I tell you how i play usually:
I wall up the sides and place some towers and leave the front open. I build there some towers and my barracks, stables, and archery ranges. If i don’t want to be raided, then i should be the more aggressive player or at least as aggressive as my enemy is. If the enemy is playing defensively then there some villagers to build there come kinda military camp so i can constantly him.
This is why i think it is less defensive. My units can be attacked or they can attack at any time without delay. I use the walls mostly to guide the enemy into my army and not as a defensive structure or just as a sentry to see the direction of incoming attack. I don’t play often aoe2 but when i do then i fell safer behind a wall with gates where i can move my army in and out without leaving my villagers defenseless.
It has been said numerous times already but gates won’t be introduced and I can perfectly see why. It would change the game and that’s what they try to avoid.
This topic looks fairly well discussed but I’d still like to jump in and reply to the initial post.
Whilst I do think those things are nostalgic. It’s a kind of “aww bless those pioneering devs, they had totally no idea what the they were doing” kind of nostalgia. A sort of endearing condescending feeling than can only come from someone years in the future who has experienced a few very well designed RTS games. AOE1 was somewhat the first of its kind before anyone knew how to make good RTS games.
I do value nostalgia, but I don’t think that very many of those things are worth preserving. The nostalgia stems from the devs lack of knowledge, not really the game itself. Those things might be cute on the first couple of competitive matches/play throughs but will surely become a source of deep frustration and resentment towards horsecrap RNG dice rolling. Surely this will drive people away and act as a barrier to entry for new players.
I think the game itself does have good gameplay though and could be greatly improved from a beta. I don’t think we should be afraid of major changes to bring the game into the modern age.
Yeah @Interjection I agree. There are two ways to look at changes: content changes and mechanics. I think we all agree that content changes should be kept to a minimum, as this can help preserving the nostalgia. However mechanics of 20 years old are totally outdated, so to make this work they will have to change ergonomics a lot. At least up to today’s mechanics.
Based on information that we have, gameplay will no change, so iam rather sepctical on this game. Nostalgia don’t make good game, just make naive people.
the old/new make no sense.
we had fun at the time with thoses mechanics i dont see why we wouldnt have fun now.
changing mechanics is taking a risk.
a risk to make the game not fun/challenging/frustrating enough
why copying the modern rts if the modern rts have all failed because with improved mechanics there is no fun anymore.
@Tgaud said:
the old/new make no sense.
we had fun at the time with thoses mechanics i dont see why we wouldnt have fun now.
changing mechanics is taking a risk.
a risk to make the game not fun/challenging/frustrating enough
why copying the modern rts if the modern rts have all failed because with improved mechanics there is no fun anymore.
reproduce failure… why?
AoE2 has been more successful than AoE1 and has a large fan base to this day. Vast majority of players agree that the quality of life changes made in AoE2 were good and made the game more enjoyable. While I don’t want AoE:DE to become another AoE2, those changes have already been tried and have been proven to work and I think some of them should be adopted to this game.
@Tgaud said:
the old/new make no sense.
we had fun at the time with thoses mechanics i dont see why we wouldnt have fun now.
changing mechanics is taking a risk.
a risk to make the game not fun/challenging/frustrating enough
why copying the modern rts if the modern rts have all failed because with improved mechanics there is no fun anymore.
reproduce failure… why?
AoE2 has been more successful than AoE1 and has a large fan base to this day. Vast majority of players agree that the quality of life changes made in AoE2 were good and made the game more enjoyable. While I don’t want AoE:DE to become another AoE2, those changes have already been tried and have been proven to work and I think some of them should be adopted to this game.
I dont think anyone can argue that AoE 2 was far more successful, but this is a remaster not a new game. Modern RTS games can have all these QoL updates all they want, but this game works perfectly well without them.
we had fun at the time with thoses mechanics i dont see why we wouldnt have fun now.
Because aoe1 community is really really small, that mean aoe1 is not good like you supposed he is. If this game is just for satisfying fan, i wouldn’t buy it. If this game can’t create a new community (which mean attract new player), i wouldn’t buy it. Just make the game beautifull is not enough, gameplay need to be more attractive.
we had fun at the time with thoses mechanics i dont see why we wouldnt have fun now.
Because aoe1 community is really really small, that mean aoe1 is not good like you supposed he is. If this game is just for satisfying fan, i wouldn’t buy it. If this game can’t create a new community (which mean attract new player), i wouldn’t buy it. Just make the game beautifull is not enough, gameplay need to be more attractive.
This is my opinion.
aoe2 players are stubborn. (aoe1 players are stubborn too )
They want to play aoe2, but aoe2 is not good enough, so they want a new game, which is like aoe2, but they don’t want to play aoe2.
Of course it’s just for fun and I wasn’t serious at all. Or was i? :naughty:
we had fun at the time with thoses mechanics i dont see why we wouldnt have fun now.
Because aoe1 community is really really small, that mean aoe1 is not good like you supposed he is. If this game is just for satisfying fan, i wouldn’t buy it. If this game can’t create a new community (which mean attract new player), i wouldn’t buy it. Just make the game beautifull is not enough, gameplay need to be more attractive.
This is my opinion.
gameplay of age of empire 1 is better.
because it open the doors to a lot of feelings and emotions.
age of empire was more successfull because there was not an age of empire3 just 2years after.
and most of all because there wasnt starcraft out at the same time and also because when age of empire1 was out, no one had internet in the world. multiplayer gaming was doing its first steps.
moreover age of empire2 had a lot more of mechanics to offer than age of empire1. so they could remove some.
and age of empire 2 was designed to be a defensive game. you could garrison units to protect, town center was able to fire arrow and kill little army…
so wall and gates were logic
but age of empire1 is a lot more aggressive and gates would totally ruin the game.
and the simple fact rhat you complain about gates prove that the wall is something with its own kind of problems. so you re not sure to use it.
I think that most people asking for wall are age of empire 2 or 3 kind of player, used to defensive gameplay.
but sorry, the drums of war are here, age of empire 1 is the aggressive style !!
no place for half assed player :))
aoe2 players are stubborn. (aoe1 players are stubborn too )
Iam aoe3 player and i dont want aoe-DE like aoe3, but i don’t want aoe-DE like aoe1 because aoe1 is not a competitive game and i think aoe-de cannot be either.
Aoe2 is to slow for me (no interaction before 10 min is not good). I want a game like aoe1 but more fast becouse its more atractive and can attract new player (not only aoe series fan).
@Amphiprion said:
Aoe3 is more agressive than aoe1.
aoe2 players are stubborn. (aoe1 players are stubborn too )
Iam aoe3 player and i dont want aoe-DE like aoe3, but i don’t want aoe-DE like aoe1 because aoe1 is not a competitive game and i think aoe-de cannot be either.
Aoe2 is to slow for me (no interaction before 10 min is not good). I want a game like aoe1 but more fast becouse its more atractive and can attract new player (not only aoe series fan).
AoE1 is slightly slower than AoE2 on random maps, but if you want action quickly you can play death match. I think that provides a good option for people who want immediate action and those who don’t mind building economy for 15 minutes and I don’t think the random maps need to be made much faster.
@Amphiprion said:
Aoe3 is more agressive than aoe1.
aoe2 players are stubborn. (aoe1 players are stubborn too )
Iam aoe3 player and i dont want aoe-DE like aoe3, but i don’t want aoe-DE like aoe1 because aoe1 is not a competitive game and i think aoe-de cannot be either.
Aoe2 is to slow for me (no interaction before 10 min is not good). I want a game like aoe1 but more fast becouse its more atractive and can attract new player (not only aoe series fan).
AoE1 is slightly slower than AoE2 on random maps, but if you want action quickly you can play death match. I think that provides a good option for people who want immediate action and those who don’t mind building economy for 15 minutes and I don’t think the random maps need to be made much faster.
not agree.
flush on age of king is 11minute feudal time.
tool rush attack happends at more or less 11mn
and when attacking a base with no garrison, the game is much much faster.
@Amphiprion said:
Aoe3 is more agressive than aoe1.
aoe2 players are stubborn. (aoe1 players are stubborn too )
Iam aoe3 player and i dont want aoe-DE like aoe3, but i don’t want aoe-DE like aoe1 because aoe1 is not a competitive game and i think aoe-de cannot be either.
Aoe2 is to slow for me (no interaction before 10 min is not good). I want a game like aoe1 but more fast becouse its more atractive and can attract new player (not only aoe series fan).
AoE1 is slightly slower than AoE2 on random maps, but if you want action quickly you can play death match. I think that provides a good option for people who want immediate action and those who don’t mind building economy for 15 minutes and I don’t think the random maps need to be made much faster.
not agree.
flush on age of king is 11minute feudal time.
tool rush attack happends at more or less 11mn
and when attacking a base with no garrison, the game is much much faster.
Perhaps I’m slower in AoE1 only because I haven’t played it competitively. But my point was that he suggested AoE1:DE should be faster than AoE2, which I don’t think is necessary.
And dont worry, if you want upgrades, new units, etc etc, they will probably make an extension for that.
But first its good to have a game for the many people here that are full of nostalgia, just a technical update.
Age of empire1 was fun to play. What else do you want ?
But i Think the devs , from what i read, are in the sweet spot beetween all approaches.
I trust them.
Tgaud for the things that you say they don’t need any thread before they launch the beta because all of this things (balance performance etc…) are only evaluated by beta testers and the threads actually are irrelevant…
)
and i dont want aoe-DE like aoe3, but i don’t want aoe-DE like aoe1 because aoe1 is not a competitive game and i think aoe-de cannot be either.