The only bug I’m currently experience is the trading post where units get stuck inside. All mentioned problems please report them to bugs section with screenshots so the devs can see them.
2 Likes
There are still other bugs I have noticed:
-Hunts sometimes flee in the direction of the Hunter, which makes them very hard to her to safety, often even to the other side of the map.
-A lot of times Docks cannot be placed in terrain that would actually be suitable, which often makes Water control extremely difficult.
-Unit pathfinding is still very silly, they often do not know where to go, and become paralized around objects, such as rocks or trees.
-Often, a defeated player will have indestructible builing foundations, specially in Trade Post sites, so you will have areas where you cannot build for no reason, even after researching spies and trying to destroy the foundations.
4 Likes
I understand you love treaty, but aren’t the majority of players 1v1 ranked non treaty players? I think the game is designed more for non treaty 1v1. Personally I never understood the point of everyone spending 40 minutes with nothing happening before attacking, why not just cut out the 35 minutes and attack after 5 minutes? AOE 3 was even designed to have less time needed before attacking, compared with AOE2 where it takes longer to get to age 2 where attacking is possible. So treaty is kind of going against the core game design it seems.
4 Likes
True, and I honestly do not understand Treaty either, as this game is purposefully designed to be the fastest of the franchise, and quite a few units are useless in the late stages of the game, but great at Rushes and Timings.
1 Like
Exactly what I think. Treaty is great for people learning the game, and probably all of us had a treaty phase when learning the game. I understand that people don’t want to wait 40 min building 6 layers of wall, hence why few people play treaty.
3 Likes
I agree that treaty is dumb but it concerns me that its population is dying nonetheless. I always enjoyed the diverse playerbase and game preferences among the TAD community back in 2014.
5 Likes
You know this graph you posted completely disproves your main premise right?
In 2 out of 6 months the player-base rose, in the last one specifically it rose an astounding 68.56%(!!!) due to new content, so JonOli is right, what this game needs most to grow is new content, more than it needs bug fixes…it’s the sad truth on the businesses world, quality is secondary…publicity is what dictates success.
That said, your ‘problems list’ is accurate and the devs should work on fixing those.
9 Likes
New content is what brings in new players, but proper game balance is what RETAINS players. So both are needed for longevity. Also, people are more likely to purchase an RTS with a larger player base. Without opponents, not much point in playing single player vs computer.
1 Like
how so? the numbers on the left are average players, the ones on the right peak player counts. if the peak goes up while the average players goes down its dying out. ofcourse there is a spike with the new dlc, as we dont have the stats for may yet we can only speculate what is going to happen, but naturally such a curve goes down . the question is how fast will it be down to the march numbers again…
1 Like
personally i enjoy microing a bigger army and playing the map, with ALL the tools available opposed to the smaller skirmishes in sup. the 40 mins are a rather big part of it aswell. im not here to argue pro/con treaty im here to argue the original point.
personally aoe3 is too slow to be played as a rush game, i played a bunch of sc2 and coh2 and in comparison this just feels boring. love the treaty mode tho
2 Likes
its just a different style of game, mos sup players cant hold their own in treaty and most treaty players suck balls in rush. also if youre interested if this list is accurate, ask hazza why he doesnt play treaty aswell atm.
1 Like
I still left the game once because I was fed up with the crashes and errors, but I came back when they did the Chinese New Year event, I always read the optimization improvements every patch and it is always the same, The problems that we look forward to being fixed says “We are working on that” in 7 months the same, it is true that if several errors have been fixed and the optimization increased although it was a bit late, if not I am wrong it was more or less ago about 2 or 3 patches that I could play fluently, I felt that the game was a little faster. With respect to the treaty, this issue is harder, because the game crashes even more, so naturally less people will see, the experience I have had in the treaty is very bad, when it starts to turn around 30 minutes, the downturn begins. FPS, and it’s all so slow that it makes you want to stop playing, at least that’s my experience. It also happens a lot that there are players who drop it as soon as the game begins, making the rehost lose maybe another 10 minutes in putting everything back together is very annoying. That I prefer to play 1v1, before it was more open, I played some treaty and deathmatch, but because the lack of players and errors is more common in those game modes so I prefer only to play 1v1 or 2v2. One of the reasons why I stopped playing league of legends after 6 years being elo elite, was because the issue of laziness that takes so long to start a game, in addition to the terrible service of the server. So the same thing happens in this game, the treaty can be a lot of fun to play casually, but there are so many recurring problems that people don’t even want to try it anymore. And if we talk about ranked it is even more explicit, Too bad for you, that you feel that the number of players has fallen, But I don’t think it is so much because of the shif, hunting, jamming, etc. But because they do not run the 4v4 or 3v3 treated mode. They are larger maps, more units, more buildings that consume a lot of ram and cpu, that is why players do not prefer to play treaty, already few are actually playing treated, with the issue of resource demand from the pc with greater reason will be less. You with that computer beastness crashes you because imagine those who have 12 ram like me xdddd is going to ■■■■ off the fps.
Key solutions to this player loss problem are
- Improve optimization as quickly as possible
- Next event, with missions forced to play treaty in multiplayer
- More specialized maps to play treated
1 Like
I think walls are part of the treaty problem.
I mean honestly, who would like a 2 hour tug of war where you finally managed to outsmart/outproduce/outmacro your enemy only to see 912093821 layers of walls between you and their eco??
2 Likes
Bad idea, people will complain they are being forced to play a specific mode.
They tried that with the first event in AoE2 DE, and most did not even interact with the event, because it required people to play MP, and in certain rules.
4 Likes
And please give more Campaigns to singleplayer lovers.
7 Likes
I agree with all of the points made by the OP. Treaty is completely unplayable at the moment, this game is in a worse state than legacy, a game that was released almost 16 years ago. Its pathetic. The devs are releasing new content and ignoring bugs already existing. Sure , they can ignore the “tiny” treaty community, but its insulting that we paid money for a broken buggy mess
6 Likes
Whether or not the game was designed for sup specifically is irrelevant to the point that a lot of crashes occur in treaty, it’s still the same game with an extra time restraint, and apparently crashes are more likely to occur as the game goes on for a long time. I can see this happen in low elo sup games, which tend to go on for longer periods of time as well.
2 Likes
If you’re specifically talking about treaty, here’s something - I was a higher tier treaty player in TAD, but since switching to DE I keep getting kicked out of games that I would have normally played in and can’t get into anything except against complete noobs, which makes the game very boring for me.
I stopped playing because beating up new players is just wrong and I felt bad.
1 Like
Unlikely. Age of empires series has always been about large scale team games, and that’s essentially what treaty is. There’s a lot of balance changes directed to treaty games, and there’s lot of cards that have exactly 0 value in 1v1 supremacy but work well in treaty.
I’d say the problems right now in treaty are:
- bugs and stability
- spamability of walls.
I agree. Even when it was AOE1 or AOE2, massive, large-scale battles were what made me love the series and want more.
Everyone who has played AOE2 has probably made 100+ War Elephants at some point just to see how that would play out. Or they’ve played a deathmatch with the Huns to just overwhelm their enemies with cavalry. Or even played an online game with the black forest map, where you wall off the passageways and then mass up to control the map.
I get that 1v1s have a spicier, more risk-taking, micro-intensive, skill element to it. But for long-term fans like me before I got decent enough to be competitive, AOE to me was about the massive battles, the cool units, and the interesting history/lore behind the civs and technologies.
Crashes in treaty are buzzkiller, as nothing degrades my player experience more than almost winning a treaty game, only for my laptop to crash (AMD Ryzen 4900 processor, NVIDIA 2070 RTX card, 16G RAM)
2 Likes