I got a totally different idea of what you wanted, then. At some point you started talking about philosophy
I still stand on hope, it is a form of philosophy, epistemology.
I have to read this whole thread again just to understand your perspective.
The problems with your way of talking that itâs easily derail on topic, you just confused us with many spread ideas and hope and philosophy, which runs into philosophy talk but not a gaming talk.
We gamers want to understand how the game can possibly be with your vision, not how philosophy affect our gameplay. What I meant is that you just act like a businessman having a rant to a bunch of engineers about how economy downplay performance of an engine, without checking the production of said engine.
Economy and military
RTS genre always focus on two side of the game. Donât go with real economy and real military, itâs really hard to stimulate, and not every RTS game wants to be complicated for the sake of it.
One side being economy is where player has to manage virtual currencies. What to spend, what to exchange, what to gather. Another is military, which basically your average chess board but the pieces can move freely. You just manage your pieces to win over enemy pieces.
Your idea of reworking AOE2
Now let take an overview at your vision of the game. You argue the game is focusing on whoever play the game must run on competition to achieve the most wealth. Itâs a RTS game duh, not a hybrid between RTS and City builder genre. RTS value players to be good at either two of those sides I mentioned above.
Second, you want the players to be more âpeace and loveâ. So players must spend their wealth on making their citizen better. Again, AOE2 is not a city builder nor a hybrid. As much as you hate it, villagers are treated as a chess piece, than a real human since we are unable to stimulate something like Cities Skyline with their life path and work habit.
Why it won't work for Ranked play
The most thing I have to sadly told you, is that combining both vision of you to apply for ranked match, is definitely peak of unplayable. Having side objectives in ranked play is not bad, it encourages map control. The problems are how you are going to execute it. Would you enable side objectives to grant one side too favored?
Most RTS never touches those in ranked play since arguably, they are distracting from main gameplay. Presumably there is a capture the town mode, definitely cavalry civ will gain a better foothold than slower units like archers. And definitely if you want to go the âmonopoly buy the townâ, whoever gets market first win. Itâs still the rat race to gaining most wealth, whether through map control or getting more units.
SC2 and AOE series finds unique side objectives in ranked play to be âbrokenâ to balance. That is why in ranked play, the encourage side objectives are map control to build another expansion for more wealth.
Such craziness of side objectives can only be favorable for one side, and those are usually includes in campaigns or coop for reasons. You fight against AI, and AI donât give a toxic crap whether you do those side objectives
Conclusion
In short for someone who canât catch up, AOE2 is a RTS game, and itâs not a city builder hybrid. Applying âphilanthropyâ unique objectives in ranked play will be the equivalent of pulling an assault rifle for an archer. Imbalance and impractical for ranked scene.
That say, I advise you should keep your idea for SP or Coop mode. Scenario editors can somewhat recreate your idea provide you know what to do. You are not convincing anyone with philosophy Iâm afraid, making people hate the idea seem to be current thing you are doing. I donât write this wall just to purely spite you, but I want to criticize how unconvincing your statements are.
3 Likes
So you are here in the perspective none other than a gamer? I think this discussion group is also for devs, AoE2support and many critics who want to support for the development of spirit in the game.
For your matter of facts, I am not interested in business and trade.
I still believe in what I said about this, and once more I m not a business man to think of the productions of the game. I am just a critic.
I am sorry to repeat my quote, but I m not trolling anyone or have any intention too. I am just taking it as for a better example for your first quote given below
And again here I do not want the first part one more focus, I do not want to derail one of the two rails but I think this game is more over like a building where the foundation lies only in military but focusing on building more floors of economy is just like a concrete foundation for a sand castle.
I want the historic maps, I never thought campaign maps as just a city builder genre, the work and hardship behind the campaign maps is an equal struggle in feeding with a silver spoon for multiplayer gaming.
I think you never saw a poor loving man, at the same time who can serve his king with unending war of blood.
May I get to know whether you want to ask âcombining both vision of you and apply it for ranked matchâ or just "combining both vision of you to apply for ranked match and anymore visions?
Yeah! I see my hope still wants this as an prosthetic supply for my broken parts of myself (even heart) and the conversation".
You can give the mountain ways for archers for maximum control on map. And valleys for trouble seekers.
Sorry! I am still not focusing on the wealth or again map control for wealth at all. You can use market as in a City Builder genre I think, but no need of more change in economy with it. And again do not go to the west for digging gold and trade as said by Henry David Thoreau or the Master of Napoleon âThe great Rousseauâ who never fought a single war. I still remember Napoleon saying âIf there is no Rousseau there is no Napoleonâ.
Still map control is ever needed but we need more maps like campaigns and no markets or wealth more on focus.
No fear my dear friend. All people are not toxic.
You are obviously pulling an assault on a philanthropist using such a harsh objective against the philanthropic behavioral set.
I have still got no guilt and I respect you as a critic, I hope my criticism wont spite you too.
And My conclusion is simple I have got no guilt in any of the statements you are relating to me. If this is still unconvincing to your statements, I will be here until the topic touches at least any one of the hearts. Lets get to a more pleasant conversation and get ourselves more pleasant experience.
And once again I convey my deepest apologies if I ever meant to hurt anyoneâs feelings or motives unknowingly. I never wanted to nonpartisan anyone and I never had such intentions.
Let me frankly clear, I donât think this discussion is limited to gamers nor itâs someoneâs exclusive place. But I want to emphasize how confused most people here trying to understand your opinion.
Thank you for the response, and itâs clearer to understand now than ever before.
AOE2DE do have real world map or map which are unique in terrain, but ranked players are rarely touch or has an opportunity to play it. They are custom maps in skirmish, but not ranked. You can make a map and host a lobby for it though.
Basically rarely ranked play want to test some new maps. And ranked play players usually vote/ban maps for every new seasons which they rarely touch new and interesting maps. I send you a link to refer: Maps - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats
Because I donât still get the idea of spending wealth on villagers. Isnât it reflected through food/gold costs for economy units + building houses/workplace/university/religious place? And beside, units in game, especially in ranked play, are treated as chess pieces with their own purpose. Itâs hard to tell whether villagers are poor or not when all they do is obeying the tasks you command them to.
Both vision of your which I tried to assume thatâs how you think when designing for ranked play, can you confirm it correct?
Unless you want somehow like a really small tunnels, most units in AOE2 can slips through gap due to their collision box usually smaller than 1 cell.
I still donât get ranked map like campaigns. You put objectives that you need to take over a town or something? Campaign objectives are too varies, so I still donât get which one should be use.
The closest I can find is some 1v1 maps that have special trade workshop in middle of the map, acting as capturing the flag building for resources automatic generation.
Iâm apologize for that. I meant side objectives when you apply it, you have to make sure itâs not too one sided when completed it. Having objectives that rewards players like units or a dump ton of resources is really sensitive at high Elo play.
In ranked map, usually itâs emphasize more on âgold diggingâ the available resources at new places, which requires you to have map control to protect the expansion.
No no, itâs a good and pleasant talk, despite of myself coming off as some rants. You ainât hurt no one here. We keep it as civil as it got.
You can still create competitive maps that fit your vision, but likely those will be preferred for lobbying game with friends/strangers than a ranked play. Beside, I think map placement in ranked play should always been symmetrical, different than that and people may complain.
2 Likes
First of all, I clearly mention an empire is not just a king and his family. No one of the family by himself lead the army of their own family to graveyard. The army is formed from the people, all the people/villagers contribute to the army. The spawning of any military unit from the barracks/stable/siege workshop is not the place where he is given birth from his motherâs womb.
So I wanna say for you kind Sir, please look into the matters as no more than their personal stress, pain and hardships they suffer to make it look like they have supplied a great soldier for the army.
And behind every real hardship there is poverty, there is real burden. With no burden and no poverty of enlightenment a great man is born.
There is no need of the money throwing on poor peasants, until unless it is lovable. And donât make them the slaves of hardships that produce the economy. Yes, I do agree economy is needed for the mercy of the king, but it canât be done for a merciless king whose tyranny runs for blood and thirst of money of a poor peasant.
And such a money let it burn than used. A peasant asks for nothing more than love and peace. And his loyalty gives the victory. As much as the wealth grows for any kingdom, it is a waste until unless it aims and serves the backbone of the army the villagers the best. Please let us not focus on the peasants economy as primary part and leave him his courtesy and freedom of space and time.
Lets make more army from the begin and make a move slowly onto the villagers. Hunting and intervening a villager group as a tiger on the freely motivated deer herd is not at all domestic. Even the wild is afraid of the extinction and it is controlled only by the lions not the tigers.
I am still not in point of what you have said over here too⊠âBoth vision of your which I tried to assume thatâs how you think when designing for ranked playâ This is your first entry of subject one of using âBothâ where is the subject two?
I want to know exactly with what comparable do you want to compare my vision or thought of ranked play design do you want to compare with. And I am not trying to think of designing, I am just a critic who wanna see if the thoughts of mine could be able to implement or not.
I like this thought of yours very much indeed. It is because you have just pasted my picture of my mind on the particular perspective into the words.
Thanks a lot for those striving efforts, and also all the other efforts in participating and understanding the conversation.
I think dump of units is never a waste. When it comes to military. All the skills and developments of fighting, all the skills of war and implementations of formations, special abilities of standing army, cavalry and siege. Are all a great invention of the hardships of the founders, creators and technicians of the game.
I do not suggest or criticize either until unless I myself start learning how to develop in such areas.
But here in the case of resources I think you need not have ton of resources on an unknown land of arenas where the battle is upcoming. And neither there is need of taking it really sensitive.
So please, once more no focusing on gold digging. Just assuming the expansion lands are already added with the supplies until a fair time give them as many ruins as possible with more and more units to explore and make less focus on resources.
Yes, as I said already, I am just a critic and wanna know whether this would help me look out or watch out for such competitive maps in the future and before I send off the motherland, and kind Sir I m just a youngster of 30 years age.
I hope again I didnât trouble anyone over here, I am as sound as I wanna make it hear in my words.
Although we talk a lot, it seems like you and I wonât get into a good agreement at this point, so I will leave this at the last comment about my opinions on your topic.
I would advise whoever read this line but not Pradyumna should read what he said above, I just shorten this up for unnecessary clog of topic.
You and I have different opinions on AOE2. You view it as some medias to explore the nuances of medieval ages, which is not wrong. There are plenty fan-made story scenarios which are good writing, but those never have standard gameplay mechanics. Official campaigns scenarios donât have beggars, or tyrants as gameplay mechanics but rather a team/player that you can interact.
But I speak in content of competitive multiplayer perspective, which focus on viewing the game as some sorts of chess or shogi with sportsmanship. Units are pieces with their own purposes. AOE2 never has a concept of poverty beside the players never has enough resources to train, deploy, build their own empires.
In casual play with friends, sure, I will pick some villagers and name them Adam and Eve and let them have a wedding in middle of the war. Because itâs a casual play and I have the freedom to express whatever suit that. There is no restriction. I can go and make a scenario about life of a villager, and I have the freedom to write a tyranny king or a good king who creates job/organizes festivals, take care of their subjects, etcâŠ
But competitive scene is a different breed, you have a clear objective of beating your enemy. Itâs absurd to mix campaign gameplay and/or story gameplay into a ranked competitive gameplay because they will never work. This is like asking chess players to let their pawns retire and living a happy life elsewhere, it turns into anarchy chess, not a proper chess tournament.
Different environments can not be applied the same principles as full copy completely, as some old Romans said " When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
Let just ditch all of that since English is not my mother tongue, maybe I can try explain clearly in the next part of this post.
What I tried to describe is side objectives in middle of ranked match that rewards players with extra units and resources. For example: provide 3 house for Gray players to obtain 5 MAAs or 300 food.
In high Elo where people like Hera, Viper, Mbl⊠and others, itâs a complete different story. Every seconds of them are valuable, including choice in making units, population management⊠Throwing a big buff like that will create one-sided scenario where âmetaâ will be the absolute strategy for 100% win rate, and not depend on skills and/or choices of units.
My final say
You can add third-side player in between the match as some sort of decorations. That could work.
For ranked competitive scene, just scrap the idea of transforming it, very few people wants change like that, itâs not competitive, itâs just an excuse to put a bloat of resources and imbalance into a game mode that donât need changes. You maybe interest in community game, since those ideas of you are well-thought and is better fit in that context. Regicide or FFA lobby will definitively enjoy those changes, and historical maps, than fixed standards of ranked competitive gameplay.
2 Likes
On a whole, sorry if my discussion went in just the opposing manner to the reply of the posters. But I never meant to only make my point correct, I agree with all of your points too and I mainly took on the points where I wanted to propose the less focus on economy but not oppose the very existence of economy, and yes I agree with the posters always about building military RTS, because I never had any trouble with military.
The point of making a military is always acceptable for me, and I devote it but I m not a spend thrift. Thatâs it Imao.