Stop saying AOE4 is dying and needs balance

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
21

Agreed.

In this specific instance I would say current content creators for AOE4 are not doing in depth enough guides for players or players are not taking it upon themselves to learn and improve.

AOE4 and other RTS games I feel require a much higher skill cap to play effectively than many other games people have options to. Like FPS, MOBA’s, and MMO’s. While also I feel this genre of game could really use some of the tools the other games utilize like platinum league, in game achievement unlocks for a civ like a golden gun (beyond the TC having a gold statue). Like a golden ship, or longbow Toxote skin. I’d say a civ tree like an MMO has for character but thats all done in game with RTS games.

Watching a pro helps a ton and so does seeing a build order. However execution and understanding why the pros do something requires a certain level of skill and understanding of a given situation.

Like I didn’t know just how OP the Hulk was vs English on any water map until I ran into as I knew on larger maps in the water it was good however until I ran into a Hulk in the middle of a map it was a very different experience. So when a castor says French are OP on water that doesn’t convert to understanding for most people until they actually experience multiple situations vs it with specific civs.

Plus the game evolves fast being new.

Like my experience with rock walls and springald defense on them hasn’t been that OP. I was beat twice by a Chinese rush however both times I improved my play to counter it. I’ve since run into many rock wall attempts to stop my atks and they fail to even defend the player as my rams or trebs remove them and my army advances.

So until I hit a game where I seriously get stone walled vs someone and have no way of out thinking the play much doesn’t really convert over. Again making learning and strat hard for new players, more so one that are not dedicated as many other games have a more social environment where people share idea’s in game. Not easily done in RTS short of losing to something and not knowing how to adjust a build or strat to combat it.

22

build siege as “build ultralisks”
you want to be smart, but no 79k people who left game are smart enough.

every thread repeats the same. people start “teaching” how one should play.

5 Likes
23

Most of the posts in this thread boil down to “gitgud”. It doesn’t matter what the criticism of the game is. It isn’t the game’s fault – it’s the user’s fault for not being good enough to adapt and overcome whatever problem.

From where I’m standing I don’t actually think civilization balance is that big of an issue. While it is a bit of an issue at high Elo, for the vast majority of players the differences in civilization strength aren’t going to be the core reason one wins or loses a game. For me the bigger issue is that a several civilizations have very limited strategy options, and that all civilizations ultimately converge towards the same strategy as they approach post Imperial because of poor balancing between units, and a lack of civilization diversity in terms of what their optimum late game army looks like. Every civilization can build knights – but I’m bored of seeing massed knights every single game. Every civilization can build springalds, mangonels and bombards (or close equivalents) but I’m bored of seeing a mass of them in every team game that goes beyond thirty minutes. There are so many units in the game, I’d love to see more of them.

Personally though if anything was to make me stop playing (and I’m certainly playing less than I was), it’s actually the littany of bugs and QoL issues. There is so much friction when playing this game compared to other strategy games. Most of it can be worked around but the game then becomes one of constant micromanagement, not to outwit your opponent in battle, but to prevent your units from behaving like idiots.

There must be a hundred little things of this nature that just don’t work right across the game. Villagers losing build orders; archers that refuse to fire over walls unless the unit they are ordered to attack is already in range; siege getting stuck in gates; units pathing around unseen obstacles; distant units ordered to attack something stopping dead once their target dies, even if target was part of a mass; priests/monks walking into melee range if they’re ordered to attack as part of an army; naval units getting confused when told to attack land and land units getting confused when they’re told to attack sea; no sensible way to destroy the entirety of a wall apart from shift clicking on each and every piece…

I could go on, and on, and on. A nearly endless list of things that desperately need polishing up so I can spend less time fighting the game and more time fighting my opponent.

11 Likes
24

So spreading fake positive news is better than telling the truth.

I got it!

The game is “AMAZING”! I love it!

7 Likes
25

But it is dying and requires massive updates :slight_smile:

26

Here you raise some very good points. I’ve run into all those and its definitely frustrating. Almost like the game is purposely doing it in order to give the other player a better fighting chance. haha which I hope they wouldn’t code into a game or even know how.

27

Anyone can give valid and constructive criticism. ELO is just number that can be forever inflated as there is no upper limit. People just like to use ELO to make themselves feel good and discredit other, yet all it takes to get superhigh is to do a most broken tower rush.

Also at some point ELO is no longer representing primarily your game knowledge. It starts to represents more your dedication to improving your multitasking (such as learning what to do without actively thinking about it), micro, reaction speed and time spent.

In other words all you need for valid opinion and constructive criticism is to understand the game and design philosophy behind it. Neither requires you to be top player, it only demands you to be as objective as possible == leaving emotions behind and constructively thinking about the problem and solutions.

1 Like
28

a game where you cant get past 15 minutes without being rushed by the VERY SAME strategies and units every single time is completely BORING, that means that the game needs balance. If not, ppl would not complain about the same civs using the same strategies from youtube rush guide videos.

1 Like
29

There modding tools now, make the game mod you prefer then

30

People don’t rush you that much in aoe 4. AoE 3 they do. Which is why aoe 3 has treaty, the problem with that is you get players who quite after they lose one battle and waste everybody’s time who just spent 40 mins building up or whatever treaty length the match was

31

These always make me laugh. Somehow, the casual player who just forked over $60 needs to “gitgud” to enjoy playing the game, but the professionals who sold it to them don’t need to “gitgud” at developing it. :smile:

1 Like
32

English has been low tier for a long time, there’s like maybe 3 maps where the civ is good. They aren’t trash, but they’ve had a winrate in the low 40 percentages for months now because their castle and imperial ages are very underwhelming. China is really weak right now, but they are still viable on multiple maps.

I agree thought that people are complaining about the game dying because of steam numbers which is really just a case of all the PvE players leaving cause there is limited content. The PvP scene has never been at risk of dying.

34

Maybe in 1v1s the game is bearable…
But in multiplayer…

It’s Deathball spam, turtles and wonders. 0 Strategy.

That’s why players are leaving. The game is a shallow RTS where multiplayer is not fun to play.

35

It is as strategic as your average RTS, it’s just that the strategies aren’t often so fun to execute as they are in some more well rounded titles.

In case you’d like to eliminate deathball spam and wonders, just get together with a premade team and intend to rush hard every game. You’ll never experience those woes again.

36

I feel like The English are balanced quite strangely at the moment. When you read their description it is implied they are a defensive civilisation suited to turtling, what with their farming bonus and the Network of Castles bonus. But there’s very little benefit to defending yourself if your end-game is weaker than that of other civilisations. In late game what advantages do they have militarily? Their unique unit, the longbowman, becomes increasingly redundant as heavy units become more common. They get the weakest siege unit in the game (ribaldequin) and a meaningless buff to the trebuchet. They have the armor clad research that makes their Man-at-Arms tankier. Both man-at-arms and longbows are hard to make use of once mangonels join the party.

It doesn’t feel like the change on the PUP is going to help either. I’m happy that they’re making a change which will make English early game strategy more diverse, but it feels like they’re going to be shifted even more towards early game rushes.

37

Anybody who is saying that AoE4 is dying because of the balance is completely missing the point. Balance is but a minor issue with the game, as it is with all RTS games. The major issue is QoL and fun. Most players will decide to stop or keep on playing based on that alone. Having to patch a game after release (as in the game is buggy upon release, with the prospect of future bugfixes) also hurts a game. Stability, on the other hand (when the patches add content rather than just fix bugs, and don’t rebalance half of the already common strategies), helps player retention. All of these are an issue in AoE4 and pretty much all modern RTS games - hence the decline of the RTS genre as a whole too.
The solution is easy to say, yet nobody ever does it nowadays, since it’s not profitable in the short term (and profits are measured quarterly, not yearly):
-fix all the bugs and exploits. do not change anything else after that for a while, and especially not during fixing them
-prepare one big QoL patch to bring the game up to par with previous releases (AoE2 in this case) at least, or even make it better (pathing, AI, patrol, better matchmaking, etc.). if that game did it good, this one has to do it at least as good, or better. if that game did it bad, make it good this time. release this patch as soon as it is tested to be bug and exploit free, then quickly patch the bugs, preferably in one go, even if it takes a week or even a month more.
-then, and only then start thinking about balance changes. think it through thoroughly, for months and months, with simulation, in-house and public beta-testing and community feedback. communicate with the players frequently, offer feedback about feedback, but don’t release a patch until it’s tried, tested, balanced and ready. if it takes 2 years, then in 2 years. bugfix quickly afterwards, but if you’ve learned the lesson properly by this point, you won’t even have to do that.
-for any additional content, the formula is the same: release, bugfix in one go, qol patch, bugfix in one go, balance, bugfix. if it is not a major rehaul or addition to the game, work on it more and only release it when it is big enough to be worth releasing.
-???
-profit for 10,20 or more years to come.

And if anybody thinks that this is crazy, this is the model that literally every single game used before launchers and digital releases were a thing, and those games are loved even today. While today’s quick release - quick download - quick patch games are also quickly forgotten.

2 Likes
38

Basic features are missing 5 months AFTER release.
No reconnect functionality.
Civs feel the same.
Army management is clunky, units move and float and fight like they’re made out of cardboard = poor coding.
Age of siege spam.
You HAVE to go water even for ponds to win the game when there is is any water on the map, no variety of strategies.
Villager does same damage to siege as a military unit and has to throw a torch, biggest ■■■■■■■■ I’ve ever seen.
Siege units have Ferrari speed.
The Devs don’t respond to the playerbase’s wishes and criticism.
The list goes on and on and on.

People are leaving this game => it’s dying
Quite simple

3 Likes
39

Certain maps are not made for rushing. If you’re getting rushed on every map there is likely another problem like build, macro, and micro that a player needs to work on.

Different builds are required for different maps.

Also I don’t play multi player so I can’t say what they look like. I imagine they have more problems to them.

40

I don’t have problems with English late game.

Ribaldequin has actually won me games with the right siege combination as it shreds units that come in to atk. Basically it works like a mango.

Also I use Longbow right to the end. Their Arrow Volley upgrade is nuts and has them shoot like a machine gun for a given amount of time. Sort of like Zhuge Nu for a short span. If I could spam Arrow Volley in battles hahah o man.

English is good on all maps in my experience in 1v1.

41

Today I lost a game because I couldn’t select the villagers building a barbican of the sun on top of my base with my own villagers. Because clicking units in this RTS game is still broken nearly 6 months later.

AOE4 doesn’t just need balance changes. It needs to get shut down and entirely reworked ala Final Fantasy 14. This game needs to be entirely ported over to a more competent engine.

After trying to love this game for 6 months, and genuinely loving it at first, I have to say that Relic absolutely deserves to have this game die on them, they killed it. And I wish them nothing but misfortunes with company of heroes 3.

2 Likes