Game prefrence: A Competitive OR Ensemble inspired RTS

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
61

@Nakamura said:
There’s a lot of reductionism and misinformation going on in this thread. Competitiveness is not mutually exclusive with catering to casual players.

What/?! “Competitiveness is not mutually exclusive with catering to casual players” That translates wrongly in my language. Do you mean …pvp players instead of casual players? Anyways, I know what competitive is, and I know what being casual vs competitive means. However, today’s game design have changed these term into some sort of, one genre only serving to an audience who sees entertainment through the groomed competitive team members (with hairstyles, what’s with those hairstyle though?) whereas, casual means noobs and those who are unsuited to play any game. These competitive players thinks that noobs have ruined their game, and vice versa.

What I am saying, and you are having hard time understanding is, A game needs to be FUN first. It needs to be build around that purpose, solely. Otherwise, neither you will enjoy it, nor me. Again, Competitive scene/ esport is up to players to develop, not up to the game maker and publishers. If the game is FUN to play then a competitive scene will automatically follow, that’s how AOE 2 became a masterpiece, devs didn’t force the game to be multiplayer focused. All of the age game, except one followed this rule. And we all know which games succeeded and which one didn’t. You can’t deny that, becasue I am 80% sure, somewhere in you, you believe that “noobs” shouldn’t play the games which “competitive” players play. And I am here to tell you, no bro, because of “noobs” you get varieties of games with campaign and skirmish in the first place, or else you will forever be stuck with multiplayer centric games like Public unknown battleground, Losers of Strom, league of Hairstyles and World of lootcraft, and Lootboxwatch. Any Age game maker must stay true its roots, otherwise it will not be the game which we all grew up with. Whatever, your political or religious background is, please take a conservative approach in this Age game. A new company is making a traditional RTS for the first time in their lives, just hope they give us a game we are all waiting for, then they can experiment after they understand what an Age game is. I rest my case.

62

campaigns made by competitive people have far more creativity and originality in them than campaigns made by casuals, they dont understand the game to begin with, so there’s no way they’ll be able to make something fun

63

@Mehkind said:

@Nakamura said:
There’s a lot of reductionism and misinformation going on in this thread. Competitiveness is not mutually exclusive with catering to casual players.

What/?! “Competitiveness is not mutually exclusive with catering to casual players” That translates wrongly in my language. Do you mean …pvp players instead of casual players? Anyways, I know what competitive is, and I know what being casual vs competitive means. However, today’s game design have changed these term into some sort of, one genre only serving to an audience who sees entertainment through the groomed competitive team members (with hairstyles, what’s with those hairstyle though?) whereas, casual means noobs and those who are unsuited to play any game. These competitive players thinks that noobs have ruined their game, and vice versa.

What I am saying, and you are having hard time understanding is, A game needs to be FUN first. It needs to be build around that purpose, solely. Otherwise, neither you will enjoy it, nor me. Again, Competitive scene/ esport is up to players to develop, not up to the game maker and publishers. If the game is FUN to play then a competitive scene will automatically follow, that’s how AOE 2 became a masterpiece, devs didn’t force the game to be multiplayer focused. All of the age game, except one followed this rule. And we all know which games succeeded and which one didn’t. You can’t deny that, becasue I am 80% sure, somewhere in you, you believe that “noobs” shouldn’t play the games which “competitive” players play. And I am here to tell you, no bro, because of “noobs” you get varieties of games with campaign and skirmish in the first place, or else you will forever be stuck with multiplayer centric games like Public unknown battleground, Losers of Strom, league of Hairstyles and World of lootcraft, and Lootboxwatch. Any Age game maker must stay true its roots, otherwise it will not be the game which we all grew up with. Whatever, your political or religious background is, please take a conservative approach in this Age game. A new company is making a traditional RTS for the first time in their lives, just hope they give us a game we are all waiting for, then they can experiment after they understand what an Age game is. I rest my case.

I’m not sure why you’re so hostile, or why you are projecting so much meaning into what I said (or why you have this really negative image about competitive players), but here’s a brief explanation seeing as you completely misunderstood what I said.

To have a competitive scene and a thriving content creator scene in a game doesn’t take a lot of direct actions from the developers besides:

-Game needs to be fun
-Game needs to have mechanics which allow for distinction between good and less good players
-Infrastructure in which to compete (matchmaking, ranked environment, replays, observer mode)

To make the product attract a casual crowd, you generally need the following:

-Game needs to be fun
-Campaign mode for single player types, preferably 30+ hours of content here
-Since it’s RTS, decent bots to do solo skirmishes/comp stomps against
-Custom game system with customization options so you can mess around with settings
-Arcade mode: we know this as scenarios in AoE, so custom maps (missions, modes) created by the community with

“Not mutually exclusive” means that it’s not a choice. you can have both. The whole discussion is based off of the fact that somehow the presence of one damages the other. That is just wrong, as so many games show.

The best example is probably Starcraft II, arguably one the hardest competitive games designed with E-sports in mind as a primary objective. Its playerbase is largely interested in the campaign, arcade and co-op modes rather than the competitive 1v1 scene. I’m really not sure where the whole idea of mutual exclusiveness is coming from, but I’d recommend to get better sources.

64

You missed the option ‘Both’, because one doesn’t have to be in conflict with the other.

65

@KrOjah said:
@“Douglas Jr236” said:

@Fetandrey said:
Why can’t it be both? Isn’t AoE II competitive as it is?

I completely agree! Why not having an awesome single-player campaign with a modernized MOBA-like multiplayer?

I can see the pitchforks and torches now if Relic Moba AoE4. I would be one of the angry mob also. I mean they can do that kind of bullshit to the DoW series, but an epicness like the Age series? No basebuilding? Team orientated multiplayer only? Joan vs Montezuma mid lane? They better not do anything like that!

I do get your point and for sure wouldn’t want to see it like that too, but I think you and many others are exaggerating a little bit on the MOBA part when it’s optional in the first place.

E.g. wouldn’t you like to play 5 against 5 MOBA style game, where you build-up and control one base on each side having a fast paced gameplay?

For sure I don’t want it to become a second DOTA, that would be stupid.

66

@Nakamura ,If only you would have said this clearly. Anyways I am simply using translation, and if translations are like this, then I can’t help it. I am not hostile, I am trying to have a proper discussion. Again, in a plain English so you can understand.

AGE OF EMPIRES IS NOT A MOBA, & AGE OF EMPIRES IS NOT A STARCRAFT. The closest thing to an age game is either C&C or 0 A.D. Again, a game which builds with esport features in mind is forever be a disaster. Just search any RTS made after Starcreft 2. Every single RTS game “wannabe” another StarCraft like hit were an average at best. A game needs to be fun first, before it caters its audience. A game must serve both audiences. What I am against is a game directed toward one type of audience.
What I mean with Ensemble inspired RTS is a game which is multi layered, it doesn’t depend on a single layer. Single layer being either a competitive or casual. Ensemble inspired RTS means a RTS game with a balance. Ensemble inspired RTS means no MOBA type objectives, maps, economy. Ensemble inspired RTS means no silly cosmetic or loot system. Ensemble inspired RTS means an old school traditional RTS, and no its not StarCraft.

@bubble, do you have anything to back your argument with. Give me a game which does that and yet succeeds. It has to be an RTS like Age.

@“Andy P” , please lock this thread. I am tired of saying same thing over and over.

67

Yeah, I guess let’s not learn anything from the innovations of the most successful RTS franchise of all time because cheap knock-offs failed. Mind you no other RTS was created with E-sports as the focus than Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3.
Nowhere did I suggest it should be the main objective of an AoE game, but the game should allow for it. Did you even read my post? You’re just throwing around random terms at this point.

68

You heard of thing called indirect reference? No I guess because I was trying to talk about what you are implying, not actually saying with your confusing words. Okay, anyways you win. I wanted to give you an award for it. Even plain English couldn’t get points across in a right manner it seems. I just hope relic don’t make your “ideal” AOE iv and don’t pay attention to this forum. They must learn what an age game is through 5 legendary age games. Good luck people!

69

Indirect reference!!! Dang. Also StarCraft >>>>StarCraft II. StarCraft 2 is nothing but a glorified-heavily-marketed RTS made just for streamers, cosplayers, and esport. It has lost and missing everything what made StarCraft 1 a true RTS.

70

@Nakamura
Remarkable fact is that StarCraft I is considered to be the best of the series, while with Warcraft the latest version with Frozen Throne expansion is considered as the best version. Valve made DOTA from that version.

71

@PCS70 said:
@Nakamura
Remarkable fact is that StarCraft I is considered to be the best of the series, while with Warcraft the latest version with Frozen Throne expansion is considered as the best version. Valve made DOTA from that version.

"Best"is subjective and vague and most often refers to gameplay enjoyment. In earlier posts I wasn’t making a point of talking much about detailed gameplay design, but was rather trying to point towards game features that have a specific target audience.

I largely think that gameplay design should stay close to AoE 2 and AoM, and that game client features of the successful modern RTS titles should be used to enhance the classic gameplay. Use the various ways to play to address all target audiences’ wishes.

72

You should have said this first @Nakamura .

73

I did.

74

@Nakamura said:
I did.
My silly translation might be telling me something else then. I apologize, but AOE must remain true to its root and with some new elements, Relic must do what other rts devs don’t do, otherwise it wont be unique. I too want AOE IV to succeed, possibly 10-20% more than you, but that success should come from how much it will relate to AOE fans who have been with the series for this long, and that success must come from following the Age and Ensemble’s legacy, not being a copy-cat. Blizzard titles succeed becasue there is no one to compete with an already established rts franchise. Now, aoe is back, we might see spike in their marketing and promotion. Hell we are already seeing they have gone F2P and having lots of free weekends, and free expansions to grab. StarCraft 1 has seen remaster too, like aoe de, but their remaster sucks big time in front of work by Forgotton Empire. Favor the modern game designs like easy community modding, but don’t forget about the what Age fan wants. I will be happy if they forget about the esport though. Just kidding, again that’s up to players to develop, developers should build the game around the fun factor. Don’t start throwing age formulas away to compensate for “fast pacing- high octane-blood thumping- finger works-with in hairstyle commentators-hydrobot sponsers.” (by the way they are only their to collect checks, don’t know what they are talking about though)

75

@PCS70 said:

@KrOjah said:
@“Douglas Jr236” said:

@Fetandrey said:
Why can’t it be both? Isn’t AoE II competitive as it is?

I completely agree! Why not having an awesome single-player campaign with a modernized MOBA-like multiplayer?

I can see the pitchforks and torches now if Relic Moba AoE4. I would be one of the angry mob also. I mean they can do that kind of bullshit to the DoW series, but an epicness like the Age series? No basebuilding? Team orientated multiplayer only? Joan vs Montezuma mid lane? They better not do anything like that!

I do get your point and for sure wouldn’t want to see it like that too, but I think you and many others are exaggerating a little bit on the MOBA part when it’s optional in the first place.

E.g. wouldn’t you like to play 5 against 5 MOBA style game, where you build-up and control one base on each side having a fast paced gameplay?

For sure I don’t want it to become a second DOTA, that would be stupid.

The MOBA feature can not be “optional”! because since developers insert MOBA elements, though they may be optional, they are still a feature of the game! this means that the optional MOBA component deviates from the traditional RTS style of the AOE franchise! AoE 4 should not have MOBA elements!

76

As long as it’s an RTS, rather than some kind of 3rd person MMO with minions.

I’ve never liked hero units, even in aoe games I just lock those pretty princes(ses) up in a castle as soon as the game will let me.

But that’s just me. It’s my main gripe about strategy games in general. I’m still fine with the king in chess or the flag in Stratego, but most units of the type don’t sit well with me.

I’m fine with a heavy e-sports accent. I like standard matches, even just against an AI. They always feel more fair to me than the painstakingly crafted scenarios where your enemy is all ready behind his walls and you have to boom up for half an hour without encountering them before you can engage (slight exaggeration). Gameplay where you stay in contact throughout the ages feels much more dynamic than the “standard noob tactic” of building the ultimate army of your favorite unit before attacking, which the campaigns often seem to encourage (though not all scenario’s, there have been some very good and dynamic ones, even if they can be a little frustrating because you don’t know what kind of game you’re in on your first try). So a game designed for that kind of play, including an AI that is weak yet complicated enough to allow and handle that style at my level, would be fine by me.

If instead we’re using e-sports and competitive as code names for a style of game that is not Age of Empires, then that seems silly. Oae2 has a good e-sports component. That’s a big reason why it’s still popular.

77

As long as it’s an RTS, rather than some kind of 3rd person MMO with minions.

I’ve never liked hero units, even in aoe games I just lock those pretty princes(ses) up in a castle as soon as the game will let me.

But that’s just me. It’s my main gripe about strategy games in general. I’m still fine with the king in chess or the flag in Stratego, but most units of the type don’t sit well with me.

I’m fine with a heavy e-sports accent. I like standard matches, even just against an AI. They always feel more fair to me than the painstakingly crafted scenarios where your enemy is all ready behind his walls and you have to boom up for half an hour without encountering them before you can engage (slight exaggeration). Gameplay where you stay in contact throughout the ages feels much more dynamic than the “standard noob tactic” of building the ultimate army of your favorite unit before attacking, which the campaigns often seem to encourage (though not all scenario’s, there have been some very good and dynamic ones, even if they can be a little frustrating because you don’t know what kind of game you’re in on your first try). So a game designed for that kind of play, including an AI that is weak yet complicated enough to allow and handle that style at my level, would be fine by me.

If instead we’re using e-sports and competitive as code names for a style of game that is not Age of Empires, then that seems silly. Oae2 has a good e-sports component. That’s a big reason why it’s still popular.

(Note: I’m seeing some weird effects while editing this, I might be double posting or delayed double posting right now. Oops.)

78

@CostlierParrot3

FYI

Let me explain to you exactly what MOBA is about, there seems to be some misunderstanding with you about the meaning of the word MOBA.

First, it’s short for Multiplayer Online Battle Arena and it doesn’t say anything about the gameplay. More precisely it’s a certain kind of map. It’s a map with fixed base locations and a top, middle and bottom lane. Other variant do exist too, even AOE maps with a certain design could be seen as a MOBA map style.

It’s nothing more, nothing less. In some other posts where you disagree with me about this, which you may and are entitled to of course you speculate further about the use of heros, special powers etc., but nothing of that I talk(ed) about or say with the words MOBA that AOE IV should become more a MMO type of game like DOTA.

Please read more carefully and look up am unknown term with Google knowing what it really comprehends before discussing with anyone else about it.

You could also sent a pm to ask me about it, I would be more than happy to explain this in private to you instead of washing your face in public.

79

@PCS70 said:
@CostlierParrot3

FYI

Let me explain to you exactly what MOBA is about, there seems to be some misunderstanding with you about the meaning of the word MOBA.

First, it’s short for Multiplayer Online Battle Arena and it doesn’t say anything about the gameplay. More precisely it’s a certain kind of map. It’s a map with fixed base locations and a top, middle and bottom lane. Other variant do exist too, even AOE maps with a certain design could be seen as a MOBA map style.

It’s nothing more, nothing less. In some other posts where you disagree with me about this, which you may and are entitled to of course you speculate further about the use of heros, special powers etc., but nothing of that I talk(ed) about or say with the words MOBA that AOE IV should become more a MMO type of game like DOTA.

Please read more carefully and look up am unknown term with Google knowing what it really comprehends before discussing with anyone else about it.

You could also sent a pm to ask me about it, I would be more than happy to explain this in private to you instead of washing your face in public.

ah ah … lol … wash your face in the public … Let me get you off with the fire extinguisher…in the public, in private, where you want us … Let’s start from the definition of MOBA: "Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA), also known as Action Real-Time Strategy (ARTS), is a sub-genre of strategy video games that originated as a subgenre of real-time strategy, in which a player controls a single character in one of two teams. The objective is to destroy the main structure of the opposing team with the help of periodically spawned computer-controlled units that march forward along set paths. Player characters typically have different abilities and advantages that improve over the course of a game and that contribute to a team’s overall MOBA games are a fusion of action games, role-playing games and real-time strategy games, in which players usually do not construct either buildings or units. " Can this be okay? I’ve taken it from wikipedia. If we both agree on this statement, I can CONFIRM that I would not like AoE4 had MOBA elements. Now you talk about the MOBA as: “more precisely a certain type of map” “nothing more, nothing less”. I brought you your words! I for MOBA I mean that statement written above … But listen to you advice: lava faces in public but not something else … or at least not in public.

80

@CostlierParrot3

It’s just a figure of speech and probably extinguished very easily in this case. The elements you talk about are named MMO and MMORPG and have nothing to do with the abbreviation MOBA itself. And please don’t put words in my mouth that I just don’t say. I know and understand what you don’t like and what you fear.

I’m looking for ways to bring in new suitable elements into an AOE style of gameplay in order to attract new players, and not to disappoint conservative players. Of course they should get what they want, in the meanwhile you can explore other possibilities.

It probably will take at least until 2019 before they can even start with AOE IV development.

And concerning that I’ve only got one thing worrying me. Just don’t make it a MOBA ONLY, MMO & MMORPG ONLY, a DoW, a C&C, or a StarCraft (or any other modern age) kind of game.

The faster pace in gameplay and to make it in general more attractive to watch live for others (and also to stream it) needs to come from the interaction between the players in the teams. Only concerning that and some other parts they should take a careful look at their competitors in the whole RTS genre.

Last example. Take the substance milk and sugar. Some people will like it in their coffee and others in their tea, while others don’t like it in either of both. Still they’re part of the complete coffee or tea table.

I hope you get my point now, no offense is meant of course.