Changing team colours doesn’t impact performance in the same way zoom does. So it’s a very poor comparison assuming you meant it genuinely. I doubt you did, but hey.
I mean, this is all correct. Or could be correct, who knows.
Like I said before, it’s up to Relic to balance what the players, generally, want, against what they’re able to achieve and the time they have to achieve it in. They’ve given us a roadmap of things they’re actively working on. You throwing up air quotes around implementing X or Y is pretty irrelevant, really. It has no relation on the roadmap contents, or the length of time taken to develop the content they’re working on.
Some people, presumably, are against more zoom because they consider it unfair, or perhaps they simply want Relic to be working on other things. At a guess, you want more zoom and you want Relic to be working on it before they work on other things. Everyone should be free to prefer the things they prefer, and if their preferences aren’t the same as yours, they shouldn’t be mocked for not sharing yours. You shouldn’t be mocked simply for wanting more zoom options either, in case that needed to be said.
Who knows. We do not work on the engine and there is probably some hard internal technical barriers that prevent color selection.
For example, age of mythology (a game published in early 2000s, the actual making started much earlier, and the first time the ES team ever touched a 3D engine) had that problem.
There could be, but that’s not what I meant. Zoom, if extended, could plausibly impact performance. The fact that it didn’t on specific players’ machines when they unlocked it in one of the pre-release betas doesn’t prevent that from being a concern.
Which would result in a setting that - depending on how much cash you can splash on your hardware - gives you a material advantage ingame. Colours don’t do that. It’s not the same problem at all - even assuming technical issues in implementation (that could be a factor for Relic). The impact on people playing the game is different.
You can think it’s not a big deal if you want, but others do (myself included), and I personally don’t care that past games let you do this. Zoom relates to game balance, and if there is a possibility it could impact performance, I’d absolutely want the developers to be cautious about it. At least for ranked multiplayer.
Yeah I’m pretty sure that the people who cared have no given up so the only people left on these forums are those saying “stop whining the devs don’t have to add options because some people want it”
I’m pretty sure nearly everyone would BENEFIT from increased zoom levels because it’s simply more options for you to play as you like.
But this comment is correct, at least I for one have stopped actually playing AGE 4 for the time being, because the zoom and hotkeys are just too big an issue for me. What really got me to stop caring though was spirit of the law’s video where he expressed that the current rate of updates is too slow to sustain the game and a big red flag. I also know a lot of the previous pros declined to play the game because of the hotkey issue alone.
This is what I see as the problem. The game launched a year too early, based on the roadmap (i.e. the roadmap covers around two seasons, 6 months, and it needs around double that work doing just to get to where it should have been at launch). You only get one shot at the initial big player base, and it has been blown. A trickle of updates won’t bring those players back, because each person cares about different things, so no single improvement will bring everyone back at the same time. I can’t rule out that the game can eventually become appealing enough for people to move back to it, but it just seems like such a harder thing to achieve than hanging on to more of the initial player base.
yep, and while some of us are trying to notify the devs of these issues so that the game can last a long time and be succesful, there are people in the thread saying “only a vocal minority want these features!”
Even if that were true (it’s not) why do you not want extra features!
Video game developers are not our friends, they are a company, and we are purchasing a product, it’s fine to request a better product when you intend to give them money, and in fact this information is very USEFUL to the developers so they can know what the community wants and make more money!
So far, I have around 40 hours total in the game across the beta’s and now using microsoft game pass,
I will gladly purchase a full copy of the game and reccomend all my friends do so as soon as we get increased zoom and remappable hotkeys.
It’s been said (and ignored) a bunch of times, but other people will want Relic to perhaps to add different things.
Everyone wants subtly-to-moderately different things to be prioritised. That’s how people work. Are you saying people who want different things to you are wrong for having a different opinion?
The game is averaging 25k to 30k concurrent on Steam. I’m not entirely sure what constitutes a “big” playerbase for you, but you’re not selling me on the concern that that’s “not big”.
You could argue it could be higher, sure. But that’s not what you’re saying here.
I would rather the devs prioritise other features. I can’t be wrong, because this is my opinion as much as “they’re vital to the long term success of the game” is yours. Both of these opinions are valid.
Your opinions on this subject aren’t fact. It’s just what you think, and nothing more than that.
sure, except you havent stated what other features you would like them to prioritize so I feel pretty comfortable saying yours is wrong considering its
what I think they should prioritize:
Zoom and hotkeys
What you think they should priotizite:
[ Unstated ]
So yeah I’m pretty confident that I’m right in my opinion being what’s best for the game and the community
When we talk about QoL stuff like hotkeys and zoom, we talk about minor changes that improve the quality of gameplay immensely.
The better the hotkeylayout/visual information on the screen, the lower the APM barrier becomes to play the game properly.
Not everyone is playing on 200apm to compensate the fact that you need way more camera panning in siege situations or have unrebindable hotkeys in an odd hotkey layout.
If you’ve watched any previous RTS players review of this game, again, it’s pretty much general consensis that those things are so basic things that they shouldn’t even have been mentioned.
If their main focus is on additional content such as mod support instead of making the game play smoother or heavily debugging the client, then it’s just utter missprioritization and makes them feel completely disconnected and deaf to the issues the playerbase reports for so long.
It would be really sad if we got into this situation on such a big game skyrim style… (That the community has to fix stuff with mods in custom rooms to have a non-buggy experience).
Try to search COH3 videos, and you realized that both COH3 and AOE4 should be come from a same game engine. It’s really worried that the efforts on COH3 will be much more on AOE4 after they released the AOE4 patch schedule…
It’s irrelevant what mine would be. Though making sure the upcoming mod tools are robust and ready on time is definitely one of them. Bug fixes and stability would be another. I wouldn’t want mod tools delayed because you insisted they add something else. You’d prefer yours regardless, which is fine. That’s what preference is.
I’m saying generally, people other than you might have different opinions. Your lack of respect for them (and mine) is telling.
Relic have already said rebinding hotkeys as requested is not a minor thing.
“additional content” also includes completely changing the hotkey system and making player-choosable colours. They’re not small, easy fixes. They’re not even things that are broken. They’re enhancement requests / new features (that aren’t new to the franchise, obviously. But would be new to Age IV).
A lot of people want mod support. Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean it’s bad prioritisation. They have a commitment for early (Spring?) 2022 and it’ll reflect poorly on them if they don’t hit that.
Bug fixing/QoL, adjusting existing code to make the game experience better > adding new stuff to the game.
Everything else is missprioritization and the responsible devs should be held accountable and critizised for that.
It’s not about what type of content I prefer, it’s about fixing existing content before jumping to new stuff.
I’m not going into this super speculative “the devs have their reasons cause they work on something else you just don’t know” stuff again or this absolute super relativization “everything is new content” nonsens.
I want the existing game that is out rn, the game I bought myself into, fixed first.
Locking hotkeys, taking weeks up to months fixing the gamebreaking bugs and locking zoomlvl cause “player can’t play that way” is just showing a really big disconnect from the community and the game itself.
To chime in a thought that came by when thinking about why the camera is locked that hard in this game, which makes it not only a simple user option: The heavy MP focus. I don’t agree with a lot of decisions made by the devs, but ignoring them for a sec and just going with the situation as it is, it’s likely they locked the cam for smooth network performance in the worst case.
if you have lobbies with players playing on bad performance, which can totally happen if you think of a 4v4 where someone just rotates the camera to have a nice cinematic view, you’ll cause hiccups for the whole lobby. If a client stutters due to a too big workload, this translates directly to network synch and depending on how they handle these cases, very likely in bad performance for everyone.
Sure, they could open that up for SP or 1v1s, but if they went down that route already, I agree that I also would just lock it for all modes the same, as this inconsistency probably causes more harm in the long run.