[poll] Should wild animals attack villagers?

Age of Mythology: Retold Discussion
1

Should predator animals in aomr be what they are advertised as?

  • Yes, it adds to the game’s flavor.
  • No, they should stay as aggressive huntables.
0 voters
2 Likes
2

Maybe a toggle? Could be turned off by default, but I would turn it on.

6 Likes
3

Ah I remember in old AoM when you let your villager walk out into the wilds and get attacked by wolves, crocs, bears etc. it was really annoying but also kinda immersive. That’s one of the first small things I was surprised which got changed but I am okay with both ways personally but I totally understand if you want it back.

7 Likes
4

Predator animals are a so classic AoE/AoM element that i was very ‘‘surprised’’ about this change. I initialy thought it must be a bug. What is the difference between predators and self defending animals besides stats now? I think it’s a little bit sad that they changed it. It adds nothing but it removes something if you know what i mean.

6 Likes
5

I assume it was done for the purpose of ranked multiplayer/esports. I’ve seen something similar before.

1 Like
6

a mod in here said its intended, but they did not even change the description of wild animals which reads: they will attack villagers who wander alone

this really needs to come back. this and the blood/cadaver animation ffs!

1 Like
7

They could simply, with maybe 5 minutes of effort, create an option in the match lobby to choose between aggressive or passive animals. But apparently, they must be on vacation right now—it’s the end of the year, after all. Plus, there’s the DLC, and they need to sleep and take lunch breaks, not to mention that developers need to go to the bathroom too. So, it’s quite difficult to change a few things. Just be patient and stop bothering them.

Maybe in a couple of years, they’ll find the time to add a line of code for that. I know I’m putting a lot of pressure on them, but who knows, right?

1 Like
8

You’re right, they’re probably still on vacation, and yeah, good for them.
I don’t think anyone meant for them to deprive themselves of sleep to get that one thing done first thing. I’m actually one of the people who’s happy to wait longer for more quality.
When it comes to big corporations like EA and microsoft, poor gameplay quality is more often than not the fault of the higher ups, who are more concerned with stocks and investors, and don’t actually know anything about the actual product, other than a brief description on a piece of paper, and maybe the cover art. And the sales numbers and revenue it generated, vs the costs of creating and continuous support of it, of course. Those people want to cut costs and push monetisation wherever they can, to maximize the bottom line.

4 Likes
9

I agree with you but just to be sure since I can’t read out if you understand how he meant his comment: his comment was meant to be cynical/sarcastic. Just wanted to point that out cause I know it’s often hard to read a meaning out of context when it’s just text and not delivered vocally (and sometimes even then some ppl have a hard time to identify sarcasm or don’t even know being cynical ^^)

10

I think he understood my sarcasm but decided to respond to it with a serious argument. Personally, I believe that trying to engage on equal footing with the team currently managing the game is pointless. They’ve completely lost credibility with me. However, I understand that some people still overlook their actions.

11

Overwhelming support for changing predatory animal behaviour. Should the devs address their current behaviour as a bug then?

1 Like
12

That I think is how they should be moving forward regarding that issue. Will they? I doubt it.

1 Like
13

Balancing the game about ranked in this way defeats the purpose of wanting a healthy e sport scene. Make a fun immersive game first, balance is secondary

5 Likes
14

Exactly. That was a huge problem among RTS developers over a decade ago, and still isn’t fully solved.
Studios, mainly investors, see the huge amounts of money that’s going around in Esport turnaments, and make that the focus of the next game. What they fail to understand is, if your goal is Esport first, your priority is multiplayer, in particular competitive PvP. At the expense of singleplayer, which makes the bulk of the RTS playerbase.
If you take a look at achievements, even for esport giants like AoE2 and the like, more people complete the singleplayer campaign than enter a multiplayer match even once. And casual cooperative PvE factors in here too.
Players usually join for the singleplayer, and then a fraction of those people stay for the multiplayer. In order for that fraction to be big enough that it spawns an esport scene, the initial crowd needs to be really big too.

Competitive PvP players also tend to be very loud minorities and have a very elitist attitude, which in turn makes it very hand to not realize that this is the problem, sind it looks like 150% of all RTS players are all about leaderboards, when in reality, it’s only at most 20%.

6 Likes
15

It’s true, I think a lot of players only play for the campaign or against the AI. That’s why there are not too much people now, because they already played it long time ago. We need fresh content.

For example, that’s the case with my sister, and for me even though I love competition and I’ve been playing RTS for at least 20 years, I realised a long time ago that I’d never be a pro and since then I’ve been playing ranked games for fun, I play full random gods every game and I don’t care whether I win or lose, I apply my own strategies and I don’t even have an optimised BO.

And to tell the truth, I now prefer to play in 3v3 and 4v4 than in 1v1, the games are more relaxed, I can almost afford to play ‘with one hand in my pocket’. And I like that relaxed aspect.

4 Likes
16

A competitive scene is good advertisement.
And that’s all publishers see.

But they don’t see why the games that are popular at E-Sports are popular. They are not popular because they are good for E-Sports, they are popular in E-Sports because people like the game so they like to compete in it.

If you make a good game that is fun to play in multiplayer then people will want to play it competitively automatically.
The game needs to be fun for people to want to play it so you need to make sure it’s fun first before you start making it balanced.

A lot of people would argue that RNG is bad for competitiveness and that thing like randomly encountering a wolf should not determine if you win a match or not.
But people seem to forget that one of the most popular games out there is poker. Which is literal gambling. They make huge tournaments with many viewers.

7 Likes
17

I can’t see a scenario where randomly encountering a wolf or lion looses you a match, unless you’re constantly sending villagers into the wilderness unprotected, while your enemy doesn’t, and thus you’re at a disadvantage for loosing villagers, and that makes the difference.
And loosing villagers can happen by enemy soldiers too. And in the beginning, town center should be enough to protect you.

The way I see it, dangerous animals are simply an additional tactical factor to consider, and it can get you into a disadvantage if you ignore it. The environment is a factor in combat too. Not just unit composition and build order. And it is already as it is, with water where you need ships,cliffs that can’t be crossed, and forests you can’t walk through, createing chokepoints every now and then, and resources being spread out on the map, and not always evenly.
Arguably, that’s RNG too. Not having three goldmines can get you into a disadvantage too.

1 Like
18

Every throw of the dice could be the one that loses you the match, or at least makes you think like you did.

It’s more psychological than actually real impact. But people get angry when they think they lost a match because of bad RNG.

19

Then there should be a map that’s just one flat, featureless open plain, and all the resources are within line of sight of the town centers, and there’s literally nothing else on the map. That way, it removes the RNG factor of “Will I find food or gold if I scout westwards” which would turn the game more fair in competitive mode, right?

But that map would just suck. Not just for those who like pretty landscapes and immersion. Competitive players wouldn’t like that map either. Even if, mathematically, it is superior for competitive PvP because it removes the factors the players can’t influence.

Finding gold by scouting is satisfying, sending villagers out there to mine it is a good thing for the economy. There being dangers out there makes scouting and expanding a tactical consideration, rather than a no brainer.

I remember in the orinigal Age of Mythology, in the second egypt mission, where you have to bring the sword to a statue, so the statue can wake up and kill a massive Army. You had to watch out when crossing the river to the village, because of the crocodiles, or you could loose half the villagers you just freed, or even the sword. If you used your soldiers to keep them safe, as you should, you can easily cross the river without losing a single man.
In AoM Retold, the crocodiles just ignore you, and you don’t have to worry anymore, once you’re past the mummies.

1 Like
20

I don’t disagree with you. I’m just saying what other people think.

There are a bunch of people that don’t think AoM/AoE is suitable for competitive play at all because of the random maps.
Starcraft and Warcraft have premade maps that are perfectly symmetric.

Warcraft 3 does have hostile neutral units too though.