When Stormgate launches AOE4 must be in good shape to survive

unit limit yes, but camera height? don’t recall any

1 Like

Of course, in fact that was good, since there were too many very good games and the time between 1992 and 2007 I consider the golden age of RTS…after this came the Mobas and the RTS began to decline by wanting to emulate the success of the first, I see you DoW2 and CNC4…

Very true… Mobas predate DOTA by several years…

Yes, maybe the hero shotters too…

True very true…

As much as I love AoE4 over starcraft, i think it’s in for a rough ride. The foundation of the game is shaky, with a 150-300ms delay. That’s 10x the sc2 delay. At the same time, Stormgate has aimed to beat sc2’s golden standard by letting actions happen imediately in the client to then ajust to possible server differences. It seems to me that Stormgate optimizes for RTS quality that Relic isn’t even aware of. There’s just so many bugs on and after release that I can’t believe would’ve happened if there was a decent RTS veteran on the team with the authority to stop issues before they were implemented.

AoE4 can still compete for players by getting better at what it does well, but I fear the competitive RTS scene will go for Stormgate. It’s probably as my sc2 masters friends say: “AoE4 is the waiting lobby for Stormgate”

3 Likes

Yes, or AoE 4 improves on everything or else Stormgate is going to wear it with players and everything … I see myself playing more SG than AoE 4 in the future, although the civs of AoE 4 could become very good…of 10 civs that AoE 4 has I only like 3 (Mongols, Ottomans and Malians and stop counting)…

1 Like

Beastyqt just put out a new video and couple key points, i see why stormgate are doing more right that aoe4 for rts players.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgAPWfM5uKQ

3vs3 mode for casuals - aoe4 is just making the same old vs mode thats been in rts games for 30years. Think aoe4 should still have its core age of empires game play, but add more game modes. Just adding nomad is nothing really. Where’s the quickmatch ranking, rewards, skins, heroes, ideas to get new people interested in playing aoe4. Make it more interesting then just make custom game play nomad.

Free to play games are more complete than full price games. Devs have to put in more effort making it a complete game to make money back. Aoe4 buy the game at $60us and we will lowly update the game.

And this older video about why rts fail. Its like devs dont understand how to improve rts games and just remake the same mistakes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehNK7UpZsc&t=1s

Relic, lets make another rts game. Frostgiant lets try to make the best rts game ever and add some new ideas

2 Likes

I don’t limit myself in terms of innovating, I liked it when they mentioned that the cost of the wonder would depend on the number of players, I would like to see the marivalla again at 3 thousand for 1v1. There have been threads about more pop and after the 2v2 tournament the conclusions were that those games were very fast (with a population of 400 for each team)
So I proposed that the population amount depend on the number of players (not simply multiply the 1v1 population by each player number 200 x #) with a population of 220 for 1v1, maybe I exaggerated when I proposed 160 pop in 4v4, but the important thing is get the idea. But the game must be balanced or there is no point if the added population is used only to produce more villagers

I don’t think they are not aware of it.

I think they are just not payed enough to care. Relic has no stake in making right by the AOE franchise, the best bet is hoping they did as much as they could to fulfill their side of the contract. The question is, is Microsoft content with AOE4 just being an enticing looking game from afar for the gamepass? It is very likely that yes, they are content with AOE4 never reaching the heights we wanted it to. That it was always just meant to be a trophy game sitting on that franchise shelf that is their gamepass–looks nice from afar, but getting closer, you can see the mold’s seams.

After almost 2 years of post development, this is the type of realization we need to start having. It just doesn’t seem that he inherent traits of the game that so many of us dislike will actually ever change; what we see is what we have gotten, and that is an extended beta test with 1 “free” DLC. Not to be too negative, but we’re closing in on a year since that content patch, they will likely announce new civilizations in Season 5, then release in S6.

So that is the content loop we are looking at. Nothing meaningful will be fixed and we’ll just get 2 civs every year.

3 Likes

Thats how im starting to feel. ive played over 2000 1vs1 quickmatch - rank games. Playing mostly nomad megarandom now and starting to see aoe4 is just another game to put on xbox gamepass. Microsoft is more for aoe2 and Relic for coh3 so whats the point of supporting Age of empires IV as a customer

What Microsoft is doing to Age of empires Iv is like EA games putting the world cup update in FIFA 22 not FIFA 23

2 Likes

I’ve been saying for years that the triple A RTS, apart from having the casual and competitive characteristics that this genre should have, failed in:

  • They have a learning curve (in my country it is said in this way) quite hard. Ideally, it should be somewhat easier to play, more difficult to master.

  • It is a game set in 1vs1 and little social in many cases. A competitive team game at the level of 1v1 would given the game many more community.

  • Not F2P. At least, in ranked. I was heavily criticized because I had to pay for the game at launch and all the DLCs or I didn’t have access to the civs. That produces an unfinished game, with late fixes and problems in the casual and competitive world.

Yeah, i fear for AoE 4…

At least,the civs are free…

Tempest Rising looks like the only possible competition, if they listen to feedback.

Maybe Beyond All Reason .

The problem I see right now, all RTS developers make their games generic.
It’s either entirely awful designed or a too bland copy.

It’s only designed on Metrics and PvP player feedback. Like.
The Settlers: New Allies, The Valiant, Crossfire: Legion, Stronghold: Warlords, A Year of Rain
Dawn of War 3, Grey Goo, Act of Aggression, Empires Apart, BANNERMEN, Forged Battalion.

Just think of it, Developers did spend several years designing and developing a game, where the very first response from players is, that their game is too boring and deliver a very clear analysis why its so bad, but publishers just can’t figure out it out.

Yes, people don’t like small rush arena maps, with dumbed down gameplay,
but somehow the entire game industry is too brainwashed to make anything else.

3 Likes

By god. I’m not a big fan of the theme, but man if the buildings and building in general don’t look good.

Their grid system super satisfying, the buildings themselves are animated and even interact with gather type units. I wish we had something similar.

2 Likes

To all of you who have no problem seeing more than 150 villagers, 70 farms, and endless, stagnant games. Manor Lords is surely your ideal game, and it also has demanding graphics that only 10% of steam players can handle… etc, as I have noticed that you guys love it


https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

1 Like

It looks good…

Yes, that’s very sad… Years doing RTS to stick it …

Yes, it’s like a modern version of Command and Conquer, it happens in the 90s, but instead of fighting for a resource from a meteorite, they fight for resources 30 years after the missile crisis became hot…

1 Like

I know you’re trying to be patronizing, but you know what games are closer to what you’re describing than Manor Lords?

Age of Empire games :grinning:

3 Likes

of course! “That’s why in tournaments closed maps have been chosen, especially in the recent one a mod was made to make stone walls from the dark ages, and I remember when it was the longest bo5 in the history of the game (before it was nerfed the siege) they decided to change from bo7 to bo9 so that people enjoy it more”

https://twitter.com/EGCTV_AOE/status/1510704330885709834

as i pointed out just days ago, for aoe4 imo there’s no point whatsoever to build over 95 vills even, let alone 120, i don’t usually think capping unit count is good but here capping vills to 100 or 120 wouldn’t be that dumb

I do not believe that games like Stormgate pose a direct competition to this franchise. AoE’s wildcard is its historical setting. Its core and devoted audience has always been people that love history and appreciate the beautiful diversity of human civilization. Generally, the fantasy realm of lasers, demons, robots and flying soldiers has its own audience.

I agree though that AoEIV is in a precarious position considering what a poor job it does of being the latest installment of this franchise and how it fails to cater to this craving for truly diverse and interesting historical civs/maps/units/…/gameplay.

It also wouldn’t be shocking if AoEIV sees its e-sport scene disappearing by an RTS game explicitly designed for e-sports and that may provide a valuable lesson to those who believed it prudent to compromise certain aspects of the game and of the AoE identity for it. Grasp all, lose all they say.

4 Likes

That’s a weird pattern I observe as well.
For example, AOE4 siege units did not respect terrain. They clip into grounds when going uphill. Only the “new” siege unit (Ottoman bombard) does——which shows it’s not a technical problem.

Same thing goes for AOE3. The DLC adds a bunch of new European mercenaries but only accessible to new civs, not the old ones (many of which are far more relevant). Six months later they added them to old civs in a free update but that comes also with a skin pack DLC. Otherwise the work would not pay off well. You have to sell part of the efforts.

Without subscription mode or micro transaction there is no incentive to refine the already-sold contents. That effort had better be put into actual profitable ones. Free new civilization in AOE4 also counts as this, because “we added A NEW CIV!” sounds much more attractive to the users that had not bought the game than “we fixed the siege unit moving animation” which is likely hidden in a long update log.

When expansions were sold as standalone games it usually came with general improvements. Now it’s no longer the case. I don’t think there is a way out of this current mode especially for RTS. You can’t give people “half a faction” in an RTS and let them buy the DLC for full experience (Total War does but that is more sp focused). And I don’t like micro transaction either.

1 Like

But each RTS designed with E-Sport in mind and focus on PvP did fail.

Why should a lame version of over 20 year old Warcraft3/Starcraft BW stand today out?

The Micropayment as concept is outdated too.
new titles just dont gain new people to play them and by old titles people did by now buy what they wanted
Microtransaction are quite dead

Manor Lords is not a good RTS or city builder either, the engine looks nice, but the gameplay mechanics are very clunky.