Lots of words for a pretty straightforward philosophy, but I think I boiled down Tguad’s main point:
Some successful modern games have been able to simplify some mechanics without making the game too boring by adding other mechanics. But that is impossible in Age of Empires 1 because the units are not balanced, resulting in people using the same powerful unit regardless of our opponent’s army composition. Because of this, the offensive game is unbalanced and too “linear” so we need the economic game to require more actions per minute in order to keep the overall game fun. And, ulitmately, “if you decide to remove some mechanics, you have nothing to replace it with that doesn’t already exist in the game.”
So as I read Tguad’s post, his entire position that making farms permanent would ruin the game depends on us also agreeing with him that there isn’t a good balance between different units.
That makes a lot of sense that we should not change farms, at least so far as the Devs are not rebalancing the units.
However, what he is totally ignoring and appears to be completely fatal to his argument is that the Devs are, in fact, rebalancing the units. They have stated that AoEDE will contain “countless balance adjustments.” In fact, they are going to be rebalancing the new AoEDE so much that they are specifically including Classic Mode with the game to allow the purists (like, I presume, Tguad) to be able to play the pure, 1997 build, warts and all.
And as we know that the units are going to be rebalanced, it sounds like playing AoEDE will require us to adjust our strategies accordingly. AoEDE is not simply a repackaged AoE1. It’s a completely new build.
Between regular Classic Mode AoE1 and AoEDE, we are essentially getting two games in one. The first is the pure version. The second looks a lot like the old game, but will play more like more recent RTSs.
"Right-click replenish option: Dead farms should appear on screen for a long time, and makes it easier to rebuild.
Everyone agree to that
Farm queing at the granery: But that depends a bit on the following questions:
How much bigger maps (bigger than gigantic) will there be? and more importantly, will there be an higher population capacity in singleplayer games?"
What does it change ? more complexity means more choices, it will be the same problem for every player so it’s fine.
And i’m not sure you will go far more after the usual 200 pops.
More pop and larger maps also means more things to manage. I’m not sure what @LegoVogel was getting at here, exactly, (mind telling us?) but it might have to do with the amount of management that would go into manually replacing farms. With the 50 pop limit it really wasn’t that bad, but with ~25 - 30 farmers the time and management needed really grew exponentially until it became unwieldy. Not impossible, but annoying.
Yes. That’s what I meant. And it forces you somewhat to have all the farmers at one place. In even bigger maps that can be really annoying, you don’t have the flexibility to build small farm spots around the map.
But I must add that if they add the farm-que system in AoE DE, hunting and fishing should also be improved to be a just-as-good alternative to farming as it is now.
And that is what I liked about the farming in AoE1. Yes, it can be annoying to think about your farms all the time. But it can also be annoying to have to find new fish, berries, deer or elephant all the time. And I think that is the (historical) great difference between AoE1 and AoE2:
Where AoE 1 is still more about hunting and gathering food and resources.
And AoE 2 is more about the feudal system where people were dependent of farming and their lords protection.
So in short: I am not in favor of putting an farm-que system in AoE DE, but putting in a ‘right-click’ on dead farm replenish thing could do the trick.
Adding a farm-que has a lot of ‘ifs’ and ‘butts’(haha :p) to it, or else it will change the essence of the game and makes it more like AoE2 in my opinion.
There is a lot of good opinions on both sides, but reasoning and explaining why it would or wouldn’t be good hasn’t been the best.
Let me make an example:
After you have emptied all berry bushes you will create farms.
First lets say you create 8 farms.
after one minute you realize you need more food so you make 3 farms more and put few other workers to hunt animals.
Then after animals are hunted down you make 2 farms more to keep up with food income.
You have total 9 farms, which are easy to upkeep so far.
If you keep up the same style. Make few farms more each time you see you need more food you are going to end up in a bad situation very soon. Having 20 farm and 10 different timing on them makes it hard to upkeep them whilst doing everything else that is required.
Farm queue will help on this situation and you have no problem to keep those workers on the farms, but.
If there is no farm queue you have to change farms build time to same. Means that you need to think way before you create farm how many farms you are going to need and then sync the new farm builds to the same time when old ones are depleted. Giving a lot to think about your future actions.
No matter how high your APM is it won’t be enough if you have 60 farm with different timers and placed all around huge map.
Without farm queue, if you need food you need to think do you wanna build farm now or do you put your workers on somewhere else and wait for your other farms to be depleted before building any new farms.
It is not only about having to click less if the queue is introduced. It is about not needing to think when to build farms and where to build them.
I’m not saying i don’t want the farm queue i just wanted to point out what will be lost if the farm queue will be introduced.
There is a lot of good opinions on both sides, but reasoning and explaining why it would or wouldn’t be good hasn’t been the best.
Let me make an example:
After you have emptied all berry bushes you will create farms.
First lets say you create 8 farms.
after one minute you realize you need more food so you make 3 farms more and put few other workers to hunt animals.
Then after animals are hunted down you make 2 farms more to keep up with food income.
You have total 13 farms, which are easy to upkeep so far.
If you keep up the same style. Make few farms more each time you see you need more food you are going to end up in a bad situation very soon. Having 20 farm and 10 different timing on them makes it hard to upkeep them whilst doing everything else that is required.
Farm queue will help on this situation and you have no problem to keep those workers on the farms, but.
If there is no farm queue you have to change farms build time to same. Means that you need to think way before you create farm how many farms you are going to need and then sync the new farm builds to the same time when old ones are depleted. Giving a lot to think about your future actions.
No matter how high your APM is it won’t be enough if you have 60 farm with different timers and placed all around huge map.
Without farm queue, if you need food you need to think do you wanna build farm now or do you put your workers on somewhere else and wait for your other farms to be depleted before building any new farms.
It is not only about having to click less if the queue is introduced. It is about not needing to think when to build farms and where to build them.
I’m not saying i don’t want the farm queue i just wanted to point out what will be lost if the farm queue will be introduced
I don’t believe farm on the different timing it that problematic though, i even think it helps. Because recreating 3 farm is fast, and other are still on place so keeping the same layout is less tedious. Now if you have 15-20 farm to do in same time, it’s another story, and it will ask you more time you don’t give elsewhere.
Though i believe both case are somewhat similar and not that hard to manage.
Now i am myself not against any change to the farm as long as it’s fair. It could even cost more to queue farm than just create a new one for that matter.
@BoucleOrange413 said:
Remake means not modifying the gameplay and strategic choice.
You do… imho.
Well, that’s what they’re doing. I don’t know what you expect, but there will always be Classic Mode for you.
Look at the trailer: “New and Improved Gameplay”
And there will always be age of empire3 for you.
Stop with the “classic mode” no one wants a game with old graphics.
@“Andy P” said:
Lots of words for a pretty straightforward philosophy, but I think I boiled down Tguad’s main point:
Some successful modern games have been able to simplify some mechanics without making the game too boring by adding other mechanics. But that is impossible in Age of Empires 1 because the units are not balanced, resulting in people using the same powerful unit regardless of our opponent’s army composition. Because of this, the offensive game is unbalanced and too “linear” so we need the economic game to require more actions per minute in order to keep the overall game fun. And, ulitmately, “if you decide to remove some mechanics, you have nothing to replace it with that doesn’t already exist in the game.”
So as I read Tguad’s post, his entire position that making farms permanent would ruin the game depends on us also agreeing with him that there isn’t a good balance between different units.
That makes a lot of sense that we should not change farms, at least so far as the Devs are not rebalancing the units.
However, what he is totally ignoring and appears to be completely fatal to his argument is that the Devs are, in fact, rebalancing the units. They have stated that AoEDE will contain “countless balance adjustments.” In fact, they are going to be rebalancing the new AoEDE so much that they are specifically including Classic Mode with the game to allow the purists (like, I presume, Tguad) to be able to play the pure, 1997 build, warts and all.
And as we know that the units are going to be rebalanced, it sounds like playing AoEDE will require us to adjust our strategies accordingly. AoEDE is not simply a repackaged AoE1. It’s a completely new build.
Between regular Classic Mode AoE1 and AoEDE, we are essentially getting two games in one. The first is the pure version. The second looks a lot like the old game, but will play more like more recent RTSs.
You are mistaken. First, units were an example.
What Tgaud say is that the units in age of empire1 are poor. they are not many and Doesn’t have a counter mechanics.
_You dont have one units for example that is most of the time but have x3 attack when facing cavalry
And the devs never said
_they were implementing “counter” units. (Changing a unit to add +1 attack on it doesnt change anything)
_they were adding more building
_they were adding more unit.
_they were not adding other mechanics
No? so there won’t be anything MORE in age of empire1 that create opportunity to remove some mechanics
I think his main point was :
**
Dont remove a time consuming mechanics if you don’t replace by something else also timeconsuming**
@“Andy P” said:
Lots of words for a pretty straightforward philosophy, but I think I boiled down Tguad’s main point:
Some successful modern games have been able to simplify some mechanics without making the game too boring by adding other mechanics. But that is impossible in Age of Empires 1 because the units are not balanced, resulting in people using the same powerful unit regardless of our opponent’s army composition. Because of this, the offensive game is unbalanced and too “linear” so we need the economic game to require more actions per minute in order to keep the overall game fun. And, ulitmately, “if you decide to remove some mechanics, you have nothing to replace it with that doesn’t already exist in the game.”
So as I read Tguad’s post, his entire position that making farms permanent would ruin the game depends on us also agreeing with him that there isn’t a good balance between different units.
That makes a lot of sense that we should not change farms, at least so far as the Devs are not rebalancing the units.
However, what he is totally ignoring and appears to be completely fatal to his argument is that the Devs are, in fact, rebalancing the units. They have stated that AoEDE will contain “countless balance adjustments.” In fact, they are going to be rebalancing the new AoEDE so much that they are specifically including Classic Mode with the game to allow the purists (like, I presume, Tguad) to be able to play the pure, 1997 build, warts and all.
And as we know that the units are going to be rebalanced, it sounds like playing AoEDE will require us to adjust our strategies accordingly. AoEDE is not simply a repackaged AoE1. It’s a completely new build.
Between regular Classic Mode AoE1 and AoEDE, we are essentially getting two games in one. The first is the pure version. The second looks a lot like the old game, but will play more like more recent RTSs.
Sorry you mistaken
The dev say they will be modifying some stuff like +1 attack
but this is not like a new mechanics.
For example :
the counter mechanics in age of empire 2 where skirmisher had x3 attack vs archers.
There is nothing like that in age of empire1
And the units in age of empire1 are poor, most of the time you use the same 2 units all game long, with no counter mechanics.
And
the dev never said that they would add more building
the dev never said that they would add more units
the dev never said that they would add more mechanics
So the main point of Tgaud is that if you remove something timeconsuming you have to replace it with something time consuming.
@“Andy P” said:
Lots of words for a pretty straightforward philosophy, but I think I boiled down Tguad’s main point:
Some successful modern games have been able to simplify some mechanics without making the game too boring by adding other mechanics. But that is impossible in Age of Empires 1 because the units are not balanced, resulting in people using the same powerful unit regardless of our opponent’s army composition. Because of this, the offensive game is unbalanced and too “linear” so we need the economic game to require more actions per minute in order to keep the overall game fun. And, ulitmately, “if you decide to remove some mechanics, you have nothing to replace it with that doesn’t already exist in the game.”
So as I read Tguad’s post, his entire position that making farms permanent would ruin the game depends on us also agreeing with him that there isn’t a good balance between different units.
That makes a lot of sense that we should not change farms, at least so far as the Devs are not rebalancing the units.
However, what he is totally ignoring and appears to be completely fatal to his argument is that the Devs are, in fact, rebalancing the units. They have stated that AoEDE will contain “countless balance adjustments.” In fact, they are going to be rebalancing the new AoEDE so much that they are specifically including Classic Mode with the game to allow the purists (like, I presume, Tguad) to be able to play the pure, 1997 build, warts and all.
And as we know that the units are going to be rebalanced, it sounds like playing AoEDE will require us to adjust our strategies accordingly. AoEDE is not simply a repackaged AoE1. It’s a completely new build.
Between regular Classic Mode AoE1 and AoEDE, we are essentially getting two games in one. The first is the pure version. The second looks a lot like the old game, but will play more like more recent RTSs.
Sorry but you mistaken
age of empire1 units choice is poor.
you basically always use the same 2 units all game long
and the dev may have say they would adjust balance (it means giving +1 attack to one or two units)
but they never said the would change mechanics to implement “counter” mechanics (like skirmisher vs archer with bonus attack against one type of unit)
They never said they would add units.
they never said they would add building
they never said they would add mechanics
So Tgaud is right. his main point was : If you remove something timeconsuming, you have to replace it with something timeconsuming.
@“Andy P” said:
I am not sure I understand. If unit balance is irrelevant to Tguad’s argument, then why did he bring it up and spend so much time talking about it?
I suppose then we are simply debating the degree to which a change would or would not impact the game. If changing farms is even on the menu, then it will be ironed out in the beta, anyway.
@BoucleOrange413 said:
Remake means not modifying the gameplay and strategic choice.
You do… imho.
Well, that’s what they’re doing. I don’t know what you expect, but there will always be Classic Mode for you.
Look at the trailer: “New and Improved Gameplay”
And there will always be age of empire3 for you.
Stop with the “classic mode” no one wants a game with old graphics.
Why do you have this obsession about AoE3? I don’t like AoE3, and I don’t play it often. I will not stop with the Classic Mode, because it has the solution to your issues about any and all changes that might affect the game. If your problem is now graphics, then I seriously do not know what else to tell you. You seem to be either angry with any changes, and happy with the graphics, or angry with the graphics and happy with a lack of changes.
@“Andy P” said:
I am not sure I understand. If unit balance is irrelevant to Tguad’s argument, then why did he bring it up and spend so much time talking about it?
You don’t make the difference beetween balance unit, and unit mechanics.
@kinzo said:
Now i am myself not against any change to the farm as long as it’s fair. It could even cost more to queue farm than just create a new one for that matter.
I could live with auto-farms, I don’t have a problem with the Upatch changes, I wouldn’t even have a problem with a couple of new additions - perhaps another tech beyond Tower Shield to help infantry in Iron, or civ/team wide bonuses for building a wonder (perhaps a trickle of gold like AOE3 banks).
What I simply cannot live with is any concept of ditching the randomness of the map generator in favour of symmetrical maps to allow build orders and bloody e-sports. If they want tournament maps fine, create it as a separate selection in the drop down ‘DM,RM,TM’.
Ultimately, we don’t need massive balance changes as the community just went 3v3 Random 1.5 speed, no Reveal and it was very rare that one team ended up completely screwed on both civ and map.
@“Mystic Taboo” said:
I could live with auto-farms, I don’t have a problem with the Upatch changes, I wouldn’t even have a problem with a couple of new additions - perhaps another tech beyond Tower Shield to help infantry in Iron, or civ/team wide bonuses for building a wonder (perhaps a trickle of gold like AOE3 banks).
What I simply cannot live with is any concept of ditching the randomness of the map generator in favour of symmetrical maps to allow build orders and bloody e-sports. If they want tournament maps fine, create it as a separate selection in the drop down ‘DM,RM,TM’.
Ultimately, we don’t need massive balance changes as the community just went 3v3 Random 1.5 speed, no Reveal and it was very rare that one team ended up completely screwed on both civ and map.
Tournament map can be created as Scenario, it have been in the past. Though a random mirror map is something that could be cool to see though and that cannot be done in scenario from what i know so far anyway.