to civilization … So we must not be so pessimistic. Of course, a signal, an interview or anything that can only tell us more than one extra comma would make us very happy.