What’s so bad about having Age 3 type of progression through cosmetics / insignia? It would have no impact on the outcome of games, it’s just to make the game more visually interesting.
No need to implement a pay system for it
2 Likes
Not boring. But the diversity is great if it’s done like AOEO.
Expensive? There should be a balance to each game. You can’t just spam monks with 1 gold before the opponent builds a castle and convert anything he has…
It’s not clear for many that he is the healer? So we should add a healer unit and then we can make them understand… Bad Idea on so many levels
1 Like
Problem is, their time and budget is limited, with such “not essential features”, it is simply wasted.
I rather like to have more actual gameplay related content like factions, units and maps, than some kind of odd skins and unlockables.
But is it a good idea to have only Monk as a healer?
That’s why I do suggest to add an actual alternative.
Monks are able to heal friendly units (with a speed of 1 HP per 0.4 seconds), that’s quite slow. He does cost 100 Gold and is not really efficient as healer. So why not have “Doctor” for 100 Food, 100 Wood? And he does heal (with a speed of 3 HP per 0.4 seconds).
Monks are support but cannot change the tides of battle in most scenarios. They also have conversion of enemy units. They are in a great state without breaking the game. Their healing is enough once you stack them. I am not sure what you are on about, there is no need for alternatives. Fully upgraded stack of 5 monks is extremely scary.
…and a lot of the units in total war games have duplicate roles. In total war you can have lower-tier and higher-tier units available at the same time that does the same job, and you can simply disband the lower tier units and replace them with stronger alternatives. Simply counting the number of available unit types in different games does not really support your argument. Not to mention Turks in Medieval 2 still have fewer units than Western European nations and that does not make them unplayable.
Unit roles are more important than mere number of unit types in the game. Having a weaker spearman instead of a superduper spearman does not deprive you of some strategies but lacking a cavalry counter does, and I cannot see what Ottomans or Aztecs in AoE3 lack.
I can’t see the point if American nations in AoE2 with only a Eagle Warrior working as both light and heavy cavalry are playable (not to mention they lack mobile archers like Cavalry Archers), but Ottomans in AoE3 with a Janissary fulfilling the role of both ranged and melee infantry would be lacking certain strategic options (and they actually have every available unit type in the game). It seems to me that American nations in AoE2 are even more unplayable from your logic, but it turns out they are not.
If you do think Ottomans in AoE3 lack certain game mechanisms and strategic options, just list them out explicitly.
2 Likes
No need for alternatives?
Exactly here I do see for current RTS games a mayor weak point. Alternatives do provide strategies. But the developers merely make one thing available and its quite doubtful if it does make its role good ennough.
No Alternative specialized healing unit is just one example,
what I did miss by AoE2 in retro perspective.
The problem is, instead to make a combination of units and buildings that do fit your play style, you have to learn a specific way how it is intended. The intended design, might be for the player not playable or simply boring.
2 Likes
But is the over 20-year old unit roster from AoE2 enough for a game today?
And I really did not like what was made by AoE3.
There is a difference between “intended design” and “what player actually likes to do.”
-The first big problem of Ottoman is in my opinion their slower economy. Resources are generated in AoE3 quite fast, and other nations in AoE3 simply do produce workers faster, which means they do have more resources income.
-Second. Janissary is weak against light infantry, Janissary and Abus Gun are quite expensive. "combined with weaker economy and higher unit costs. " so my experience is here simply to be overrun with cheaper units. Because you can’t simply counter with own cheaper units. The “intended” combination of Janissary and Abus Gun is example how AoE3 has a problem with gameplay depth, its the only option, with no alternatives and in my opinion not a good one. What did speak here against an additional cheap melee soldier unit and a foot skirmisher like they have in AoE2?
And its not a specific problem for AoE3 only. You can see a very similar situation in many RTS games with different factions.
You can garrison a unit to heal them in castles or towers and even get an x6 healing upgrade while they are garrissoned. Healing has no place in Age of empires, it is meant to be a small support in combat and heal units more effectively while out of combat. That is why monks exist. You just want the game to turn into a moba lol
Indeed, it’s a good question if this “AoE healing methods” are its core features.
By the way you are pointing out here something very important.
If you are simply thinking of features, that should be general in games, efficient ways of healing and various ways to do so, do come fast up. And are even faster and undoubted made. But the question if it does make sense to do so, is not always there.
Problem is, by today’s games, developers would probably give each factions some own way to heal units, like
Natives do get shamans,
Arabian do get building like hospital,
Europe will heal units in taverns,
Far Asia each unit does get automatic health regeneration like zerg, because of some magic herbs
And all happening fast and instant. Without even to think if it does make sense for the franchise.
Considering we are going to have “different factions”, they did not only plan to do so, but its already done. No matter how bad it is for the gameplay or the balance.
Considering their “information policy to tell once its done” , we would probably get 1 week prior to release a beta, where you have a lot of odd, imbalanced and overpowered healing methods. So there is no time left to fix or improve that feature.
That’s why in my opinion such important core feature should be discussed
The things you mentioned are not alternative ways to fun methods of healing, they are just overcomplicated time wasters for no reason. AOE 2 is good enough. Not everything needs variety, some things just need to be practical.
+1
But the big problem is, the official statement is that factions will be different.
It is, simply how they do their games.
Just an actual example Company of Heroes2.
You have faction that does upgrade first building to heal units,
You have faction that does build a defence building, than does upgrade it to heal units,
You have faction that does give to unit healing items,
You have faction that does have a mobile vehicle, to heal units.
They don’t make factions practical. So instead of give variety within the same faction, like have by same faction 3 ways to heal units. They do give each faction a different way to heal units.
So my point is simple, if there is a new mechanic, it should be available to all factions.
Healing in AOE is something of a small mechanic. It does not play a major role. Different factions can have mechanics that are the same, like the way you gather resources. Villager goes to deposit, he minds, he brings the raw items back. It’s the same for all factions.
Here official statement.
“You can expect to see fewer than the 13 that shipped with Age of Empires II, as we’re aiming for more uniqueness with each civilisation rather than quantity.”
Problem is, we are obviously not getting same AoE2 again,
have variety of same mechanics accessible for all factions, does not break balance and gameplay.
Have for each faction different mechanics, like they do plan right now, does break balance and gameplay. They are never going to get additional month and even weeks to flesh out their ideas.
AoE4 is done right now by completely different team.
Healing in Company of Heroes 2 does have a mayor role on the gameplay.
Compared to AoE2 healing is very fast and each faction has an own way to do so.
And in my opinion some factions do have there quite a big advantage over the others.
Relic is just making the game, World’s Edge is supervising it. Relic won’t make AOE like they did with their own games. Besides, we already know Relic stays extremely truthful to AOE2 mostly, it has been said in interviews.
Every musketeer unit in the game is weak against light infantry. Also having free spawned settlers saves you a lot of food in the early game which does not really result in a slower economical startup. Ottoman infantry can construct buildings which also alleviates some pressure on settlers.
And here is the argument: AoE2 has some factions with only a generic “cavalry” which is not as fast as light cavalry and not as powerful as heavy cavalry (much like Janissaries in AoE3 as a generic infantry), and they also lack any mobile archer units (and Ottomans in AoE3 do not really lack anything), but the gameplay is not affected that much. If AoE2 is still playable with this design (and indeed it is), then having “diverse factions” with some units with different functions and stats is not a crucial factor.
Again, the design of Janissaries in AoE3 is the same logic as Eagle Warriors in AoE2. If that design ruins gameplay in AoE3, it will also affect AoE2, but it actually does not.
2 Likes
Same was told about Dawn of War 3, but in the end you had a completely different game than Dawn of War 1 and Dawn of War 2.
Problem is, what I did observe by all RTS teams. Out of Starcrafts and Warcrafts design idea, did become some kind of odd Dogma. Blindly input in every RTS for decades. The direction AoE4 is going now with art style, heroes abilities, different factions, just sounds like exactly the same traits we did see too much implemented in last years.
Sure you can move the objects and win the games.
But is this “diverse factions” still an enjoyable experience, people are going to pay for?
Honestly I would be more excited about Medieval Total War 3, with similar factions.
Than AoE4 with different factions.
Maybe someone already say this Idea because there’s a lot that already has said on this Topic but I wanted to see other kind of conquer on the AoE IV like we don’t destroy the other enemy but to conquer a fort, like they do in the Crusades, they conquer the City and rule that city, in that way we can make our enemy to become one of us, so if i play with 4 people, i conquer one of their city and use his army against the others!!
Dunno I think this was a great idea, if someone already think of this let me know and help me upgrade the idea
Dawn of war was purely made by Relic and was not supervised by SEGA. They just let them do what they want with it. And considering Relic already admitted their mistake by making the game a MOBA, that’s a very good point when a company comes forward and says what they did wrong.
Are you serious? Then why would anyone spend 100 gold when they have a trash unit?
How about another alternative called Surgeon than heals units instantly and costs 100 food?
Just put units in castles with Herbal Medicine researched. No need for alternatives…
Em, you can do it by AoE? You can convert enemy units with the Monks.
A unit has to be balanced. If he is overpowered, other do lose their value, if he is too weak people won’t use him. A unit that heals units instantly and costs 100 food, would be too overpowered.
So is it a good idea, to have just Monk again as the only healing unit?
So far I did observe, people did heavily criticize a 60 Dollar game with just 10 maps, 3 factions ,1 game mode and some kind of grind in game currency.
It seems to me like it wasn’t properly funded and the limited money they had for development was put into making factions different, but it did rather make people less happy with the end product.