Thought on new water balance showmatch

[SlyFox]

We used to have Galleys, Demos, and Fires

Now we just have Galleys and say that we “improved” a system that was working fine for years.

[Euth0ricAce5964]

@TheTowerDefender

there is objectively good and bad game design, old vs new water isn’t a case of that.

Oh, so now there is stuff that sucks objectively

@TheTowerDefender

a) it isn’t objectively good in every way possible

Then you have to make arguments as to why that is.

@TheTowerDefender

b) even if it were, I don’t want changes forced upon me.

Why? If they’re something positive, changes are good. Even if they change something fundamental as adding a new unit line that sort of replaces an old one.

@TheTowerDefender

game design: aoe2 made a clear choice of having the combat system on water be simpler than the one on land. with very few exceptions, maps are designed around land warfare, with naval warfare being a secondary concern.
aoe2’s strongest aspect was that each system is simple, their interplay giving rise to complexity.

And replacing a suicide unit with a normal one enforces exactly that. Makes it simpler.

@TheTowerDefender

history: warfare in the middle ages was mostly on land. naval warfare was largely in the form of ships exchanging arrow fire and then boarding, basically again being hand-to-hand combat. the biggest factors in naval battles: wind, waves and tides are completely absent. Adding those would be a complete upheaval of game mechanics.

Right… projectiles, then boarding. The latter of which hulks are now supposed to represent.
Win, waves, and tides are absent because they add unnecessary complication. Stuff like that would have to be added on land too. AoE2 was never about features like this.

@TheTowerDefender

graphics, general looks: what? they don’t really affect game design. you can use a mod to replace galleys with a pikachu skin for all I care

Yes they do? Graphics and sound affect how a game feels, and that has an immense impact. How a game looks, sounds, feels, plays, the general theme, etc. all come together to form an experience. If you replace ships with Pokemon, then it’s not medieval anymore… if units were to do goofy attack animations, it wouldn’t be serious at all anymore… if units are 90% player color like in the disgrace that is AoE4, you can’t tell them apart easily… if units’s attack animations don’t lign up to when they actually fire their projectile, as is the case in both 2 and 4, you can’t easily tell when to move them when micrioing… just a few examples. Very weird argument. Obviously graphics and general looks affect game design.

@TheTowerDefender

how fun a mechanic is: 99% subjective. As you prove in your very next sentence:

People have different views on which activities are fun. But inside a specific activity that already sets the foundation for what kind of activity it is and how it’s supposed to be played, there is objectively fun and unfun.

For a game that’s supposed to be micro intensive, features that enhance micro intensive gameplay are objectively good and objectively fun. Some people might not find micro intensity in general to be fun, but when it’s featured inside a game that’s supposed to be micro intensive, it objectively is for that game. Why play a type of game when you don’t like what it represents and wants from you on a fundamental level?

And no, what I said doesn’t prove that at all. Maybe I shouldn’t have said the first part at all, as that may be an example of a pure personal preference, though if I questioned it more I’m sure I could come up with arguments as to why I’m objectively right or wrong in the context of this game.
For example, suicide units don’t allow for as much counter attack potential as normal ones, and relegating an entire third of water fighters to this when land combat doesn’t work like this at all may be a bad inconsistency.

@TheTowerDefender

suicide units are THE best thing about water battles. demo ships are the main thing that make hybrid maps fun to watch. they are the best way for a player who’s behind to make a comeback. (in that way they function as a higher-risk version of mangonels)

Perhaps.

@TheTowerDefender

in the end gameplay will always be more important than historical accuracy. this is a game. not a simulation.

They’re barely separate. Historical accuracy is important just as theme, sound, music, graphics, core gameplay loop, replayability, and so on. Or rather gameplay is informed by historical accuracy.
It’s a matter of suspensibility of disbelief. Throwing scimitars is silly, but it’s whatever. Making Mamelukes melee would make them just like the Saracens’ already good camels, making them cavalry archers would make them too similar to Camel Archers in retrospect…

@TheTowerDefender

the new water changes have not made water more interesting, as the recent tournament showed.

Maybe so. Maybe it’s unfixable, maybe adding points of interest as Admiral Wololo suggested would help.

[TheTowerDefender]

@Euth0ricAce5964

@TheTowerDefender

there is objectively good and bad game design, old vs new water isn’t a case of that.

Oh, so now there is stuff that sucks objectively

yeah, stuff like microtransactions, in-game ads, preying on gambling addictions etc are objectively bad.

when i said “what sucks is subjective”, i was referring to the water balance (as this is what this topic is about), where they haven’t made any change that’s objectively good or bad.

@Euth0ricAce5964

@TheTowerDefender

a) it isn’t objectively good in every way possible

Then you have to make arguments as to why that is.

that’s very easy: “I don’t like it”, is enough to prove that it is not >>objectively<< good. The fact that there is debate over whether this is good or bad, should show you that it isn’t objectively good.

@Euth0ricAce5964

@TheTowerDefender

b) even if it were, I don’t want changes forced upon me.

Why? If they’re something positive, changes are good. Even if they change something fundamental as adding a new unit line that sort of replaces an old one.

how many things can you change about a game and it still being the same game. 80% of the reason i play aoe2 is nostalgia, at this point I play about as much HD as DE, because DE has started to feel so foreign.

@Euth0ricAce5964

@TheTowerDefender

game design: aoe2 made a clear choice of having the combat system on water be simpler than the one on land. with very few exceptions, maps are designed around land warfare, with naval warfare being a secondary concern.
aoe2’s strongest aspect was that each system is simple, their interplay giving rise to complexity.

And replacing a suicide unit with a normal one enforces exactly that. Makes it simpler.

it used to be that you had different simple systems for land warfare, buildings, economy, naval warfare etc.
Adding a new ship line makes the naval system more complicated, by making it more similar to the land warfare system. Undermining both the simplicity of the systems, and the complexity arising from their differences.

@Euth0ricAce5964

Win, waves, and tides are absent because they add unnecessary complication.

this is your (and my) opinion. I agree that I don’t think it would fit in aoe2. however a realistic or historical game should include these (and I could imagine a game like this being very fun)

@Euth0ricAce5964

Yes they do? Graphics and sound affect how a game feels, and that has an immense impact. How a game looks, sounds, feels, plays, the general theme, etc. all come together to form an experience.

I see where you are coming from with this. I think I would usually distinguish game design and graphic/audio design. I agree that the latter affects how the game feels, but I don’t think it belongs in this discussion about a change in game mechanics.

@Euth0ricAce5964

If you replace ships with Pokemon, then it’s not medieval anymore

like having magic and superheroes from the 2nd century?

@Euth0ricAce5964

if units were to do goofy attack animations, it wouldn’t be serious at all anymore

whips? teutonic knights sheathing their swords after every stab?

@Euth0ricAce5964

People have different views on which activities are fun. But inside a specific activity that already sets the foundation for what kind of activity it is and how it’s supposed to be played, there is objectively fun and unfun.

I still disagree. There was huge debate when mangonel deleting was removed. Some people loved it and others thought it was cheesing. Same thing about quickwalls, some people think they are great, some think they should be removed/nerfed.

@Euth0ricAce5964

For a game that’s supposed to be micro intensive, features that enhance micro intensive gameplay are objectively good and objectively fun.

I couldn’t disagree more. First of all aoe2 is not supposed to be micro intensive (at least compared to other RTS). Aoe2 is about the interplay of micro and macro. And the devs are clearly of this opinion as well as they are reducing certain amounts of micro: farm automation, automatic villager creation, autoscout etc. With each of these you have large groups of players arguing for and against, because there is no objective fun.

@Euth0ricAce5964

And no, what I said doesn’t prove that at all

you literally said:

@Euth0ricAce5964

Personaly I don’t like suicide units

this is an entirely subjective statement. And one that puts you in the minority of players I might add. The highlight reels of most major tournaments contain at least one big demo engagement.

you reduce the game as being “micro intensive”, as if that were the only thing that matters. But decision making, and risk/reward assessment are at least as important (if not more so). Demo ships are a really good and important tool for this.

@Euth0ricAce5964

For example, suicide units don’t allow for as much counter attack potential as normal ones

here you are just wrong. demos are an amazing counter to fireships, and are themselves countered by galleys/galleons (or at least were before this atrocity of a change)

@Euth0ricAce5964

relegating an entire third of water fighters to this when land combat doesn’t work like this at all may be a bad inconsistency

naval and land warfare being different is not an inconsistency, but rather an intentional choice. Having those systems be different is what makes them interesting. if land warfare and naval warfare were basically the same, you could cut one entirely.
Water warfare is interesting as is, because it is nothing like land warfare.

@Euth0ricAce5964

They’re barely separate. Historical accuracy is important just as theme, sound, music, graphics, core gameplay loop, replayability, and so on.

it really isn’t? the game is wildly unhistorical. you can have goths (with gunpowder) fighting against aztecs (with steel and trebuchets) on Socotra, with monks shouting wololo to convert units next to buildings that burn forever.