One of the big changes in AoE3 was the introduction of NR40 forced by the game in the warchiefs expansion. Some players still prefer this type of game. I hope we can have this again on AoE4
Other than that the option for other rules like:
No warships
Half-map
No-blockade (if hometown still exists)
Ban civilizations (in other to avoid op civs)
What you guys think? and other suggestions for NR games options
Iād personally like to see No Rush added to AOE4ā¦ I know some players are die hard competitive and they believe no rush isnāt funā¦ but I personally like No Rush because it creates a more fun experience for everybody.
Similar to CIV5 It would be nice to also ban certain civs in AOE4 as well
hello, I think the treaties include a new gaming perspective. Itās like seeing the game from another point of view: surely it has enjoyed many players in AoE3, and I hope there is even in AoE4!
As far as Iām concerned, having played both Rush and No Rush, I understood much more about the units, being able to exploit the knowledge of both game modes!
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to play
@bubble said:
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to play
I guess it just dependsā¦ I was fairly good at the game but sometimes preferred no rush to build up my economyā¦ more fun that way.
@bubble said:
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to play
believing the treaty is fun because it allows you to fully exploit the capabilities of your army and your faction.
First of all you have to be very good at growing economies over time, and it is not easy: getting with the French / English / German to a scoring economy over 2000 is something they do not know how to do it all. With the Japanese coming near 1900ās economy at the end of 40 minutes, itās not easy!
Having done this, you now need to find the right combination of units that can scorch the combination of opposing units, and at the same time do not collapse economics. One game can take 4 hours!
The treaty is not for noobs. Who knows how to play well learned learns much faster to play rush, than the player rush to play no rush 40!
I am all for gadgets and stuff, so I suppose allowing people to agree to set an artificial treaty time is fine. but I am happy AoEO did not have such a feature, because I think forcing me to have to figure out how to deal with the Babylonian Age 1 spearman rush made me a better player.
A no rush or treaty option would be great. Sometimes your up against certain players (cough my brother cough) that loves cheese tactics and rushes and always forces me to play heavily early game focused!
Instead of time related NR could also be age related. For very old players with a slow mouse hand or people with disabilities. Also you could use it as a tactic to age slowly and go full on economy and defense.
@āAndy Pā said:
I am all for gadgets and stuff, so I suppose allowing people to agree to set an artificial treaty time is fine. but I am happy AoEO did not have such a feature, because I think forcing me to have to figure out how to deal with the Babylonian Age 1 spearman rush made me a better player.
Good old memories. 
AOEO had some of the best training missions you couldnāt find in any other AOE RTS. It has some very challenging single and multiplayer coop missions. At low level try to completely finish off the āHere they come (again)!ā missions. You will learn how to use towers for defense and attack, surrounding your enemy and getting closer step by step. Itās fighting against the AIās spawning rate, although they donāt come to attack you anymore. Actually itās a glitch in the game, because the mission is done already. You could let it run for days to gain a lot free extra XP points.
I would love to see more of that in AOE4. Like multiplayer coop missions for 2/4 players. Also I like the ability to wear custom gear and develop weapon upgrades, recipes etcetera. The game was much more CIV alike at certain points, which I found very entertaining. Also you could turn missions around for the multiplayer coop gameplay part, play the defense role or the attacker role.
@PCS70 said:
I would love to see more of that in AOE4. Like multiplayer coop missions for 2/4 players. Also I like the ability to wear custom gear and develop weapon upgrades, recipes etcetera. The game was much more CIV alike at certain points, which I found very entertaining. Also you could turn missions around for the multiplayer coop gameplay part, play the defense role or the attacker role.
AoEO is the best game in the series, and it is a shame that so few people played it and many of those who did only played it when it was first released and not after the Developers finally got the game into fighting shape.
I agree that the gear/weapons/trade/crafting side of the game was phenomenal. However, collectible upgrades like those only work in certain places. (And in those places, they work really well.) But competitive PvP simply has no room for it, at least in my experience.
Once the Devs froze gear upgrades in PvP matches, AoEO PvP became easily the best PvP experience in any AoE game ever. The civs are amazing and perfect complements for each other. The strategy is deep and complex.
The game is super smooth. The controls are intuitive. Itās brilliant. And it was still awesome to be able to hunt gear for PvE matches. And lord knows lots of players spent most or all of their time doing just that.
So in looking forward, the quandry is how an AoE4 should approach this area. Avoid gear and crafting and upgrades completely, such as in AoE2? (If so, would PvE players hunt something else like vanity gear/home city decorations? Or would they truly receive nothing, like in AoE2?) Have some kind of gear system like in AoEO PvE? Something else entirely?
@āAndy Pā said:
So in looking forward, the quandry is how an AoE4 should approach this area. Avoid gear and crafting and upgrades completely, such as in AoE2? (If so, would PvE players hunt something else like vanity gear/home city decorations? Or would they truly receive nothing, like in AoE2?) Have some kind of gear system like in AoEO PvE? Something else entirely?
They could combine this with the shipments mechanism from AOE3 e.g., only in this case you create your own shipments in your home cities through production and recipes, or buy them from stores instead of a steady deck of cards, or earn them through in game loot by playing the single player or coop missions.
Another example. Every CIV has different and multiple monuments (wonders) in their age, so there also could be multiple wonders in one civilisation to be able to be build. Every wonder you earned or produced and is standing in your home city should be available for being used in game as well. For economy training a mission like build (and protect) this number of wonders within a certain time would be very entertaining.
And of course it should all be optional like the No Rush / Age Rush option for PvP/PvE play.
I do agree that keeping classic gameplay available is very important for people who donāt live the game but just want to play it without the hassle of leveling up.
Looking forward to AOE4 release already.
if there is one thing I DO NOT wish for AoE 4 is just the system of wearing customizable weapons / armor, found here and in the game maps. Or worse, create recipes between materials and produce other goods ā¦ what unbearable for an AoE franchise game. The idea for it was cute, but it could not be called AoE online! It had to be named with another name !!! AoE online did not like the old fans, but not because it was not a valid game ā¦ but just because it was called AoE. AoEās style is another one (and AoE3 is criticized by many because with the mother-ship shipping cards, it differed from the series ā¦ and yet the game is a great game, I like it very much), letās figure out the new mechanics of AoE online !!!
I have spent untold thousands of hours playing Age of Empires games since 1998. I can assure you that being an old fan (or a true Scotsman, for that matter) has absolutely no bearing on whether we liked AoEO.
I believe that there should be an option for NR. Personally Iād like to be able to set a specific time between 1 and 60 minutes. I donāt think a feature like that would be too much to ask for. Add a slider feature or the ability to simply type in a number from 1 to 60 to indicate how many minutes the treaty would last for.
Iām personally a huge fan of the NR style. Sure I enjoy playing rush from time to time but Iāve always enjoyed massive battles, games like Total War for example, and playing NR allows all players to build up an effective economy to wage a massive war. Managing a massive economy while trying to push into your opponents base is quite challenging. My buddy and I frequently play 2 vs 6 expert comps and itās loads of fun trying to defend against their continued onslaught and as previously mentioned when you play against some players the matches can go on for hours and hours. I enjoy table top games like WarHammer: Age of Sigmar so if a game of AoE takes 3 or 4 hours to finish Iām completely fine with that.
Also AoE:O was actually quite a fun game to play in my opinion. I loved equipping gear for my individual units and unlocking better gear for them. I loved building a āHome Cityā so to speak and having friends visit. My only gripes were that it was a touch too cartoony for my liking but it wasnāt a deal breaker and at least when my buddies and I played we could only do 2 vs 2 so the three of us could never be on the same team at the same time which was a huge buzzkill. Other than that it was a blast.
@bubble said:
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to play
bad? did you ever play a high-level treaty game nr40 (2400+ elo).the micromanagement 100+units are same time while taking care of constant management of english cows so your eco doesnt get to zero while trying create flanks to push the enemy or drain their eco faster than yours its absurd.
Some of these matches can have more than 2hrs of intense fighting after the end of the treaty where you need keep the focus all the time. I had a 5hrs match once
@CostlierParrot3 said:
@bubble said:
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to playbelieving the treaty is fun because it allows you to fully exploit the capabilities of your army and your faction.
First of all you have to be very good at growing economies over time, and it is not easy: getting with the French / English / German to a scoring economy over 2000 is something they do not know how to do it all. With the Japanese coming near 1900ās economy at the end of 40 minutes, itās not easy!
Having done this, you now need to find the right combination of units that can scorch the combination of opposing units, and at the same time do not collapse economics. One game can take 4 hours!
The treaty is not for noobs. Who knows how to play well learned learns much faster to play rush, than the player rush to play no rush 40!
france/england/germany can get easily to 2500+ while iroquis could get 3000+ in multiplayers games
vs bot you can easliy get to 4000 with france, since no villagers lag on mills.
@Ketoth said:
@bubble said:
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to playbad? did you ever play a high-level treaty game nr40 (2400+ elo).the micromanagement 100+units are same time while taking care of constant management of english cows so your eco doesnt get to zero while trying create flanks to push the enemy or drain their eco faster than yours its absurd.
Some of these matches can have more than 2hrs of intense fighting after the end of the treaty where you need keep the focus all the time. I had a 5hrs match once@CostlierParrot3 said:
@bubble said:
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to playbelieving the treaty is fun because it allows you to fully exploit the capabilities of your army and your faction.
First of all you have to be very good at growing economies over time, and it is not easy: getting with the French / English / German to a scoring economy over 2000 is something they do not know how to do it all. With the Japanese coming near 1900ās economy at the end of 40 minutes, itās not easy!
Having done this, you now need to find the right combination of units that can scorch the combination of opposing units, and at the same time do not collapse economics. One game can take 4 hours!
The treaty is not for noobs. Who knows how to play well learned learns much faster to play rush, than the player rush to play no rush 40!france/england/germany can get easily to 2500+ while iroquis could get 3000+ in multiplayers games
vs bot you can easliy get to 4000 with france, since no villagers lag on mills.
you have a screenshot? just above 2000 ok, (2300, 2400 ā¦) but 3000 no Iāve ever seen in my long career of no rush.
Its so easy to win in Treaty if you have more than 60 APM (sadly most if not all treaty players have 6 APM).
Saying that building an economy for 40 minutes **_unharrased _**is hard is just absurd. Its not hard, you are so bad it seems hard.
There have been multiple Supremacy Players who have proven that treaty is an easy gamemode.
They start playing treaty and in less than a month they are top players who can win a treaty tourney. Iāve never seen a single Treaty player who has been above Major in Supremacy while there have been multiple Supremacy Players who have Been Colonels/Brigadiers?Major Generals in Treaty just by playing for a month.
From what i know, you can do the same in Supremacy as in Treaty with a small difference (you actually need to be able to micro and macro at the same time to reach the later stages of the game).
This sounds more like something I can imagine having in a non-competitive custom lobby rather than a rated/competitive mode. Not that I would be opposed if there was some sort of rated treaty/no rush, just doubtful it will come to fruition. I have not really encountered an RTS game where this was a big thing (I never played AoE3 so if it was a big thing there then please excuse me).
The only real disadvantage to having various modes for competitive play is that it can spread out the playerbase a bit too thin, especially when team games are added to every various mode of play, but hey, if there is a big enough call for it then why not I guess.
@bubble said:
treaty isnt hard, u just edit the triggers to set a timer with 50 minutes no fighting. its fun if ur bad at the game, and dont know how to play. gets boring quickly if u do know how to play
LOL. Clearly a āproā guy here. Also whatās wrong with being a ācasualā player?