Except for single (and possible coop) player missions, expansion packs with new content, a new ranking system and multiplayer competitions, what other kinds of progressive gameplay would you like for AOE IV and do you think is applicable to the AOE franchise in general without disrespecting the classic AOE RTS gameplay?
I would prefer not to have any mechanic that locks away part of the experience for later outside of the campaigns. By which I mean I don’t mind playing a whole campaign not getting past age 3 out of 4, and I don’t mind not getting to play the all out war level before the city building level and all that jazz, but I’m not a fan of having to collect cards or experience points or anything that will give me an advantage over newer players (or just an advantage in general outside of multiplayer). It’s a thing that doesn’t work for me in RTS games, partially because of how long a single game/match often runs. Any meaningful progression can take quite some time, and I’d rather jump into the good part right away.
It doesn’t really bother me in shooters (outside of the multiplayer) and it’s often a good thing in RPG’s. Strategy games not so much though.
Progression system and RTS in the same sentence = the devil, kill it with fire!
@IamDalv That is a very bold way how you put it and funny for sure, but progression itself plays an important role in any RTS game. The progressing in ages is also a progressive system.
I do think the devil likes fire though. 
@“Pan Calvus” said:
I would prefer not to have any mechanic that locks away part of the experience for later outside of the campaigns. By which I mean I don’t mind playing a whole campaign not getting past age 3 out of 4, and I don’t mind not getting to play the all out war level before the city building level and all that jazz, but I’m not a fan of having to collect cards or experience points or anything that will give me an advantage over newer players (or just an advantage in general outside of multiplayer). It’s a thing that doesn’t work for me in RTS games, partially because of how long a single game/match often runs. Any meaningful progression can take quite some time, and I’d rather jump into the good part right away.It doesn’t really bother me in shooters (outside of the multiplayer) and it’s often a good thing in RPG’s. Strategy games not so much though.
So no progressive stuff in the classic online and LAN multiplayer skirmish part.
Would you like to have matchmaking system and ranking connected to the online skirmish part? Like all time leaders and the champions per map type?
haha, yeah, I used the wrong aristotelian element I guess. 
I wasn’t talking about gameplay mechanics available to anyone and specific to RTS games, I was referring to predatory mechanics, RPG-like stats, upgrades, locked features borrowed from the mobile gaming industry, because let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what we usually get today and it needs pointing out with no hesitation; no point in acting with gloves when we talk about progression system today, that’s what it represents. Stuff like we had in AOE:Online, like we see today in shooters such as CoD, Battlefield or Battlefront, things that would kill the point of an RTS where the idea is to have a fair and square start with no pre-earned advantages or handicaps and win by outsmarting (making use of a better strategy), outplaying (making use of better tactics, APM etc) the opponent, as opposed to winning by making use of better pre-earned unit stats/higher character level/unlocks etc (pre-cheating). There is no successful RTS out there with such a progression system, there is no competitive game out there with such a progression system.
Yes, I’m very critical when it comes to this, and not only because of the RTS-RPG incompatibility, but also because in today’s gaming industry and especially in 2017, the year of the loot-boxes, you have to be as critical as possible when it comes to things such as micro-transactions (yes, progression systems are sooner or later tied to this, unless we are talking about an RPG), and I don’t want AOE4 turned into a mobile game model as well.
I guess you could have some of it singleplayer, but even there… it turns the game into something it’s not.
@PCS70 said:
Would you like to have matchmaking system and ranking connected to the online skirmish part? Like all time leaders and the champions per map type?
If it helps me get matched with people of a skill level similar to my own, sure, sign me up.
In fact, that’s one feature that for me can make the difference between getting into multiplayer in a game and dropping it after one or two matches. I don’t even really have to care about not trying to go with the optimal play style rather than just going for what I like and having fun with it (by which I don’t mean trolling on purpose or deliberately not learning how to play well but say using cavalry units too much even when other options are better because I like cavalry), I’ll just be playing a little lower on the ladder.
@IamDalv said:
haha, yeah, I used the wrong aristotelian element I guess.I wasn’t talking about gameplay mechanics available to anyone and specific to RTS games, I was referring to predatory mechanics, RPG-like stats, upgrades, locked features borrowed from the mobile gaming industry, because let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what we usually get today and it needs pointing out with no hesitation; no point in acting with gloves when we talk about progression system today, that’s what it represents. Stuff like we had in AOE:Online, like we see today in shooters such as CoD, Battlefield or Battlefront, things that would kill the point of an RTS where the idea is to have a fair and square start with no pre-earned advantages or handicaps and win by outsmarting (making use of a better strategy), outplaying (making use of better tactics, APM etc) the opponent, as opposed to winning by making use of better pre-earned unit stats/higher character level/unlocks etc (pre-cheating). There is no successful RTS out there with such a progression system, there is no competitive game out there with such a progression system.
Yes, I’m very critical when it comes to this, and not only because of the RTS-RPG incompatibility, but also because in today’s gaming industry and especially in 2017, the year of the loot-boxes, you have to be as critical as possible when it comes to things such as micro-transactions (yes, progression systems are sooner or later tied to this, unless we are talking about an RPG), and I don’t want AOE4 turned into a mobile game model as well.
I guess you could have some of it singleplayer, but even there… it turns the game into something it’s not.
I don’t play 3D shooters anymore these days, but I actually don’t see any elements of AOE Online in them. But you are very right to be critical about those parts you just mentioned.
@“Pan Calvus” It should and will help for sure, but only if there are enough online players available and for that reason competitive games could be made a little shorter or have be played faster. The trick is to find some kind of right balance in those things too. It totally different from an ELO ladder e.g., that’s why I would like to see more stats saved and except for the fun facts they are also valuable for ranking, progressive elements and measuring the popularity in general of parts in the game. I would certainly love to be able to see that ranking ladder per map, region, country and so on because you can get in contact with players on that ladder. Good for the community too.
Sure, also add the loot and crafting in your mechanics and we have a frigging MOBA. Nice thought bro!
@NormChanger said:
Sure, also add the loot and crafting in your mechanics and we have a frigging MOBA. Nice thought bro!
Do you want to add those things to AOE IV?
I really didn’t expect that from you sista, such a disappointment to me.
@PCS70 said:
Do you want to add those things to AOE IV?
I really didn’t expect that from you sista, such a disappointment to me.
Not me, but relic would do this because they have to suffice gamers like you brotha.
Actually there is a mode that it could be incredible, I am not sure if this is unique for RTS games, but somekind of World Empires, where players from different regions have to battle between each other for conquering the world… It may sounds weird, but it is kind of like a graphical world representation of the top players in the world. Imagine 200 players being able to paint the world with their color through the continuous victories against enemies.
@BlinxESP
You mean competitive ladders per region and country resulting in some kind of graphical overall view visualizing the ranking. Nice thinking, I like it.
I think there is this mode in TW: Shogun 2
le: he is not reffering to ladders and overall ranking, but more like a clan war battle on a world map, each territory having multiple multiplayer maps and you need to conquer all world map with your clan by winning matches on whatever territories/multiplayer maps designated to that territory.
@IamDalv said:
I think there is this mode in TW: Shogun 2le: he is not reffering to ladders and overall ranking, but more like a clan war battle on a world map, each territory having multiple multiplayer maps and you need to conquer all world map with your clan by winning matches on whatever territories/multiplayer maps designated to that territory.
Let’s just wait for his answer. I don’t like it either when other people are talking for me and speculate about wrong assumptions.
@IamDalv But I would like to hear though if there’s anything you would like to add to the AOE IV version.
We need some kind of meta game. At least for me, random pvp matches and an elo ranking never seemed like enough.
Some kind of alliance war or leagues or something like that seems necessary to turn casual players into rabid fans. That worked well at times in Castle Siege, and even their alliance system is sorely lacking.
@“Andy P”
I agree again, per region and per country. People would love to see more stats, not only in-game.
Also I do think they need to do something with APM to create a matchmaking system, not for changing in-game play of course like with the other franchises.
It’s very funny to see how some well known ICT terms got their own meaning in the gaming industry, although basically under the hood they don’t differ to much.
I never made it to the alliance wars with AOEO, was leveling all civs up equally spread at that time. That’s why it was such a big disappointment to me that they pulled the plug out of it just around 9 months after I spend money into it. They should never ever do such a thing again. Still thanks for your help btw at that time regaining some lost EP’s.
Skipped the CS game, so can’t say anything about that, except that in my imagination it could become part of a much bigger AOE thing.