From 2:45 of this video he talks about auto-Q. He literally says that this would be great idea to have, if auto-Q “with some downtime or punishment”
“if they would do it on computer, I would hope they would put at least 2 or 3 or even 5 seconds delay”
From 7:00 “I would really dislike if it was ever imported on computer without any sort of penalty”
Why would you make up things?
Yea, AutoQ being only custom lobby option where its off by default, and 20% penalty to requeue time seems about right.
This way casuals that avoid ranked, can use autoQ in custom games, and if lobby hosts troll by turning autoQ on unknowing to other people, then he won’t get any advantage. It should be purely casual.
If i recall correctly, in a recent interview devs said that they’d want Retold to be on par with the other ‘Age of’ titles, would be really strange and detrimental at best if they will allow a feature like AQ in competitive games, lmao.
Let’s be real, AQ will be either removed (to be more specific, never implemented on Retold) or it will be just a lobby setting as ‘no titan’/‘vs AI’/‘only random gods’ etc.
The chances that AQ will make the cut are very low.
What I’ve learned from this thread (and other threads) is that changing anything in a franchise is nearly-always bad especially when it goes against how it was originally-implemented.
Except when it isn’t?
I understand peoples’ individual arguments for and against AQ (I’m for it, personally). I don’t get this whole “we have to protect what is in Age of Empires except when I personally don’t like the thing” shtick. It’s not consistent.
It seems to me that you are confusing original game mechanics (for example norse infantry being able to build or settlements being a thing) with discutibile game features as AQ.
I speak for myself, I’ve bought this game in 2002 right after its launch, I vividly remember tons of online players enjoying the game with just 3 civs and having fun even without AQ or atlanteans.
The problem with newer generations or with players who have never experienced the game without autoqueue is that they generally prefer faster and easier gaming experiences nowadays, that’s also why ADHD is so common among young men today.
It’s not a case either that games like Fortnite or fifa are so popular, the approach to video games nowadays has changed a lot compared to years ago.
Having a penalty for the usage of autoqueue is extremely counter productive to having it in the game at all. If AQ is for noobs then they’ll learn to use something that puts them behind the curve. If it’s kept to custom lobbies only then it basically doesn’t exist as a feature to people who play quick match, campaign, or ranked.
Suggestions like these are just poison pills from people who don’t want it to begin with. There is no compromise to this feature that can be accepted from people who want it. It’s just have it or don’t. Any reduction or alteration feeds into the concept of it not belonging.
These are not the words of people collaborating or working towards a solution. It’s spite and hate towards differing opinions. It’s not about how you feel about who would use it.
Yeah, I don’t think pet theories on what “generations” are up to really matters here. At least, not in the way you think (speculating on what “the kids” prefer also in turn invites speculating on what “older folk” prefer and something tells me you wouldn’t prefer the lens being flipped like that 
).
I’m 35 and I also played the original AoM, for the record.
I wasn’t just referring to young folks, but also to people who have never played a single RTS without AQ in their life.
I wasn’t referring to you either, for the record.
You once said you were a long-time player aswell, if I remember correctly.
Sure, and if I want a faster gaming experience, I play a different game. I’ve played Apex Legends, I’ve completed Hades (which is most definitely faster, but most definitely not “easier”). Different genres, different mechanical requirements, different skillsets. “easier” and “harder” are hard to parse.
For me, spamming a key to produce villagers isn’t “hard”. The “hard” part is rotating villager tasks and re-assigning micro, responding to harassment, and so on. Lateral thinking vs. monotonous repetition.
But, probably repeating myself. Speaking of repetition 
I always believe “mid-high-level competitive pvp players, who are not good enough to become real top pro players, but also not ‘bad’ enough to admit themselves as casuals, but already in an appropriate level to believe they have sufficient understanding for teaching others how to play the game (mostly by referring to the real pro players)”, and devs that attempt to cater to them, are the killers of many games.
Disclaimer: I believe the above statement would NOT hold without ANY of these conditions, and players with experience in another game, previous versions of the same game, or modding, or watching top players, etc. do not necessarily have the same level of understanding towards the game in question.
Yes and no.
For example, having the luxury to re-allocate with AQ ‘x’ resources when you need them the most, is something that is simply precluded to people who don’t use autoqueue, as many others said.
Or the strategic depth involved in having to decide when queueing up 10 units or just queueing fewer units at once in order to save resources for other tasks is something we never see with Auto-Q on; this kind of decision should be present in Retold and in any serious RTS, imho.
These are just some of the many other reasons why I firmly believe that AQ will have no place in Retold.
I understand (and accept!) that folks have different opinions about AQ itself.
I don’t in any way think I can force agreement, so I just respond to what I can (e.g. over claims of what younger / less RTS-focused players prefer) and hope that what I type out is of interest to others!
LATE EDIT
For example, I played a lot of Dawn of War not long after my AoE days. It has a feature called “overwatch” (I think that was the proper name) but basically it was AQ. You right click on a unit and it’ll keep queuing up units of that type on that structure, assuming you have resources, and it’ll throw them at the same rally point as well.
This doesn’t maks DoW an easy game. And it is a different game but it is a very popular RTS in its own right. Again, not an example of why AoE should have it, but an example highlighing that AQ, RTS and a good design / a good game aren’t contradictory statements.
Your assertion that these players overestimate their understanding of the game is dismissive and baseless. Many mid-high-level players have valuable insights gained from extensive experience, including watching top players, engaging with previous versions of the game, or even modding. These activities often provide a deeper understanding of game mechanics and strategies than you seem to acknowledge.
In summary, your argument is not only flawed but also dangerously elitist. Dismissing the contributions of mid-high-level players and the developers who consider their feedback undermines the collaborative spirit that drives the gaming community forward.
Autoqueue undermines the game’s strategic depth and dilutes the skill required to play effectively; it simplifies resource management and unit production, allowing players to rely on automatic mechanics rather than developing real skills; this feature removes the necessity for players to carefully balance their economy and make tactical decisions about when to produce units or save resources, leading to a less complex and interesting gameplay experience.
Additionally, autoqueue tends to make matches more uniform, reducing the variety of strategies used and resulting in a more predictable and less dynamic game.
Aye fair, maybe he was being dismissive of the insight of mid-high level players, but the basic point still stands - what gives them the right to preach to others how they should play? Just because they believe no AQ may make others better, doesn’t give them an elitist right to tell others that. Most players don’t care and probably acknowledge that no AQ might make em a little better but they want to play casually. I just think it’s highly arrogant for someone to tell another “I’m gonna to champion getting this feature you want removed because I think you’ll be better for it. You’ll thank me later”. Just let the casuals play how they want, at the end of the day this game was made for them, and is only being updated for the pros and e-sports with this retold.
I wrote a long list of attributives and a long disclaimer for that. I explicitly said “mid-high level players WHO ARE……” and the your “many mid-high level players” being reasonable (which I believe are the majority of them) is not included in my “mid-high level players WHO ARE…”
But the latter group is always the loudest. If the devs listen to them it is dangerous.
And as for which group you belong to I cannot and don’t want to speculate.
Surprise, I think the developers should listen to the majority of casual players for most of the game design, real top players for balancing and competitive gameplay, and the “mid-high level players WHO ARE NOT…” for both.
Turns out I’m a populist.
Firstly, your claim that these players are the loudest and therefore dangerous to the game’s development is an overgeneralization. Many players in this group provide valuable feedback based on extensive experience, including insights gained from observing top players or from playing online themselves.
Secondly, your disclaimer suggests that players with experience in other games or previous versions may not have the same understanding of the current game.
This is a weak argument, as knowledge from related games or past versions often provides a strong foundation for understanding new iterations.
I said “mid-high level players WHO ARE…”.
There are some mid-high level players who are loud and want to dominate how others play. There are also mid-high level players WHO ARE NOT. It does not generalize to these players.
If yourself and your buddies are not “mid-high level players WHO ARE…” there is nothing to do with you.
I also said “do not NECESSARILY”.
But the below is definitely NOT overgeneralization: I’ve met several players on the forum and they all sound the same with the exact same reasoning, same self-identification, same urge to defend some broader presumed group they think they belong to (even when I add a thousand specifications and clarifications to avoid pointing at larger groups).
However I would be arrested if I try to find out more ways in which they are similar.
There’s no skill in mindless repetition. It places a burden on the player. That alone doesn’t make it a skill. A skill is something you can train, develop a better understanding of and practise. “hit one button non-stop or risk losing” isn’t skill. It isn’t strategy. In my opinion at least.
Ignore him, he is attacking the person (you) instead of your arguments. People that don’t want autoqueue can decide to not use it and show the superiority of them being a better strategist. Nobody is forcing them to use auto queue. If their skill level is so low that they are beaten by auto queue, were they actually mid-high level players? If nothing mattered except auto queue to win the game, were they actually skilled, like they claim? Seems people that spent several hundreds, if not thousands of hours into AoE2 think that they need to gatekeep the game by maintaining every chore they learnt to not be beaten by newbies, not thinking that they recieved dozens and dozens of QOLS compared to when the game was launched. And this feature is in AoM from basically the start.
Lets give all players 10 lazer bears start of game and those people who do not like the lazer bears can just not use them.