The aoe wiki does not consider it a UU because it is a unit that all civs have…the Ghulam replaces the MAA and yes it is a unique unit…
Ghulam looking like just another MAA is no fun.
Makes them feel like it too. Their special mechanic is indistinguishable from a singular attack, it actually might as well just be a MAA +. I know it is ahistoric but, they could’ve at the very least given them two blades to wield.
At least then the multiattack would’ve looked, felt different. This is without mentioning how despite how much it increases their damage, multiattack is probably the worst thing you can give a melee unit that has pathing issues with minimal attack range. Ghulams may in a vacuum deal more damage, but due to having lower damage per attack, and the variance of pathing and repositioning, they lose out more than they should.
The Zhugenu doesn’t suffer from this as ranged units can guarantee every shot; on top of which, the Zhugenu shoots three times, making upgrades multiply even more times. Ultimately, the Ghulam feels kind of lazy designwise, but also, it has been implemented in a very broken way.
This is without mentioning the simple fact that many of the mechanics recently released feels like they are limited in terms of resources. What do I mean by this?
Check out the last few patches. Anything “new”, already existed in one form or another. New assets like the King were already there, Ghulams, English Units, Keshiks. The fact that a King is wielding a Zweihander instead of an appropriate weapon, the fact that Rus Knights are wielding Poleaxes.
It all feels like there is 2 programmers who have been tasked to make new mechanics for existing assets. Ask yourself, why is the Ghulam so shittly implemented? No interesting, special animations? No new assets? It basically looks like it already did? This can be put into place by singular individuals.
So what does this tell me? It makes me think that these mechanics COULD have been more inventive and fun. But, because it seemingly looks like there is no one to make any actual animations, 3D models for these designs, that the people implementing these units are heavily limited as to what mechanics they can create, as they can only pull from an existing pile of assets. You have to wonder why there isn’t a “NEW” UU that has a whip or something. Answer is because no one is there to make the assets.
I guess it does spice up the game a little. But, it stinks of inproper development. Can someone come out and explain if Microsoft is not paying Relic enough, or is it the case that Relic is pocketing money while putting in minimal effort?
2 Likes
100% agree with you
On top of that I think this tree that gives 1 villager gather speed is the most random idea someone can implement. I can see if you try to find something on the map which boost whole economy but going out with one villagers just to get one random tree that boost this villager gather speed is total joke to me.
Imagine having time to design this tree and the stupid idea behind it rather than actually working on the current civilizations.
When I first start playin the game I pick HRE because I imagine how I play with priest which I control and I have to choose between healing aura, speed aura, dmg or protection aura. I imagine my knights have trample and my MAA can form shield wall etc.
After that I pick delhi.
Imidiately wanted to try elephant because I expected them to be some kind of beast who can stomp, do splash dmg.
Abassid I though because they have convert ability I was asuming that they will be focus, mind control, debuff oriented civ etc.
Sadly everything is totally the same .
1 Like
This. Ideally you have a few civs that enable so much variation that they tackle replayability for a very long time. Civs don’t have to be as varying as in WC3 or SC2 but making the already existing ones more different by adding more special mechanics and special units would already tackle replayability. Also, since AoE4 civs are that different compared to AoE2 civs I see massive balance problems on the horizon if devs/the community aims for 20 or 30 civs.
1 Like
My opinion is that everything works on a time budget. Look at what we got in Season 5. There are a ton of substantial updates to various parts of the game, from mod tooling (pretty low level stuff, but there have been a bunch of changes), (out of game) UI enhancements, new maps, the terrain rendering and shadow / AO revisions, and so on.
This isn’t to say more is bad, or anything like that. This is me saying there is a specific amount of time they have to work on any seasonal update (bearing in mind we also get smaller patches throughout the season), and while it could be true they have limited animator or 3D resource generally, and making code changes to establish viability is a more effective return on cost than modeling and animating a new unit only to find out it just isn’t working.
Take the Ghulam for example, I haven’t seen many opinions that it isn’t performing as-expected (not that I’m qualified to judge personally). Regardless if the double strike is indeed conceptually flawed like you’re saying, that would be wasted effort (to do whatever 3D improvements you feel would feel appropriate). What if they have to revert or replace the double strike (I mean, I’m hoping not, but hypothetically)?
If they had more resource, could they animate it and model it regardless? Yes. We have the Wildman and the Dragon Turtle. They’re something neat, with a minor gameplay effect, that is separate to developing UUs and their ongoing impact on gameplay.
So bearing in mind a fixed resource (time, nevermind anything else): would you prefer for these UUs to only be released when they have whatever visual flourish you feel would sell them / make them feel better, or would you prefer to have them as soon as they’re mechanically-ready (assuming it doesn’t look silly, like throwing 100 knives a minute to simulate a rotary cannon kind of silly)?
I lean the latter, though obviously I’d be happy with the former.
(personal note / bias: this reflects my own experience with software development, where both prototyping + finalising the functionality of a feature is nearly-always more important - and even a contractual obligation - vs. resolving all outstanding UI issues that come up as a result of the implementation)
As far as I’m concerned, Age IV deserves all the resource it can get. And more communication from the devs about the changes they make (and are going to make), would be helpful too.
Well I dont think AOE WIKI decides which unit is unique.
The upgrade is unique and makes the unit unique.
This is enough evidence that the HRE MAA is a unique unit.
“Civs don’t have to be as varying as in WC3 or SC2”.
Well, based on the comments of several users here, it does not seem so.
If AoE4 is going to release annual DLCs (I prefer 1 civ every 6 months), the asymmetry can’t be that high.
Users asking for 7-8 unique units (as if that would make it fun) and multiple mechanics per civ, but then the balance won’t be able to control everything, OP civs will be difficult to balance (the problem will increase with more number of civs) and goodbye gaming experience for players having to play against that OP civilization.
It may have unique technologies, but that doesn’t make it unique because it’s an MAA and all civs have it, it’s like you telling me that the English archer that is created from the Council Hall is unique because it comes from there… unique unit It is a unit that only has a single civ and it is not a generic unit such as the MAA in this case…
So with 5 UU per civ and 25 civs in terms of representation the game will be fine…you would have:
Europe: English, French, HRE, Rus and Ottomans (and Poland and Hungary in the Mongol campaign and Lithuania in the Rus campaign)…you can add Byzantium (527-1453), Castile (711-1558) and Portugal (1139- 1580)/Venice (697-1489) as naval civ…
Asia: Abbasids (Middle East), Delhi (India), Mongols (Central Asia) and China…you can add Cholas (848-1279), Japanese (794-1615), Burmese (849-1581) and Khmer (802- 1431)…
Africa: so far it’s only the Malians…you can add Berbers (744-1554), Ethiopians (1270-1543) and Shonas (1000-1450)
America: Haudenosaunee (1142-1580), Anasazis (900-1540), Aztecs (1325-1521) and Incas (1438-1532)…
1 Like
I think you have my statement a bit backwards. The point was that I think these recent additions to the game are inherently limited, design included. So my thought process is essentially guessing that had they had access to more visual resources, the designers themselves would not be so limited in designing mechanics.
Look at how nothing that was added requires a new form of animation or model. Heal on attack by Keshik. Extra attack on Ghulam. AoE heal on King. While these mechanics are generic and somewhat staples in these types of games, the Ghulam specifically gives me the feeling that the outright limited design is directly because they can’t get innovative with it.
As per my statement, why is there no whip unit? This is not something that I am actually asking, but consider how many “new” units have been added that ACTUALLY are “unique” and stand out?
I have experience in developing as well, and the reason I am reacting to these quirks is, it reminds me a lot of prototyping as you’ve put it. People picked on the King months ago for the inaccuracy of the Zweihander, and many expressed in rebuttal that it just had not gotten its model yet. Maybe that is the case still, how long would we have to wait to know? I highly suspect that there is no golden pony on the horizon. The King we got is what will stay, and the Ghulam that now lurks in the game will forever remain.
Not to beat a dead horse, but you do know about the chickens, right? There was a few odd patches of them animating clothing on some buildings in the game; great stuff. But, they just seem generally years behind on actual visual development of the game–I do not expect any new Ghulam assets in the next decade, and that is not for the lack of wanting it to be a thing.
Brother, looks like you want to play aoe 2.
I advice you to go check it, there are 40+ civs that are basically the same, you would have a blast there !
1 Like
What I want is for the game not to get out of control in the balance and an asymmetry between AoE3 and AoE2 is the best choice imo (where some civilizations can be very different like Mali, but others something more similar).
Others are welcome to continue playing AoE3 if they wish (I do sometimes).
If mali is equivalent for “very different” than I don’t know what to say…
1 Like
If they add 1-2 civs per year while keeping the current asymmetry level I honestly doubt that it will be possible to balance the game with 20,30 or more civs. I have never played AoE3 and just read that it has 22 civs that are more asymmetrical than the AoE4 ones. However, looking at the size of AoE3’s competitive scene I’d highly doubt that possible balance issues are getting fully exploited over there.
2 Likes
Ahh, I see. Yeah that makes sense.
I mean, you could be completely right. Or the answer could be somewhere inbetween (personnel in gamesdev projects are notoriously transient, they kept on getting moved around to wherever they’re needed most), or wherever. I don’t know. But I see the argument, and while I personally don’t agree, it’s more than reasonable.
The chickens, the horses, and so on, yup. I’ll fully admit, I was a lot less hopeful before the S5 update. And maybe the new terrain renderer and whatnot is a last-gap thing engineered for the console release, I don’t know (I say that a lot). But it has me very hopeful that this isn’t the end of these kinds of improvements, even if the list they have to work through is a mile long.
1 Like
Despite the very small number of players in the competitive scene, broken builds were (and are) abused.
Only the name is MAA, the upgrade is unique.
You are just saying bcse it is MAA, it is not a unique unit with its unique technology.
That is just wrong.
If names make any unit a unique unit, then it is nonsense.
To the balance part I agree.
Aoe3 DE has WAAYYYYYY too many civs and different mercenaries and map specific natives.
Also, units like abus destroy the game balance (for team) pretty much.
When my friend and me played aoe3 DE kind of actively for a short amount of time, before the USA DLC.
At around 1700-2000 elo (that’s where we played), you’d see major cheese more than 90% of the time.
Best example was abus + inca pike timed push.
It was kind of impossible to balance the game for that.
The civs have big weaknesses and strengths, which are not a real problem for 1v1, because it evens out.
When it comes to team ranked, these things break the game, because you can dodge the weaknesses.
Abus are shredding any kind of infantry, being light infantry themselves, while shredding enemy light infantry at the same time. Which is ok for 1v1, because Ottos (used to) lack potent anti cav age2 with high multipliers.
In team matches you can just dodge that weakness by adding in ally musketeers with high multipliers, which creates an age2 deathball with good siege and incredible wiping potential for almost any army.
Since there are more than 20 civs, you can find very specific combinations which are just synergizing way too well and it takes a good amount of time before this can be patched individually.
If aoe4 keeps bringing in civs at the current rate, it will soon become the same struggle here.
Though tbh, it actually doesn’t matter, because aoe4 is already a destroyed game since release, it never reached the final state, still being alpha/beta.
The game can not be fixed, as it has never been finished.
Aoe3 on the other hand, was a finished and polished game.
Aoe3DE was incredible in the moment right before the USA DLC came out.
Imho this couldn’t be any more wrong. Yes, on surface, it seems like they’re “the same” because all civs follow the same design principle of having 2 UTs and 1-3 UUs but if you look at the nuances that define them, you’d notice how they’re anything but the same.
Following that logic Chess sides are also very asymmetrical.
One side can end the game in 2 turns other can not.
On side can force aggressiveness so the others side has to stepped back.
Horses and other figures can be pushed faster on the opposite side of the board as white, giving them nuance strategies, forcing opponent to make mistakes.
If this is your idea of asymmetrical then I vote only one civ to be in the game.
Maybe will be too asymmetrical again, because someone can open horses and other one can open archers.
Phoh, everything is so diverse with so much depth… go figure
Uhm, my main point here is that this “AoE 2 civs are basically the same” simply isn’t right. The civs just don’t convolute that many bonusses into one civ like AoE 4 does. The differences in AoE 2’s civs are more subtle, but still noticable.
On AoE Stats you can even look up each civ and noticed how their Win Rate vs Gametime varies.