What would you like to see in Myth Retold?

Age of Mythology: Retold Discussion
317

Don’t make the new civilizations too different! It takes a lot for a new or a returning player to learn multiple different economies and unit types that differ a huge amount from the other ones.

Having a standard way of playing the basics of each civilization is good, and I understand that to a large extent this is already true of AoM. The biggest differences being that norse villagers are unablento build and that atlanteans have very different villagers from the other civs. I think this should be changed. Norse villagers should also be able to build and atlanteans should have regular villagers imo. I will give you an example of why for each:

If you play a 3v3+ team game on Anatolia and you get the middle position as Atlantean, you are at a big disadvantage because you can’t go build a dock and gather resources at the start. While other civs would send 1 villager and setting up the economy at home, atlantean effectively sends 3 to the dock or waits for the next villager to train.

As norse if you are attacking and someone earthquakes your home base you can’t rebuild it with villagers like every other civ can, making some god powers a lot more effective on Norse. Also norse builders effectively cost more population, which is unfair in the late game imo. Another problem with this is that you can’t really choose certain army compositions as norse because of this. You can’t go pure cavalry, myth units and siege, because then you can’t build anything.

Some of the human troops in AoM are pretty bad too. Peltasts are unusable, slingers and turma are horrible after 10 minutes in to the games katapeltes are pure counter cavalry, but are too slow to deal with them and just die to anything else they come across.

Myth units you can go crazy with imo, since they are unique and should be given unique features, abilities and strenghts.

A few of the myth units are pretty bad, and should be worked on. For example the minotaur and the cyclops can’t do anything if you move right before their special gets off. Son of Osiris has the same problem at long range. The Troll, the Wadjet and the Phoenix are underpowered and the Scarab needs Eclipse to be useful. The one hit knockout myth units should be equally fast (the Mummy, the Lampades, the Medusa).

Also here is a video that you might be interested in:

It’s a comparison between AoE2 and AoE3. It’s not directly related to AoM, but there are some things that you can get ideas from when working on AoM Retold.

1 Like
318

Agree with everything and very valid points with good explanation!

Also finally some who also agreed that some myth units are too weak especially Wadjet and trolls (I personally would change their attack anyway and would make troll an heroic age myth unit if I could).

I understand that some ppl what drastic different civs but there are still enough options to make feel every civs unique with certain strengths and weaknesses it shouldn’t be regarding the base stuff like most part of economics. I mean it’s already more unique that Egypt needs more gold than other civs to be effective and I think every civ should have one military who they are really good with like in AoE were e.g. France has strong cavalry, HRE has strong infantry etc. But it’s already odd that e.g. Egypts often just don’t really use or even try to completely skip infantry and just rush heroic to build Migdol units and just sometimes built barracks for axeman. and you just built and that Atlanteans can nearly skip Counter-barracks cause all units there are pretty bad. Most just build counter-barracks for a very early Turma-Rush but Turma fall of hard quite quickly relatively similar to Raiding cavalry from Norse who also need a buff in my opinion.

1 Like
319

Why peaple want so hard make aoe2 in every aoe they play.

AoM is design to have few but very different civ (more like SC or War3)

11 Likes
320

Yes, most likely the new civs are like those of aoe 3, but set in antiquity and with powers (aka the Chinese and the Aztecs)…

321

Excuse me but when I recall correctly Zerg, Protoss and Terrans all farmed the same resources all with very similar workers who all built buildings just only in different styles which would be hard to implement in the style AoM has cause it’s neither sci-fi nor high fantasy.
Speaking of high fantasy even Warcraft3 had workers for humans and orcs, spirits for elves which is more unique and for undead summoners or something. I think only undead really felt more different here.

So if you meant anything else except this then please explain why you took these two examples

322

SC et WC have a few amount of civ/race but very different, like AoM and not like AoE2.

2 Likes
323

Yes, AoM is not like AoE 2, but like all RTS after WC3…

324

I can’t even begin to describe how much I disagree with this post, as far as the civs comment at least. The game you are describing is not AoM. If you want AoE2, I encourage you to stick to that game. Wildly different civs is one of the main things that makes AoM what it is. If the devs adopt this, they will immediately alienate a huge part of the current player base.

4 Likes
325

Well said! All civs must be unique

1 Like
326

The only thing I would make the same for all civs is how they collect faith. They were already running out of ideas for that by the time of The Titans.

327

Interesting. That’s the only thing i would really change but would make more “interactive” - and not like Atlanteans who gain favour with towncenters which is way too passive and “uncontrollable”.

I think every civ should have villagers/citizens. These should LOOK as different as possible and maybe have unique ones like dwarves for Norse who excel in a certain thing like mining or hunting etc. But they should all be able to do the basic things like farming, building and gaming favour in one way (like praying) or another (like sacrificing) - and not via buildings (or all via buildings then even i personally think it’s not interactive enough)

The drastic unique stuff like Norse has for example make them really strong in one particular thing but in way more worser than others. Of course it can be really unique and cool but then all other civs have to be balanced around it which means every civ should have one thing they are superior and lack more drastically in other things. I don’t see such a drastic trade off for Greek and especially Egypt. But maybe I am wrong here who knows open for feedback here.

328

I don’t really like the Atlantean villager. I think it’s high cost is annoying, and the donkeys they keep bringing along make them look silly. Like they are some kind of, IDK, logistic unit that brings stuff from A to B, like a caravan or something. Them to be villagers, and having them in such small numbers, and all with their own donkey, it breaks immersion for me.
When I build a Base with the norse, or the greeks, or the egyptians, heck even the chinese, it somehow does look like a town in a sense. With the Atlanteans not so much, and I feel like that is mostly because of the atlantean villager. Because they aren’t as many and they don’t carry stuff from the mine/field/tree to the town center or the dropoff building or the ox cart. Those are, however, small nitpicks about the Atlanteans. There are more, not related to the villagers. For example, I don’t think the Llama is the best choice for the atlantean caravan animal. There’s a mod that changes them into dwarf elephants, and I think that’s an improvement.
What I’d like to see fixed is pre calamity atlanteans basically being greeks, and post calamity atlanteans being completely different. From a technology, architecture, language, even ethnicity standpoint. And all those changes happen in 10 years. Either make post calamity atlanteans look and sound more like greeks, make pre calamity atlanteans look and sound more like post calamity atlanteans, or a mix of both.

I don’t mind norse gatherers not being able to build. I don’t mind leaving behind 2 or 3 ulfsarks for that.
I have different nitpicks about the norse. They can convert gatherers into ulfsarks. I think that’s a great idea. But why aren’t there female and dwarf versions of ulfsarks? If I change a female gatherer or a dwarf into an ulfsark, they don’t turn into female or smaller ulfsarks. For the Ragnarök hero, those variations do exist, but they are assigned randomly, not according to what type of gatherer they previously were.
That’s something I’d like to see fixed.

What I’m suggesting to change isn’t much more than a couple model swaps, a few changed voice lines here and there. But it’s all just my random ideas and nitpicks. There’s the people that feel like the game needs nothing except better graphics and some minor tweaks here and there. And If that’s what Retold will be, I’ll still happily buy and play.

329

This has been a thing since 2003 but has been accepted into the game forever.

It was a precursor to the auto-gathering seen in AoE3 even though that game is way different.

Atlantean has lot of factual weaknesses. It will get downright steamrolled every time by another civ if you just practice the eco or play with that civ instead. It’s still a good overall option and offers diversity. Overall microing of smaller villagers, gathering, especially in early attacks and settlement building, is way OP over Atlantean (always has been).

Resources over time also scales a lot less, you generally still need a lot of Atty villagers to sustain a lategame economy, whereas other ones can just throw around villagers and keep about 10-12 on farms or something like that, a huge difference. Any lategame is completely f***d when facing an ‘adult’ or ‘simply average IQ or higher’ player. Having ability to fling 10 to 20 villagers up to the front line and attack or just like build things is way more useful. Atlantean is weaker so modeled in a way like you have to rely on the titan gate and also not get steamrolled by enemy OP things, due to this fact that your eco will be running out, and your builders have to leave to build or counter build while still being vulnerable. And yet other civs ‘still’ can do the same thing basically too, so it’s just based on if their IQ is low or not.

Aside from generally scaling factually weaker, it just seemed to me like an option that was acceptable or fun, a diversity that is a cool choice in the game. I never thought of it as bad. Yes, you do gain a ‘little’ bit of early resources since it’s instant, but not in reality, the other littler villagers tendto be gathering same/more but because they wait to drop it off, you may get like 100 to 200 resources late for just a few minutes, but any good player won’t lose to this sort of thing. That is sort of the point though, it’s slightly worse, but also simpler and no dropoff points. Even a bored but good player imo likes Atlantean. If I wanted to win I’d just pick another civ and practice it. I just like Atlantean as a 2000+ elo player who rarely plays, because the eco setup is simple no matter if you don’t play for a long time, even knowing I can get steamrolled by ‘better’ civs like the Norse ez-mode cheese in team games, and basically any Egypt/Greek that sets up eco the right way. Unless they suck, then Atlantean basically loses in most mirrored situations.

Atlantean ‘towns’ are designed differently because they are considered ‘weird’ or were ‘precursor’ even to the other ancient civs in the game. They basically were an island civilization of fishermen. They lived in manors and mainly fished, self-sufficient, and only organized to defend themselves. They had a society of fishermen and royals who lived in more centralized cities. Unlike the other civs, constantly expanding, Atlanteans kept to themselves, but were apparently destroyed by themselves or forced to migrate because their civilization was destroyed. You will find if you play them well, Atlantean cities do resemble more like the others, but they are meant to be fishermen anyway. Their caste and society even in this fictional game doesn’t resemble the others where they’re constantly vying for power and land. Thus why they are more modeled where you would see a manor in the middle of nowhere etc. as they also likely shared those to save space.

330

@Vumie3404

Hello!
Short introduction: My name is Tjeerd and im known under the accname: TheCountVonCount (Count Von Count - Liquipedia Age of Empires Wiki). I started playing Age of Mythology in 2006 and I am still an active member of the voobly-community.

I spoke with many (top)players about aom-retold. I feel like i have a ‘decent’ view on what most of the active topplayers would like to see from in game.

In case I can do anything for you, please send me on discord. My acc is: Tjeerd - VonCount#9967. I might be able to help you out or link you to other active players.

331

What I would like to see the most is IMPROVEMENT in GRAPHICS and ANIMATIONS.

Mythical creatures plays an important role in this game and I would like to see ferociousness in those monsters’ attack animations, like in the movie played when we boot the game! I would love to see human soldiers thrown away or blown away with physics as well (like AoE3).

3 Likes
332

What the top 5 players on the multiplayer leaderboard would want isn’t necessarily what 80% of the entire playerbase would want or enjoy. Those 5% at the top of the leaderboard play competitively and pride themselves at being the best at the game. So if they suggest changes, they suggest changes to make their preferred strategy more effective and the game overall harder, so they can chrush “noobs” and “casuals” (terms people like that often tend to use as insults) even better, and solidify their top position at the leaderboard.

At the expense of people still learning the game, or wanting to have fun playing skirmish and the campaign. AKA, almost everyone else.

I do remember a balance patch for a different game, where the competitive multiplayer community complained that building turrets is too quick and turrets themselves are too powerfull, and the patch “fixing” that made certain missions in the singleplayer campaign almost unplayable precisely because of that. And that hasn’t been adressed or fixed, and won’t be adressed or fixed anymore, since support has been dropped for a while now.

4 Likes
333

Yeah, balance should definitely not be based only on pro players’ opinion.

5 Likes
334

Among the obvious things, I really want devs to get rid of the settlement system and give us freedom about building town centers wherever and as many times we like

2 Likes
335

Yeah, that could be good as well, but I can see people complaining about the change. There’s already people disagreeing with my suggestion of standardizing faith collection.

336

I don’t think its a good to thing to get rid of them, because if your enemy (don’t matter its a human or AI) is gathering map control, that implies a morale effect against you and controlling a significant and strategic part of the map means MUCH to a match…