You can soft ban leavers for 30 minutes or something.
The punishment part is easy, but what do you clasify as a âleaverâ
I agree that the mathcmaking in AoM is very bad. I have seen matches that could have been easily balanced if the system swapped two players between teams. and I donât see how having a broken system that encorages people to leave the game instead of playing would help in increasing player numbers. Yea i said 15 minutes as an example, thatâs for the devs to decide.
This is our main difference here. I say that people should not be the judges of this. If there is an acceptable match then they should play their best. I think AoM already factors in elo difference while calculating how much to deduct/increase after the match is done. So the only thing that gets wasted here is peopleâs time which is going to get wasted anyways since the matchmaking is bad/ there are not enough players.
With this system no one will experience comebacks since most of the times people will be like âyea I donât feel like playing anymore. I will just quitâ. And comebacks is the most enjoyement players can get from a game.
once a guy easily prolonged the game for 5 minutes easily by hiding his staphylion bird on top of a mountain. I was norse and I couldnât think of anyway of reaching it. My Atlantean friend got him with another bird. This is just a tiny example. in a well thought game this should never happen.
Although I hate scores in AoE games and I think they are very flawed and should not be displayed. but the fact is that beyond a certain score difference really there is no way of coming back and the game should just allow the people to resign and give the victory to the other team.
1 Like
And if there isnt?
Thats very true, and people can juggle if the rather waste their time spent on the waiting line or play a match they arent going to win/enjoy
Next time Just gran the tcs, its way faster, specially as norse. But yea its Hard to stop those types of plays
I would rather a concede vote system than this. Theres no objective way to do this and you can skew the score a lot from doing certain stuff in game and the god you play.
I do agree the Elo level at which most comeback are likely (low Elo) is also the level where people quit over trivial things.
Well then there will be no match to play.
Why should they always win to enjoy? The truth is half of the people are going to win and half of them are going to lose because they are in a game that you either win or lose. The problem is that the game has no perecaution towards leaving, You just lose Elo which in the deserters mind he is going to lose it anyways.
I donât know⊠Two of my friends left when I said Either you kill every single unit the enemy has or capture every town center⊠The thing is the game requires too many actions in order to actually achieve a victory⊠. Imagine a new player, He has no idea about omniscience and he has no Idea that If you capture every town center then the game will end. And I think capturing every town center starts a timer rather than finishing the game immediately.
Anyways my point is that this is a very easy solution to a problem that shouldnât have existed in the first place. You cannot expect people to play team games when every thing is hanging on a newb hitting the quit button. People should feel (At least in ranked) that they are in a team that is dedicated to put on their best.
Although I do understand that multiplayer in general is not AoMâs top priority and in multiplayer team games are not their priority at atll. But despite all of this negligence Team games are only slightly behind from 1v1s in terms of player count. These are simple stuff that can improve player retention.
Now Iâm not saying that the only way around this is to put a surrender vote. But there needs to be something to make leaving a match a bit more punishing.
Indeed, and thats what happens, people not finding the match acceptable.
I dint say you have to win to enjoy, the â/â is and "orâ. But still following that idea, you are playing ranked, your goal is to win. Even if you enjoy playing, people tend to like gamed that are either close or that they win easily, theres not much a player base to being stomped (which is kinda the reason people odnt like smurfs). Coming back to the LoL analogies, its the equivalent of you chilling in your lane, looking and the score and the other lane guys are both 0/05/0 5 minutes into the game. You know the outcome, its not up to you to make it better because your lane rival is your actual skill level, its simply a wait game into a surrender or loosing.
So? Why does that matter? Imagine a LoL game, and you enemy doesnt concede? You still have to win it. Theres no âauto winâ mechanic in most games.
Thats kinda the thing that allows the comebacks you defended previously thou, cant have it both ways.
Then thats on him. Now knowing something is not the games fault. Theres plently of info, hovering over the game modes and win conditions literally tells you all about them. Thats like complaning about lets say norse not having any hero units because a player didnt bother to look for the hersir icon, thats not the game design fault.
Yes, a very short timer.
Thats doesnt happen in any solo queue game thou. Theres always more individual players, since most that want actual team play just group up and queue together since that fixes most issues. You play with people you enjoy playing with, you dont have to deal with selfsishness from random people, you dont have to see a game go because you randomly got asigned someone way below all the other players for some reason.
It if was so easy all RTS games would have it fixed, yet they dontâŠâŠ Because its not so simple or clear cut. I personally like Warcraft 3 way the best, if an ally leaves you can take control of his base and use it. Literally makes it viable to 2v1 if you are skilled enough and it allows people to leave when they want and not feel forced on a game they dont wanna be in.
That is very true sadly. Overall AoM is mostly single players for the bigger player base or vs AI, then 1v1 ranked and lastly team ranked.
Iâm not saying it should be auto win. In LoL there is a single building that needs to get destroyed. Very counter intuitive , plain, simple. In here? good luck spotting that one single dot on your crowded minimap. or capturing all settlements and waiting. There is definetly a way inorder to make it better. the current system is just super time consuming.
You are asking me about details. I canât decide about details. All Iâm saying is: people can leave way too early in this game. The victory condition argument came along cause I thought that you are right that people should not be kept hostages because their ally is hiding a staphylion bird on top of a mountain and the enemy doesnât know that they should first research an upgrade in temple that costed 10000000000 golds 5 minutes ago. even if they know there is a good chance that they canât reach it. so everyone is left to the mercy of one troll. This wonât happen in every game but it will happen quite often.
Personally as someone who has played nearly every major online game these are just too many hoops (and wasted time) in order to finish a game that is already over. As I said I canât decide what it should exactly be. All I can say that the current system is flawed and will drive away many new players.
I think people have right to be bad at competetive games. that includes going into the game without reading any thing about it.
The thing is that you believe that it is ok for people to leave if they donât want to play the game while being at a disadvantage. I believe that they should keep on playing till the very bitter end. Now thatâs how my culture brought me up. I had heard (donât quote me though) that LoL players in Korean servers AFK after first blood. they donât even wait till 20 minutes of surrender. To me this is absurd⊠.
Since I know that my take is very radical, There should be a way for the players out of the game if the chances of winning are very small. Now this can be anything. a surrender vote, Let players leave if the score difference is above a certain threshold⊠anything is acceptable. But to hang the fate of the entire team on one guy who decided that losing one villager is too much is not right.
No one is a prophet. There is a good chance that your enemy can make mistakes. Most games are designed around having a comeback mechanic. People should also give it a try.
The problem with AoM is that people just queue up and then leave minute 1 because they feel like their ally doesnât have a build order. If every one can be the judge the game will turn into chaos.
why is it sad? I actually like it. The player base is enough and sustainable. Even with all of these flaws that AoM had (which in my opinion) could have been avoided if they looked at other games that are team based, I still have a lot of fun playing team games.
that is how the game should had been released especially since another game had an at least something about it. AoM does nothing. The whole team just gets doomed.
BTW I donât want to sound hostile. I actually enjoy our discussion. Please tell me if I show any disrespect.
Not hostile at all. Its good disscusion.
Same, Destroy opponent units to win. The other methods are alternative win conditions.
The thing is the hard part lies in the details, its simple to say x would be better, but then when going over it realizie all the things it can get tangled with and not work.
yea, dont think its possible to stop all forms of trolling, glad its not the most common thing.
AoM is for sure not the most welcoming, beggining for being on you 3rd match ever and getting a guy that gets money from playing the game tournaments.
100% but people dont get to do that and blame the game for their shortcomings which is what mostly happens. Also as much as anytone has the right to play the game however they want, people also have the right to no put up with that stuff. If you wanna hop into ranked played and figure stuff out on the go thats great for you but it also affects the people you play with.
Both are selfish actions, a person leaving cause they dont wanna be there and a person thinking others should just put up with whatever they wanna do.
Cause thats the part of the game that i interact most with and its a shame to me it doesnt see much improvement on QoL aspects. Except for this patch, so much good stuff came about it ans its amazing.
I also enjoy the other modes, the campaign and other modes but they lack replayavility which is why im loving the gauntlet as well.
Yea, im not dooming the game,i enjoy it a lot and its very woth playing, at least IMO
1 Like
But before that we need to settle on the general points. We havenât even reached on a conclusion that is it ok for people to be stuck in a game because someone is hiding his unit. Or is it ok to force people to stay in a game that they think is lost.
There are ways around that. The thing is this system would have been acceptable 15 years ago. But now no one will understand how people can leave in ranked so easily.
I agree but there is a line on how much knowledge is required for basics of the game. The current âwayâ of dealing with troll plays either requires too much time, Too many actions (which as pointed earlier might not even be enough) on top requiring some sort of knowledge that you need omniscience. BTW no where in the campaign or tutorial videos does it teach about omniscience (as far as i am aware of).
Agree the game is improving slowly. But to be honest these stuff are the same mistakes made in AoE IV. AoE IV also didnât have penalty for leavers they added it later. Cause there is just no other way deducing elo isnât enough. And inorder for people to experience the content of the game fully they need to invest at least some time into it.
Also there is casual game mode in which people are not forced to play to the best of their ability. Although I think LoL will still ban you if you even leave in casual game mode.
Those are the details. The general point is the voting system, this others are all scenarios that can and Will happen and challenge how good the voting system would be.
Oh for sure. Its really odd we have a game thats after Aoe I (same franchise) but a lot worse ladder UI, no ranks, no interactions, etc.
Thats all RTS thou. Games vary from gaming knowledge. FPS thrive on the low skill level required to enter for example. You Just need the basic movement aim and shoot, everything else is kinda optional.
You can play a MOBA with Just one champion always doing the same thing and it kinda works.
RTS requiere more effort in the en try level. You Will not learn a Build order playing any campaign. No meta or strategy.
And even then theres harder games to enter like MMORPGs like wow with lots of abilities and builds for different roles and spec, etc.
Theres no explanation of any game Mode in the campaign, since its all over objetives per level. You dont get to play conquest, standard, sudden death, Wonder Victory (in the old game) thats all for the player to find which i agree is a big ask now a days where everything is spoon fed in other genres.
Thats kinda what Quick play is for kinda? I dunno whats the point of that Mode overall in aom. But from rank players i see it mostly used to try other gods or New stuff out or goof around.
The best players on the losing team should lose fewer points. Another solution could be that if a match lasts less than 3 minutes, there is no gain or loss of ranked points
This should have been in the game a long time ago
This actually has been the topic for a lot of discussion in online games. I donât know about league since I havenât played it in ages but CS2 actually doesnât care. Some people say people should be encouraged to help their team in order to win rather than stonking up on individual scores.
EXACTLY ! The thing is that the new generation (even the old generation) of gamers expect certain features as the bare minimum. Like decent options for servers, being able to see my ping in game, Voice chat, etc⊠AoM ignored most of these and yet it did find its own online player base. This goes on to show how much the game actually is captivating.
It is not true. It depends now how you are designing the game. Just because a game is RTS doesnât mean it must be difficult. Even the issues about âhow to end the gameâ can be easily solved. For example Wc3 automatically reveals players when then they donât have a TC without requiring extra actions or knowledge about omniscience.
AoM could have done this: If the enemy team has no TCs and buildings A timer will start which will auto defeat that team. If the enemy team has no TCs and has no villagers A timer and the score difference is beyond 30K per individual in the team A timer will start which will auto defeat. If the score difference between teams is beyond 20K per individual within a team a surrender vote can be initiated but requires the vote of every team member. If the score difference between teams is beyond 30K per individual within a team a surrender vote can be initiated but requires the majority votes. If the score difference between teams is beyond 40K per individual within a team a surrender vote can be initiated but requires only one concede vote. (The thresholds for scores need some tweaking)
The current system requires a lot of time and actions in order to finish a game that is already over.
I also see no point in it⊠People need to invest their time anywaysâŠ. Also it isnât like CS2 casual games which people just come and go easily. If some one comes into the match and then leaves every one has to leave and search again. Removing it will decrease Queue times in ranked drastically and will allow newb players to be matched with each other.
There needs to be hint for it. Otherwise A lot of people will miss it. It doesnât even mention it in the tutorial videos. AoM needs a tutorial video on how to deal with the end game trollings.
1 Like
It 100% is thou. The knowledge you need to Just hop into a game in cs go, call of duty is basically knowing the controls. RTS have units age ups, resources, more basic knowledge to get the basic hang of the game. Imagine hoping into aom rank game as your first RTS experience without playing the campaign va doing the same in another genre. Theres so much stuff you need to know to simply play the bate minimum.
This soudn fair until you get to the score. Its a bad idea yo use score yo provide anything. Its very easy to inflate score via different means. You would also kill situations like gold starve where you can be down in score but win a game because you stopped your opponents eco.
Also numbers wise (which are w/e) are a bad metric since score so high forces you to be in a game for way too long and take a while for a difference that significan to get going. Imagine having to reach mythic Just to be able to resign a game.
Theres not a single RTS game that has multiplayer preparation on the campaign. And why would it? Its all things that change with type as metas form and fall.
There are hints in game about omniscience through loadikg screen.
How would you even define this is the issue. If you wanna go by score you are encouraging people to boom, abandon their allies Just to have the bugger number. This already happens btw. Peoole allow their allies to get 2 v 1 3 v 1 because they Want to do 2 tc heroic or mythic.
If you go by units killed you hinder all civs that dont play aggresive.
If you go by elo then you hurt people from climbing. Anyone playing people better than them would besides having to beat better opponents know would get punkshed for loosing a game they would already be uphill.
Theres no objectively metric that you can simply input and apply in all cases to call which player did better.
Thatâs why I set the numbers too high, The score system in AoE games works very bad but at least they are good at showing what one has. From my experince in team games and watching pro matches. Up untill 20k score difference is still possible to comeback.
For auto defeat thing we can remove the score difference and change it to : If the enemy has no TC and has no villagers A timer will start until they get a TC. It isnât flawless but it is better than what we have now which is easily exploitable. WC3âs system is also not fair. What if a player has a huge army but loses all his buildings. AoE IV has landmarks that when get destroyed the enemy loses which is very unfair for abbasid but thatâs just how the game is and people have accepted it like that.
aside from that there is nothing else. and that you may encounter by chance. I think trolls should not be rewarded for such behavior. In AoM no matter what you do the troll somewhat achieves what he wants.
In the staphylion bird scenario (which is btw probably the worst case scenario) Even if I captured all of the settlements it would have easily prolonged the game by 5 minutes. THE LEAST that they can do is to exclude flying units from their system.
Exactly I think that the given/taken elo should not priotrize who played better. they lost as a team and the other won as a team.
I like all of this more than using score as any means to interpret either what player did better or a win condition.
Thats trolling in any game. Having bad manners isnt going against the rules. You would expect all players to be decent and not try to tilt the other one but thats the Internet. The troll wins any time it gets to upset the other player Just ignore them.
And this goes for any game, be it a MOBA RTS or anything else you Will find ways to troll and keep to the game rules if you want to.
Yea it feels weird that even exists. Dunno if it is only due yo rock interaction. And if it is if all you have is a roc even fully loaded of any unit chances are you are not winning. So it for sure should be disabled
1 Like
I dont really see an issue with this. Theres no way to force knowledge o to people without making a big boring tutorial. Theres so much interactions and stuff you learn yourself. Theres no in game tutorial for all the Lol Champion interactions with their kills and items, those are things you look for when you wanna get better and read.
If you wanna know what an Ătem/upgrade does you read it. If the explanation was weird or Hard to understand sure, or if it was false info. But you cant spoon feed everything about games so complex to players.
Yes but the difference is that they get banned cause of human moderator control if the trolling crosses certain thresholds. Now for now we canât have people/AI analyzing chats or behaviors in AoM the least we can do is to have a proper system that will help actual players. Just removing the flying units from the requirements actually solves a lot of it.
I know for us who have been playing RTS for some years it might seem easy. but someone who is new will be very confused to see that he has killed nearly everything yet the game isnât ending.
The number of upgrades is already way too much. Just compare the amount of buttons that you can press while selecting a TC in AoEIV with AoM. Expecting players to know all of these is unrealistic. Besides this isnât about making the game easy/spoon feeding them. It is about making the frustrating things a bit lighter in the game.
Imagine this scenario : A new player comes â after a long match manages to destroy everything but canât end the match â Ages up to mythic and researches omniscience â destroys the remaining units just to realize that a flying unit is in an reachable spot â starts grabbing every settlement in the map (which in teamgames can be quite a few) (which is only true if he knows this) â a timer start and he has to wait it through. This new player is never coming back to this game.
Either the omniscience needs to also be researched automatically(aside from being available to researched manually) or some other system needs to be put in place. Also donât forget that after omniscience he has to go through the remaining scattered units/buildings. This is very different than league/dota. the objective in them is very counter intuitive and simple to do. The amount of actions in AoM in order to end a game is a lot.
Agreed.
Fair enough i am biased on this.
I think thats kinda the reason RTS overall is a niche now, the barrer of entry isnt that welcoming to New players. But i guess thats more for another discussion and how gaming overall evolved to be more fast paced and easy to get.
That would need some adjusting since imagine you randomly loosing 4K gold because you became available to research it
The thing is AoM is so apealing and so visually beautiful that ANY casual player will show some interest in it. Although in order to make game better it definetly needs to get a little bit easier. But that can wait. As long as matchmaking keeps matching noobs with noobs every thing will be fine.
But the problem is AoM (all AoE games really) doensât have the most basic stuff from nowdays online teamwork based games. Itâs text chat is wonky AF. Voice chat doesnât work. Quick radio chat is superbly awkward. People in ranked team games can come and go whenever they wish. There are too many options for ranked matchmaking that keeps splitting the player base. There are too many ways to prolong the game needlessly. You canât reconnect If you drop (Although I do understand that reconnecting in RTS games is very complex).
Yea sure adjusting that is easy. like it automatically researches if it is 1k and the enemy team canât research it.
I was playing a game with a buddy of mine today and he also said that game needs to punish those who leave just cause they lost 3 villagers. You canât expect a game to be competetive if everyone can leave whenever they want.
If someone joins a match, they are accepting the conditions, right?
If someone surrenders through the voting system, there should be no punishment. But if someone quits the match without any reason, I think itâs quite fair to have a temporary ban.
1 Like