In no way is autoqueue the game playing itself. It simulates pressing a hotkey to queue a unit, there is no other thing being automated by the feature.
The utility is how it frees peoples attention to focus on the game itself instead of pressing hotkeys.
Tell me more about how you didnât play the AoM stresstest, beta or the original game.
Being literally immune to harassment due to autoqueue IS destroying strategy. This isnât a debate, this is how reality works. If you want to insist that isnât the case, then youâre just eristically arguing to satisfy some personal bias.
If you want to âfree up attentionâ to do other things (in RTS where your attention is a resource), then there is an option for that. It is called queuing more than 1 unit. There is a consequence to doing this, and that is the point. That is how it should be.
You want no downsides. You want all the upsides with no troubles. It doesnât work that way. You donât preserve strategy by removing it.
Iâve played everything that has been available so far.
It also isnât just me, the conversation has shifted since people have touched it.
Iâve been over this before, but the feature is a quality of life feature. It could be compared to rally points or the unit queue that you are describing. Youâre just experiencing an advancement in gameplay with the addition of QOL.
I mean it when I say that the game does not play itself in any way. You have to choose what to autoqueue, what order it queues units in (norse can build a gatherer and a dwarf, it will alternate between them based on the order selected), and you have to have it stop autoqueuing when you have as many as you want.
Youâre using a lot of hyperbole with me here. I am not asking for anything or wanting anything. This is something that is already in a game, and itâs more than likely going to come to the other games in the future ie console/pc crossplay, controller gameplay, automatic worker assignment (something that does automate gameplay)
Ironic coming from you. And Iâm not, yet youâre seemingly incapable of comprehending that. Let me state very clearly that it is NOT in any way relatable to waypoints. Autoqueue removes the ability for an opponent to effectively disrupt you. Waypoints do not interact in any way shape or form with gameplay or the opponent. Youâre literally ignoring the benefits of queuing villagers and pretending autoqueue is simply superior.
There are a lot of things that are âin the gameâ but autoqueue does not exist where it matters, in ranked competitive play. You do understand words mean something? Because vague statements do not mean youâre vaguely correct. Youâre simply being vague.
Adding autoqueue to the ranked experience would rank among the largest mistakes to happen to this game so far. If they commited to it, it would be signing off its death warrant.
@TheAchronic For example, since in tournaments from amateur level rebuilding stone walls in feudal age is prohibited, I have not seen gold players onwards do it, as well as eliminating the rivalâs boar (with an Islamic civilization) they do not do it; in competitive they would not accept the automatic queue. Therefore, players with an elo above the average will not use it. Making a fuss about something that only low elo players would do is a waste, and a whim, when I played on a new account with xbox players, I did not lose because of their use of automatic queue, because that does not guarantee winning the game.
You are saying that distracting your opponents attention keeps them from being on top of queuing their units, waypoints are the exact same way. If you had to move all of your units manually from the moment they were trained then the opponent would suffer from not having their units where they need them to be after being trained. Itâs literally the exact same thing you are describing, and itâs easy to make that comparison because you are using the meta concept of âawarenessâ or âattentionâ⊠anything that affects those things applies the same logic you are using.
It does exist in ranked gameplay, autoqueue villagers are in all modes of the game. I have first-hand experience with that.
Since you havenât believed a single thing Iâve said to you so far, hereâs a video from Fitzbro demonstrating that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3dfkNM5P4g
I hope this post is less vague, being vague was not my intent.
The wall discussion is partly problematic due to the timeframe of competition in general. It is in professional players best interest to use every tool available to them to win. When you think of Starcraft, you probably imagine fast games. Yet, the introduction to units that produce even more free units managed to be completely destructive to Starcraftâs competitive scene, leading to games that were hours long.
Realistically speaking, stone walls are good enough to be abused in a similar fashion. It just does not make for good watching experiences. As for why the developers havenât touched it; I donât know.
Just as an example, on this map a stone wall at the edges of the map is totally beneficial, I have refuted your argument. 
Automatic queuing of military units became an option in custom games. Automatic queueing of villagers was kept and still some AoM veterans complained.
Maybe you should watch more competitive AoM games and realize how much raiding and dynamism there is in the games.
Simplifying an unfun action in favor of using that attention on other more fun things reduces competitiveness? Thatâs what RTS veterans always thought (even me in the past), now I think itâs not so.
It was my impresion that you were talking about Age of Empires 4.
I disagree with your take on waypoints. Your argument is simply that the better player at gathering incoming units will win, therefore waypoints remove âgameplayâ and makes it akin to autoqueue. But, this is just not the case. For one, waypoints works inwardsâthe better player at actively collecting their armies is an inward action in relation to a gameplay mechanic. In all fairness, it is actually more skillful than the upkeep of queued villagers.
However, the removal of manual queue does something entirely different. What it does is literally make you immune to a form of disruption. If you think this is akin to waypoints simply because someone getting attacked, might forget to grab their freshly spawned armies, then this would apply to EVERYTHING that takes attention. Should we make technologies also auto-learn to avoid people from forgetting to pick them up because they got attacked?
This is breaking down the logic to fundamentals where nothing makes sense anymore. The point of manual queueing is that it is a fine balance of the most fundamental and basic action in the game; making workers. The disruption of that is a clear, direct and effective strategy, and removing this does not benefit the gameâit simply drags it out and makes RTS closer to autobattlers.
Hasan, respectfully, you do not understand my argument and I suggest you read my message again.
Let me lay out an example that expresses how autoqueue is not âimmunityâ as you describe it:
You start the game by building an archer focused composition. You invest in spears to protect the archers from their counter, but stop after making 8 or so spearmen. You continue to invest in archers. The opponent builds horsemen at first to counter you, and is autoqueuing them. When they see you have spears they build archers in response. This is when you start to build horsemen to counter their composition. In response to this the opponent builds spearmen. The opponent, through the stress of managing the macro of their economy combined with your constant aggression, does not stop the automatic production of any of their units. They have an imbalanced army, and you win because you took time to manage your army composition.
Things like this are being ignored by you. You are treating autoqueue as some kind of immunity because it keeps you from using a strategy that relied on your enemy manually queuing the units in several places. Complexities like this are what will be learned and developed as more people get used to using autoqueue. There may even be holdouts who refuse to adapt and maintain their already sharpened skills. The only thing that changes is people no longer need to focus on pressing a hotkey every 20 seconds, maybe even having an extra 50-100 resources because they do not need to queue several units at a time.
I still believe you are exaggerating the impact of autoqueue.
I am ignoring this scenario because it is entirely horrifying. For the record; I am entirely against this awful mechanic in AoE4 of allowing continued production despite being pop-capped as well. In trying to be a QoL feature, it simply drags out battlesâmaking winners of a clash less clearly able to take advantage of that, due to immediate incoming waves of new units.
In the same vein, someone being literally able to go âwell Iâm on his production now, letâs just put Knights on autoqueueâ then proceeding to take the hands off the keyboard is insane. The game should never seriously ever entertain the possibility of something like that making it into the game. Even if this is an exaggerated scenario, what are we doing here?
Am I meant to seriously accept a game where half of the battle is not even being done by a person? It is just assumed that it happened? In which case, why isnât the game just turn based if we hate making actions so much? You say this is all exaggerated but this is the kind of slippery slope that you donât come back from.
What slippery slope is there???
Do you understand that was a video made to mock the person who made those comments, that most people saw them as overblown fears?
You bring that up to mock me? Because it is a great community piece that lightens the mood. I stand by it clearly because I think it is true. In many ways, we arenât far from this⊠joke. Theyâve quite literally implemented auto eco already in both AoM and AoE2.
Because of your example, I only demand the villager queue, not the military unit queue.
âŠAnd specifically this thread only deals with the villager queue
Mythologyâs Ranked does not allow automatic queue of military units
I am not trying to mock you. Art and music are interpreted differently by each person. You see something that prophesizes a future in the Age series where the entire game plays itself, I see a video made to laugh at a rant that a pro gamer went on when seeing a QOL change to AoE2.
At the end of the day I just donât understand our conversations with each other. I am trying to talk directly to you but your responses to me kind of blow past everything I am saying. Youâre either telling me that I havenât experienced something, that my comparisons are ineffective, or you wonât even acknowledge what Iâm saying.
It is clear to me that we are not going to share an understanding.
@HasanIchess, youâre right. The thread isnât about a military queue. As a feature in AoM Retold it can be activated, and is on by default in the campaign, but is off by default in ranked. I was just trying to make an example of how autoqueue effects gameplay, and the impacts are more significantly felt with military autoqueue.
I still hold the stance that villager auto queue has a negligible impact. In my own gameplay experience I have not seen the villager count waver under any circumstance other than someone not having access to food. I see the villager autoqueue as a feature that mostly applies to lower levels of ranked, I believe anything higher than platinum would not observe a change in gameplay.
It would honestly, BIG TIME.
Believe me.
Especially player-numbers would benefit, as high rank players donât mind the auto-queue for vills and low rank/new players would find an easier entrance to the game.
It would DEFINITELY help playernumbers raise and mean no harm at the same time.
Edit:
57% have already voted for âYESâ.
I think itâs quite obviousâŠ
Many of the ânoâ people might honestly just have voted for ânoâ because they are unsure.
Quite possibly, after test-running auto-queue in ranked for a while, a new poll would further shift towards âyesâ, once more people lose their doubts.
