As a curiosity, I’ll tell you that at first, I was not in favor of this topic. In fact, in the survey that was conducted months ago about whether the settlement system should be preserved, I voted in favor without much thought.
But someone made me see that it was better this way, and I changed my opinion
I didn’t say that ‘anyone who opposes is a classicist.’ I said that a large part of the critics of this mechanic use the ‘maintain the classic’ argument as their main point, not that there are no other arguments. Please, I would appreciate it if you read what I say carefully before making misinterpretations
I YES have seen many people oppose increasing the population. In fact, I once made a post on Reddit about the population, and I only got a 60% upvote rate (so 40% opposed) and I was discussing in the comments with many people who believed 'that it was part of the essence of the game".
You underestimate how conservative the audience of something can be. And yes, the most common argument against this mechanic was ‘maintain the classic,’ though that doesn’t mean there aren’t other arguments
There is a wide variety of bonuses and mechanics, and probably more than one interacts inappropriately with the ‘village centers.’ This means addressing each case individually and balancing them based on the needs of each faction
Mate, not gonna get into a tit-for-tat, I was just bringing up some points that I found a bit derogatorily to the opinions of others.
I wasn’t accusing you of manipulating. If you don’t participate in polls, fair enough. A poll was just a suggestion because any devs reading this topic re. Village centres would be able to see which was the wind was blowing.
Second, if you’ve changed your opinion on this topic (re. In favour of not changing vs changing to village settlements), I tip my cap as being open to change. I too have slowly come to warm to certain ideas I was initially obstinate about. This is something I feel is strong about the AOM community, open to discussing and changing opinions based on rational and un accusatory debate. So good on ya pal.
Thirdly, I don’t think I misinterpreted what you said - if I have I apologise. If you actually look back at what you said you didn’t mention that other arguments against this could be valid. You did say “a good part of the detractors base their opinion exclusively on nostalgia and “keep the classic”. You then went on to say re holding a referendum that “most changes introduced in AOMR would be denied”. I construed this as calling people who oppose some changes AOM Classicists.
If you meant otherwise then I apologise, I only responded to what I saw.
But by-the-by, this is acknowledge is detailing the thread so I’m going to cease now and continue with talking about village centres. I apologise if I misinterpreted but hope that you get my point about not just calling out people who don’t like certain changes that you vouched for as not wanting ANY changes. Anyway, on with the topic!
Another one who can take advantage with Village Centers is Hades who has defensive advantages with more range on buildings and archers as well as Sentinels God power that can be used on starting Town Center and can get Hades Shades spawning from Temples when losing units in defense. Defense boom can be strong with him.
The more I am thinking about and posting in here the more and more I hate Village Centers.
Being a classicist isn’t necessarily a bad thing; the AoM community is classicist, but ALL communities are.
One problem we have here is that AoM Retold is halfway between AoM DE and AoM II (and encompasses both options, as we’re not going to have an AoM DE in the future nor an AoM II for the next 20 years). So you have the classicist community that wants their classic game with a ‘facelift’ and minimal changes, and the community (which includes me) that seeks gameplay improvements more akin to AoM II.
When I say that a good portion of the detractors use the ‘keep the classic’ argument, I’m not insulting them. I’m merely pointing out that their argument is based on nostalgia and doesn’t aim to optimize the game. However, I have encountered critics of this mechanic who presented other arguments, and I have never said that everyone is a classicist (which, I insist, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, even though it directly clashes with my interests regarding the game which I want to see better integrated into a new generation)
Fair point and cheers for clearing up what you meant. We’re debating over the internet so much gets lost in translation after all.
But as I said, this is detracting from the topic of the thread so let’s go back to that.
It’s a fine balance between face lifting the original and, as you say, leaning towards an AOM2 for a newer generation. As you’ve probably figured I myself fall into the former half of wanting more of a facelift than a “sequel” (to simplify the concept). The game has already had a substantial change to the way it plays with the intro of reusable GP’s, favour and pop cap removed, a complete overhaul of civ bonuses and even drastic changes to many myth units. If the devs want to maintain that balance between both camps, some of the more unnecessary changes should be sacrificed. IMO this includes village settlements. I think they change the game enough to become a cheese, but not so much as to be a new core mechanic, and are therefore unnecessary.
Having said that, I doubt they’ll be removed and this isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on. If they stay, so be it, I won’t complain. There are other changes that I will plant my banner in more firmly about. But that’s just me
This also happens with AOE-3, where you cannot build a gate/wall over the trade route, and many want it to stay that way simply because it has always been that way.
Well, there is only one community(DOTA2) that expects and enjoys sweeping changes. Which is really sad, because RTS genre needs such game to actually evolve and iterate to find better design… People are too afraid of changes without ever trying them enough to form opinion. What is wirst RTS community has habit of listening to content creators without thinking at all…
Big changes are IMHO good for MP games, they need them periodically to keep being fresh. Maybe DOTA way is not best, but periodically introducing gamemodes with potential ideas for future changes to main game would do a lot. If players experienced different ideas, they would easily accept bigger changes…becoming pernament additions to game
That is mostly for balance reasons. Making trade routes harder to defend and making Trade Monopoly victory harder too.
That is not true, because the natives also count for the monopoly. While I understand that in the early stages of the game route TPs cannot be fenced off to prevent abuse and allow raiding, that is not exactly the reason why walls are not allowed on the route.
I don’t want to deviate from the topic, so I leave you this thread in case you want to give your opinion.
Trade routes (Rework) 🚂🚋🚋
I’m in favour of gates over trade routs as well as general improvements to Trade Routes too.
Just saying that there are actual gameplay reasons and not just wanting to keep things classic.