Alternatively, tasks that were neglected to maintain important tasks now can have a greater level of focus. This gives games a greater level of nuance, and allows players to perform at levels that would not have been possible before.
2 Likes
I understand the argument. But the goalposts have moved twice now, from āyouāll be forced to use itā to āI like skill checksā to āattention is a limited resourceā.
I canāt and donāt want to force people to like something they donāt want to. This thread is meant as a poll anyway.
But at the same time, I think it should be understood that this can be seen as a positive, and that any theoretical loss of complexity, or skill, can be made up in other ways. YMMV.
I appreciate you using the tired trope of moving goalposts, but all of the āgoalpostsā still apply. You will be forced to use it unless you want to play at a disadvantage, the game will feature fewer skill checks as a result of this, and āattention is a limited resourceā is the reason you are forced to use it. What goalposts are you talking about?
Can you be more specific. What are players not able to do now that they will be able to do after the game is simplified?
I never said they didnāt. Itās just an observation. To do each one justice requires a tangent in of itself, and I donāt have the time. And even if I did, at the end of all of it, you still probably wouldnāt like AQ as proposed.
Thatās all.
Sorry for keeping you on this forum, I know your time is very precious. If they ever add the feature, I will just use it now. Youāve opened my eyes.
In terms of what players be able to do that they canāt do now I cannot answer. That wasnāt what I was saying. Nothing is being removed from the game, rather, the player no longer needs to maintain the same level of focus on training villagers. What the player does with them remains the same. What would change is:
- Players no longer have to remember to select the town center to queue a villager
- Players no longer need to account for the extra 50~ food for each villager in queue
Attention can then be taken from that task into every other task. There is no limit to what that means, and itās not about tasks being available that were not before.
There are many ways that automating the task asks the player to spend more attention than they would otherwise, so Iām kind of confused about you saying that skill would diminish. For example, with auto queue the player is less incentivized to pay attention to their base, so raids would have a greater level of effect. To compound on that, raid micro would be easier to maintain since that player would not need to focus on their base as often.
The whole point is stretching the attention, thatās where the skill lies in RTS. The less items you need to focus on, the easier it is, hence less skillful. You can spend more attention to raids if vills are automated, true, which is why it forces the opponent to also use auto-vills to not play at a disadvantage.
So weāre dumbing down the game. Glad we agree on this. Why bother getting better at something when you can make that thing easier right?
I do not agree with you. You have misunderstood both the concept of auto queue and my posts.
Have I? I thought you said the player no longer needs to maintain the same level of focus.
Yes, but that does not mean that their focus is diminished. It means that they would take that time to focus on something other than pressing a hotkey. If we were to break the action down to a number it equates to about 3APM difference, 9APM if you want to get technicalā¦ Itās arguably inconsequential as a change, ie it would have no downsides.
The people this would effect are at ratings <900. Iāve been playing this game since launch and have been in plat-dia the entire time. Queueing villagers is already muscle memory for myself and the people I play against, it makes no difference at higher levels. This is a change for players who are at a lower level that struggle with the concept.
1 Like
Interesting. Then why do it?
I prefer to ask: why should it not be done? It harms no one and augments the game positively.
This question is more rhetorical than anything, I understand the arguments against AQ. I just donāt see them as having value, as the complaints are disconnected from the experiences I have had with playing the game. In my opinion they seem to come from a place of fear more than reason.
1 Like
It augments the game positivelyā¦ You love those vague wordings. I explained how it affects the game negatively, but Iām yet to learn from you how it āaugments it positivelyā. So itās not by dumbing it down for the people who canāt be bothered to get skilled at something, right?
It would not dumb the game down, you have dumbed the game down with your argument.
If I took an example that you made:
Not using it would put you at a disadvantage, because your opponent has less things that stretch their attention span.
In a real world scenario, you would pretty much never stop making villagers. Itās just not something you do. Saying you donāt care if opponent has this option is like saying you donāt care if opponentās units micro on their own while yours donāt.
In the scenario that a player is attacked by the other player, you seem to distill the interaction down to their attention having been occupied. This is being isolated to the training of villagers. But raids actually accomplish so many other things, such as:
- Denying resources
- Idling villagers
- Destroying buildings/units
It would still distract the opponent in many other ways, and you could still divide their attention. The only thing, and I mean ONLY THING, that would change is: training a villager.
I think you are exaggerating the actual impact of the change.
Itās okay with me that we donāt agree on this concept. If I could leave this with you: itās my belief that it positively augments the game because it lowers the floor of skill required to participate. Something that holds most new players back is remembering to train villagers. By automating this task it means that players can spend less time learning tedious tasks and more time learning things that have lasting value, such as build orders and micro.
An APM change of 3-9 is miniscule for someone who has 180+ APM. However, most new players start with 30-60APM, and it would have a much larger impact on gameplay for them. If they want to expand their skillset they will choose to do so, but most players are in Gold league and belowā¦ even more never queue for a ranked match.
1 Like
Well why didnāt you say so? If the complaints are disconnected from the experiences you had playing the game, then I guess youāre right.
Silliness aside, every action that requires you to constantly switch your attention to something else is a significant mental load, and itās part of the skill set of playing RTS games. As you yourself said, queuing vills doesnāt require much apm. What it requires is your ability to constantly switch your attention.
You trivialize it and claim itās not dumbing down the game. Letās take it further for the sake of the argument and also automate military production. Is it still not dumbing down the game?
Moving villagers around is busywork, right? What if we just plop down the buildings next to resources and you can attack the buildings with your auto-queued army. How about now, is the game being dumbed down?
What if we choose what to attack and the units focus their counters, and you press a single button to tell them to kite or retreat. Itās just pointless apm, right? Youāre just pressing some buttons repeatedly, might as well remove it.
Do you understand where this is going? Weāre turning it into a game of Chess. In an RTS, the way you manage your actions and your attention, and the way you prioritize those is the game.
Last post Iāll make about this.
Take a look at any player in this skill range: https://aoe4world.com/leaderboard/qm_1v1?page=1500
I will be blacking out the names here, just for privacy sake.
The player who had less villagers, who had lost more villagers, won this game. Yes, the blue player. Thatās what I mean by my experiences with this game are disconnected with your complaint.
Players in lower leagues would be the ones most at advantage with a change like auto-queue. Funny thing is, the real impact it would have is completely unknown to both of us. That doesnāt mean that there isnāt a mountain of evidence that points towards the theory of it being destructive to the game being false.
There is a lot to speak of the fear that you have been showing towards having to adapt to this change, and how it would negatively impact your personal experience.
No way I can argue with you on that.
I explained with arguments why I donāt like the change. Where in that have you reached the conclusion that āhey, it must be fear!ā. Instead of fabricating reasons as to what supposedly motivates me, a better way might be to stick to facts and counterarguments, you know, for the sake of arguing in good faith.
Iām struggling to understand your point with the low league example. Are you trying to say that having more vills doesnāt mean anything at their level, so might as well introduce auto-queue for everyone?
I fully support auto queue villages. The game itself has a lot of operability. This automation is completely recognized by me, an old player.
The game needs to evolve. Not evolving now, but evolving in the future.
This is completely progressive. There is no reason to refuse.
What we hope for is more playability in the game. There is no need to hope that opponents forget to produce villagers.
I also hope that the production of villagers is free!
No more need for 50 food ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼ļ¼
I have a better idea. Letās just start with 130 villagers and 70 army supply, and 10 of each production buildings. Thatās completely progressive. No reason to refuse.
I would do so with you if I had anything to respond to that was that way. Alas, all of your posts have been you exposing your fears of what may come to pass if auto queue were implemented. You ask for facts, you ask for good faith. I have yet to see you provide those things.