Thoughts on transport micro having been removed from the game

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

In the history of aoe4 there have been a few unique and out of the box strategies, one of them being microing units in and out with transports. Essentially being being able to dodge projectiles at the same time as attacking by going in and out a transport. It was mostly used by in a cheese with Abbasid and Ayyubid I made where a couple of archers and a siege tower could stay under defensive buildings while still killing units. The cheese would basically be an auto win if the opponent didn’t scout it and went for a greedy opener. It could also be used with ram pushes too I guess.

From patch notes: “Adjusted ungarrison mechanics to mitigate an exploit where players could quickly ungarrison, attack, and regarrison before taking any damage.Now, there is a small delay on attacking for a brief period after ungarrisoning from a Ram, Siege Tower, Cheirosiphon, or Tower of the Sultan.”

I know Some pro players were complaining about it, and the easiest solution was to listen to them. Here are some reasons why it might have been a bad call, or at least questionable:

  • It’s a mechanic present in other games. Imagine if it was illegal to prism micro in StarCraft to save units from dying.

  • Taking away strategies makes the game less interesting, removes a lot of skill expression, and removes the possibility of fast, unpredictable and different games from what we see normally. I think as a viewing experience it was fun to, and playing the build vs the best was even more fun.

  • Was it a design issue or just a balance issue? Imagine someone has never seen a tower rush before, would they think it’s fair and balanced? This cheese is very powerful and can win games fast if the opponent doesn’t react well, but it’s bad if the opponent responds with units fast. Is it a design issue that can’t be fixed with balance, and if so why?

  • A reason why the cheese was viable was because of the siege tower. The siege tower is very overstatted compared to the ram because it’s cheaper, faster, better, stronger. If the siege tower were to be reworked and restatted, I don’t see a world where it would be anywhere near broken.

  • Please consider the same with the Mongol tc and defensive landmarks not being able to build near opposing bases. I ask the same question. Why is it removed, could it be balanced, and would it make the game more fun? Also: “If you enjoy playing aggressively and with cunning planning, leveraging the Mongol unique mechanics to pull of cunning, out of the box strategies is for you.” 2:10 Age of Empires IV: The Mongols

I don’t want to play the game and be part of the pro scene if a lot of the pros and and devs hate my strategies. What’s even the point in staying?

1 Like
2

What was the counter to this tactic (garrisoning units in and out of Siege Towers before they get hit by projectiles)? Isn’t it basically the same as giving Siege Towers and Rams garrison arrows? Is there skill involved?

3

Yeah, this change is really weird to me as well. The exploit was mostly that ranged units had their reload continue while garrisoned in a siege unit, so if you timed it right you could have ranged units fire and garrison immediately to keep them from being damaged.

This is a basic rts skill… that the developers treat it like an exploit tells me that they prefer that this game has a slower pace. That less micro is preferred, or niche micro that requires high APM and multitasking is not preferable.

This is something you’re expected to learn at the lowest leagues in other rtses…

Funny thing is… it still works if you use a building instead of a siege unit. More than that, you can still use villagers to garrison and ungarrison between the building’s shots, being able to optimize dps and repairing. You can even have the villagers leave the building on a specific side using micro to keep enemy units from reaching them when doing this.

Siege towers (which have no other purpose) and rams were the only things affected by the fix. Feels weird, this wasn’t an exploit like animation canceling (units do not attack faster, they are only less vulnerable). In many ways it was only useful when army count is low… infantry or cavalry heavily counters this play.

Experiment with melee infantry in a ram instead. You can throw torches and get them back in the ram before they get hit by projectiles. Arguably much more effective than using a ram as protection for ranged units, as spearman are cheap to mass and more vulnerable to ranged attacks.

Long story short, this change seems to address issues that exist on paper, but I don’t think it really did anything for 95% of matches. Big nerf to a very uncommon, mostly useless, tactic. Very confusing considering how normal this kind of gameplay is in any other rts with armored transports.

2 Likes
4

How is that video you linked remotely similar to what is discussed here. Do you think the problem is ungarrisoning while moving? Or ungarrisoning at all? Or the fact the units basically gain extra hp equivalent to the hp of the Siege Tower, because they are untargetable until the Siege Tower is destroyed? Like a mobile tower rush. I see you’re still wasting people’s times with long posts that are missing the mark. I expect some mental gymnastics into self victimizing as a follow-up, as per usual.

The “transport micro” discussed here was completely nullifying arrow fire from defensive buildings and ranged units. The skill involved is nonexistent. You can just control group the units and right click a target and they’ll pop right out, then right click back as soon as the firing animation starts. This doesn’t require quick reflexes or precision, because it happens at a very slow pace.

They should fix this for the defensive side as well tbh. It’s incredibly annoying for your Ram push to be safely dealt with, because the villagers that are popping out of the Outpost to shoot at the Ram can’t be targeted. I imagine they didn’t because they considered it less frustrating than all-ins using the same technique.

OP is angry because he can’t use this easy to abuse exploit, which is banned in tournaments btw, to beat much better players on ladder. He can still use the same micro, it’s just not abusable anymore (as in you get hit as well now).

5

The counter is to have more units than the opponent, either mass enough archers to chase down and surround the siege tower, or make horsemen depending on if the siege tower player has spearmen in it. It’s very strong if the one being cheesed goes fast castle, 2nd tc, or anything else greedy, but if those resources are used on full army instead it should be easy to hold. It takes a lot of attention to transport micro effectively, and macroing at the same time is very hard. The cheese is good if the opponent responds badly, but if the opponent responds correctly it it the build sucks.

6

Hi there you need to calm down, what good’s this energy? We’re not fixing any issues by hating each other. I see where you’re coming from, but let get some facts straight:

  • Transport micro was allowed in tournaments, if you want to ask someone for confirmation you can ask AnMagicalCow and he will confirm. A lot of people assume that it’s animation cancelling for some reason even though you need to wait as long as you normally would if you were kiting with the archers for the arrows to lauch. Villagers going in and out of buildings to torch is something I would call animation canceling because the torches are being thrown from inside the tc with good enough micro.

  • The citation with the video as source was about the 20 tiles placement ban on Mongol starting tc. At the end of the official Mongol video said that the Mongols were a good fit if you liked out of box strategies, while their most out of box strategy is still banned. We all know it was very good when it was around, but the game has changed a lot and artificially removing strategies in a strategy game without even attempting to balance them just feels wrong.

  • I agree that I won against much better players, and in a macro game I would have lost most of them. The point of a cheese is kind of that. Yes it benefits me that there are a lot of cheeses in the game, so trusting me blindly in balancing would be insane. The same could be said with top pro players, where they in contrast benefit from these strategies being removed.

  • I’m not Msn.dk btw, I just invented the build. Remember that we’re all just people who enjoy the game and want to make it better. Hope you have a good weekend.

1 Like
7

My 2 cents is:

Removing an exploit is not the same as removing a legitimate mechanic. It’s okay to want micro depth, it’s going to make me raise my eyebrows by presenting an exploit as a legitimate mechanic. Especially if the only justification is some comparison to another game, that works and plays differently to AoE IV.

1 Like
8

I’m not gonna die on this hill wrt to it not being allowed in tournaments, because it’s something I heard from Beastyqt’s stream, but if the units can shoot but can’t be targeted before they go back into the transport, I would call that an exploit. A unit that shoots should be targetable.

My reply about the video was to MedicMan, but for some reason the post doesn’t show it.

It’s not just the top players. It benefits me as well, as the average Joe. I personally dislike cheeses in strategy games, and it’s something I don’t miss from Starcraft 2. I think the game is much more fun without them, so I am happy with how the devs are managing it. And I think the better player should always win.

Sorry if my tone was too aggressive, you seem like a nice guy. Enjoy your w/e as well.

9

They make it clear that it’s an exploit in the patch notes, so it’s obviously not an intended mechanic. That being said, nothing is altered about a unit’s functionality, most micro skills in any game is based off of niche abuse of mechanics with unintended results. See also:

Orb walking
" What is Orb Walking? Orb walking is a term that originally comes from DoTA. It is a form of attacking that mainly uses the concept of “animation cancelling”

This is something any competent player does in aoe 4, longbowman micro needs this. You execute it to have your ranged units deal maximum dps while keeping them moving at their maximum speed. This is not an exploit in the way animation canceling was in the past, where stopping the animation and reintiating an attack would negate the reload period.

Garrison/ungarrison is the same way. It never negated the reload period, but the devs didn’t want ranged units to be able to fire immediately. You can test this for yourself… it still works when garrisoning in and out of buildings. The only change was their interaction with siege units garrison/ungarrison mechanics.

All micro is an exploitation of the unintended interactions certain mechanics have. Don’t be silly about this, it’s not the same as saying it’s an exploit. Exploits are more like the byz/rus resource glitch, relic cloning from a previous patch, the aforementioned animation canceling (which allowed a massively increased attack speed on torches/tusk), using building blueprints to determine the location of enemy buildings through the fog of war, or deleting a king to deny it from your opponents in an FFA.

Edit:

This is how difficult it is to do half the micro needed. It’s not something that’s easy to execute in a live game to begin with, and what they changed doesn’t do much other than punish players for using an already difficult mechanic. As I said before, you can still use this micro skill with better results by using melee infantry to torch a building and cycling them back in during their reload period, making them less vulnerable to ranged damage. (onna bugeisha are amazing when used to defend a ram during a push with this micro)

The change is a very minor nerf to this micro. It’s just weird considering you almost never see it to begin with, a result of its high attention/low reward ratio. It feels unnecessary to me.

10

Given the complaints about the possibility of auto-villager on PC, I fundamentally disagree that “all micro” is somehow the result of “exploitation”. Micro is micromanagement (typically unit micromanagement, less so building). Macro is macromanagement (mostly with an eco / faction-level focus). They exist regardless of any potential exploitation.

The closing of an exploit should not be presented as “transport micro being removed”. It’s a bad faith presentation of something that was clearly communicated in the update notes. This isn’t aimed at you, you replied to me. I simply posted my 2 cents r.e. the thread.

So what depth is being removed, if it’s so difficult to do and doesn’t even fully stop what you consider a “micro skill”? If it’s so high attention / low reward, what’s the fuss, exactly?

Like, surely this is up to the developers to define? It can be weird to you, there’s nothing wrong with that. But there’s also nothing wrong with the developers making a change to close whatever gap in gameplay they want to close.

1 Like
11

Queueing a villager or any unit into a building isn’t micro… it’s macro. This is a fantastic example of how many people on the forum say things with no connection to reality. Not to mention, you already know the difference???

So I don’t really understand why you’re bringing up autoqueue… that’s about macro, not micro.

The keyword here is minor. You don’t have to get the “fuss”, but it is a minor adjustment. It leaves archers more vulnerable while doing a tactic with minimal payoff. It loses already minimal value. It means it’s no longer worth the effort it takes to manage. That’s all anyone’s saying here.

I’m not sure how else to express it in a way you can understand it.

On exploit vs micro: Video game exploit - Wikipedia.

Game mechanics
Taking advantage of the systems that make up the gameplay. A game mechanics exploit is not a bug: it is a case in which a system is working as designed, but not as intended. An example is the “wavedash” in Super Smash Bros

To a game developer all micro is an exploitation of existing mechanics. When they define the change in the patch by adjusting an exploit, they are referring to a mechanic players are using outside of its intended parameters. All micro is an exploit, thank you.

12

I personally think the act of tapping the button is micro (which is partly why I included buildings in the list). I consider the macro element to be doing things like keeping track of how many villagers you have, maybe even grouping them, and so on. YMMV.

Regardless, it was merely an example. There are plenty of other examples of micro that don’t go near that problematic tangent :sweat_smile:

What do you think micro means? Moving a unit can involve micro. Combat often does. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with an exploit.

That’s what you seem to be saying. That’s not what other people are saying. That’s not what the OP was saying.

The developers closed an exploit. It is being framed as “removing micro”. I dislike that framing. That was the grand sum of my opinion. Why are you objecting so strongly?

I really think we’re working from different definitions of the word here.

13

That’s totally fair. In my lexicon I refer to micro as the techniques that a player uses to push a unit outside of its normal constraints. Examples include: targeting a distant unit with a knight to have it charge units it is adjacent to, bodyblocking rams to prevent them from attacking structures they are next to, orbwalking ranged units to have them attack while moving. (Sidenote: all of these are exploits. Players take a mechanic as it is designed and use it in a way it is not intended. There is no doubt in my mind people would riot if they changed the knight charge exploit… that’s almost entirely how they are used in tournaments)

Micro as a word does little to define things, it’s borderline slang. Referring to it as shorthand for micromanagement leads to an understanding of it referring to a control over every part, however small, of something. I can understand how that can lead to confusion.

I am referring to techniques a player would use, much like using a transport to protect units while also ungarrisoning them to attack back. Some refer to this as a battle bus, or clown car. This is common in any rts with units that have a high hp pool and garrison space, starcraft has this in spades (which is why it’s been referenced several times).

To be clear: by adding a windup to ranged units exiting a siege unit they have effectively nerfed this technique. It is in essence removing micro from the game. Yes, you can still place units inside of a siege unit and take them out to attack periodically. But its effectiveness is lessened to the point of it taking up more attention than it is worth, making it more worth while to do other things. That is the meaning behind “removing micro”.

I think it’s important to note that the developers don’t always use layman’s terms in their patch notes. When they adjusted zhu xi cavalry attack speed they referred to reload speed. From a developer’s perspective, techniques that use the interaction between ranged and siege units are equivalent to exploits. As in, players use a system as designed but not as intended. So in this case I don’t think they mean to use exploit as a reference to an unfair advantage (equivalent to cheating)… especially since the interaction is the same (aside from ranged units now having a short windup after exiting a siege garrison state)

This is outside of the conversation, but I think it’s worth at least suggesting. Allowing siege towers to function as a mobile outpost would be ideal. Units could garrison inside and fire out of it without having to leave the confines of the unit.

A lot of the pain from the changes made to siege ungarrison attackspeed is that they took a unit with no purpose and nerfed a niche tactic. Rams are at least useful for passively attacking a base while the army fights on top of them. Siege towers get units onto walls… but units can no longer exit the wall through gates because of a previous patch.

If nothing else, this conversation highlights an oversight in the design of the game.

14

I am not against this change. I am ABSOLUTELY against this change.

I complained about it at the time by the corresponding media why they treat as an exploit a normal mechanic in any other RTS game (without giving more details). That strategy was NOT forbidden in tournaments.

It is seen that by the complaint of a few, the strategic variety is reduced with respect to something that was already very risky, not easy to do (it was not a very viable strategy in medium/low levels because the mechanics required were high) and it was perfectly possible to stop.

Why didn’t they limit the garrison/ungarrison time on defensive buildings as well while units are out/in? Why do they try to reduce any kind of micromanagement in a game where macro already reigns?

Aside from some tweaks the Late Game needs, if there’s one thing I strongly disagree with in this patch it’s this change. This is a way to drive rather aggressive players out of the game.

15

Fair enough. Can’t say that’s ever how I’ve encountered it, but we’re know where each of us are coming from now!

I understand the analogy. In an old Relic RTS, people used transports in a similar way. However, you weren’t protected from damage when loading into a vehicle, because that’s (imo) silly. A creative use of vehicles in the original Dawn of War was to use a cheap one as a blocker. This required micro (in the moving units sense) because pathfinding was poor and you had to be constantly reassigning both squad and vehicle to make sure they moved in tandem without getting stuck or having your unit poke out.

Reload speed is a part of attack speed, as I understand it (from the tuning pack attributes, at least). A unit’s overall attack speed is made up of various actual unit attribute values, including things like wind-up.

If the developers claim an exploit, I don’t think they’d do that lightly. Otherwise, on the other end of the scale, we’ll have people claiming the developers said it was an exploit and it becomes a battle over words and semantics.

You disagree with the change (presumably). You can justify it without trying to suggest what a developer’s perspective may be (even if you are one yourself, even as I am one myself, albeit on not AoE IV).

Another way to phrase it would be “they removed an exploit that was increasing the effectiveness of a particular scenario beyond what was intended”.

If that is truly removing enough micro depth from the game that it lessens gameplay, and that argument is heard by the devs, I would expect for them to make up for this in other areas. I wouldn’t expect a revert of what they consider an exploit. I don’t think the discussion is therefore without use (opinions aggregated are data for the devs), but I do think there needs to be recognition that this is considered an exploit regardless of its arguable impact on gameplay depth, and no amount anecdotal unpopularity is going to change that fact.

As an aside on siege towers, I have no smart ideas but I think something needs to be done to make them more attractive. Rams have gotten a lot of (deserved) attention, but Siege Towers seem to have been left in the cold a bit.

16

This change was totally needed.

It was not very hard to do, but it was extremely annoying to deal with.

It was also just silly, units popping out, firing instantly and popping back in before return fire could even reach them.

I think the comparison to other games falls flat and is irrelevant.

If the tower had a mechanic where units could shoot out of it, then sure it would at least make sense. Need to be careful though or you’ll create the most toxic tower rush strategy ever.

2 Likes
17

Some are trying to make it about micro, but the actual problem was the fact you could shoot while denying the opponent the chance of shooting back. If the Rams or Siege Towers aren’t supposed to have garrison arrows, then this shouldn’t be a thing either. And I personally care very little if people who draw enjoyment out of abusing such things move on to other games.

18

If you scouted an opponent building an archery range would you not have built a stable in response? If they have accompanying spearman, doesn’t that mean they spent resources on an extra production building? If they are doing this doesn’t it mean they also invested 200 wood?

It’s a strategy that is easy to counter and has little payoff. There are techniques in this game with far greater impact, such as the knight charge exploit, that would stay.

I don’t really understand the argument that says this should not exist, and the idea that this exploit is too much but others are not questionable is laughable at best.

Mostly because we’re talking about milliseconds.

19

The concept of units taking zero damage, but inflicting damage, is a clear benefit to the side of the person able to execute the concept. To that end, there is no risk reward, it’s just clear reward. The only requirement is the mechanical ability to execute it.

The existence of other exploits don’t void the fact that this one was one.

We can also disagree over how it was fixed, maybe. Maybe this was an easier way to address the exploit than handling invulnerability while garrisoning. We may never know. But we need to move past the concept of this being considered an exploit (which is why people think that it shouldn’t exist).

Should the developers fix no bugs, because other bugs exist in the game? Should the developers balance no units, because they’re not targeting every single imbalanced unit at the same time? Do you not see the issue in trying to justify this exploit simply because others exist?

1 Like
20

I can see why people have that issue, and why you bring it up.

The thing is, I don’t see it as a logical thought process.

I see you using the word exploit, but I think you’re keeping a firm hold on the concept of exploit being synonymous with illegitimate or unfair.

I don’t see a need to define it for you again, but that isn’t the case here. Negating damage by using garrison is an intended feature of the game. The only thing that was altered was adding a short delay to units firing when leaving siege units only.

There are no changes in the patch when using this technique with buildings.

So yes, with all of that being said it feels like the argument that says “this is illegitimate, this is unfair” is not based on a logical analysis of the situation.

This may shock some, but micro techniques are executed by players who have a high level of knowledge and skill. It may seem unfair if you are not able to recreate this… but that is something that defines the gap in skill/knowledge between players.

The strategy is not impervious to counterplay. The strategy requires a great deal of focus and APM to execute fluidly.

It isn’t a cheat code.