Me and a lot of veteran players want this feature and probably will be migrating to other games if this feature isn’t included. Why haven´t we gotten news about this so we can decide if it’s even worth it to buy the game?
I fear the devs listened to a tiny part of the (already minuscule) competitive community that was very vocal about having this essential part of the game removed, thus ignoring the wishes of the majority.
Also, they want to increase the accessibility for new players but remove AQ?
Thoughts? I´ve been looking for answers about this but I’ve found nothing.
No autoqueue is not going to be the end of the world, eventually players will adapt relatively quickly.
The main point in favor of autoqueue is that it allows for more strategy variance, for example on Mediterranean it gives a player a chance to comeback if he loses water with a faster transition into 2/3 towncenters, without AQ it would be hella harder to comeback.
In general, it allows players to focus more on strategy and less on micromanagement and stuff.
I’m not entirely sure if autoqueue should be retained or not though, no autoqueue will benefit most low/intermediate players because it would certainly improve their speed and multitasking abilities in the long run, on the other hand it doesn’t change much for pro players.
Not having an autoqueue button doesn’t mean no auto queue.
Most games simply do auto queue by right clicking the unit in the building instead of letting you press a second button somewhere completely different in the UI.
I think it’s still too early to say what is/isn’t in or what will be changed until we get closer to release. I’d like the Devs to be vocal and engaging with the community, but they also need to build up hype for the game to keep us guessing. I’ll still be playing the game even without auto-queuing, but I hope it’s at least an option.
I’m not sure why autoqueue is so important to people that they’re willing to abandon the game over it not being included. Like, most other RTS don’t have it. It’s not an essential part of the game, it’s just a way to remove a few clicks / key presses.
It’s not something I’m particularly concerned about not being in the game, though I would prefer it not to. I do understand that others want it, but I really don’t understand why people want it so bad that they won’t play the game just because it’s not in it.
I’m genuinely struggling to understand why this seems to be such a significant issue for certain people, because I genuinely don’t think it is a significant issue at all.
What this does is allow new and casual players who want to enjoy the game with a bit less micromanagement to do that. How on earth is this unfair or unbalanced in any way when facing a veteran player who not only knows the game well but also knows when to prioritize resources and what to build when, etc.?
Are there rare instances where auto-queue might be an advantage? Sure. But in the end, the better player who plays without it will, in my opinion, always have better control over their economy, priorities, and that will be what separates good players from those who use auto-queue to learn the game and/or play casually for fun.
I do believe that the auto-queue is only good for beginners learning the game, especially for people who might be new to RTS in general, but at some point, you need to turn it off if you want to play competitively and do well.
That’s not entirely true, vanilla players who occasionally play on Titans or EE still use autoqueue for villagers constantly.
Stop using autoqueue can be useful in certain circumstances, no doubt, but queueing villagers from towncenter will always be a big advantage over people who don’t use this feature.
Yup. It is like asking, if you don’t like hotkeys and being able to group multiple production buildings, then just don’t do it. But, the truth is simple with these types of mechanics.
They are just more beneficial. Playing without them is a handicap, and that is a genie you can’t put back in the bottle once it’s in the game.
I disagree. The part of the game when it’s the most significant advantage is in the early stages of the game when building villagers is crucial to boosting production and resource gathering. This is especially true if the opponent doesn’t build enough villagers without auto-queue enabled during this time.
In the later stages, it’s more important what you spend your resources on. If you have auto-queue enabled throughout the entire match, you’ll spend a ton of resources that could be used on military units. This will create consequences if your opponent is smarter about what they spend their time and resources on.
Auto-queue is only unfair or strong if the opponent who doesn’t have it enabled doesn’t build enough or any villagers over a longer period of time. However, that is a player issue and not the feature itself.
But this is all my personal opinion, and if there are statistics that show that I’m wrong, I’ll then look at this another way. As of now, I only see people’s own opinions on this subject.
You just said it yourself: autoqueue is a SIGNIFICANT advantage in the early stages of the game, and most of the outcome of a game is decided by the EARLY game, losing 50 wood in the early game is more or less the equivalent of losing hundreds if not thousands of wood in late game, most supremacy players overrate their lategame skills a lot and just don’t realize that when they win is because they just played better early game, most of times.
First of all, please read through my entire post and don’t just select a part from it to form your opinion. I did say that another important factor is if the opponent who doesn’t use auto-queue doesn’t build enough or any villagers during a longer period of time, hence it’s a player issue in that case.
If the opponent builds villagers without any issues in the early stages, it’s then no different from the player who uses auto-queue to do the same. Also, prioritizing your resources and what to build when is a big factor that also determines the outcome of the game.
You can’t just ignore all other parts that play a role and just mention the part you want to highlight. All of this is relevant to how the game will play out.
I’ve read and as I said in my first post there are moments in the game when disabling autoqueue is useful, but they are vastly overshadowed by the huge advantage that AQ provides in the early or mid stage of the game.
I’m encouraging you and many other young players who are new to RTS to get out of your comfort zone! You will thank me later.
You said that it’s “only unfair or strong if the opponent who doesn’t have it enabled doesn’t build enough or any villagers over a longer period of time”
Should one player have an unfair advantage over another with the same skill level just because they pressed a button that does such an essential part of macro for them automatically?
I’m not a new player by any means, but I also don’t believe that this will in any case be overwhelmingly disadvantageous the way you make it sound because there are two important factors that play a key role here in my opinion:
If the player who doesn’t use the auto-queue system doesn’t build enough or any villagers during the early stages of the game.
Even if the player with the auto-queue enabled gets all of these villagers that cost both resources and population, if they don’t know how to properly use these villagers and prioritize correctly, it still won’t matter if the opponent knows what they are doing. Let’s be realistic here; the majority of the community just wants to play casually and relaxingly and does not play competitively, which lowers the chance of you meeting a person with equal skill as yours by a lot.
You have to look at the whole picture and not just highlight the parts you want and then make it sound like that’s all there is. As I previously mentioned, show me statistics that prove I’m wrong here, and I’ll agree with you, but right now, all I see are people commenting here (including myself) who are sharing their opinions, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be statistically true.
This is the only situation where this can become unfair: when two people with equal skill face each other and only one uses the auto-queue system. In this case, I suppose the player with the best strategy will win in the end.
Let me ask you a question: how many times do you think this will occur the way you describe it in competitive ranked games?
I’m not sure why we should restrict our view to competitive ranked games.
And I do believe that this would in fact happen quite often in all settings. Being able to juggle everything between scouting, noting information about the map and what your opponents are doing, tasking villagers around to gather the resources you need most and build buildings, and training units, they’re all important aspects of skill and strategy in a real time strategy game. Attention and time management is an essential resource in real time, and rewarding players who are skilled enough to be able to use that attention more efficiently to accomplish things with an appropriate advantage seems sensible to me. Autoqueue kind of just stifles one fundamental part of that.
Not everyone has the ability to properly manage their time and produce villagers constantly. Nor should they, it should be a skill which one is rewarded for getting better at with an appropriate advantage. I think it should be normal for players on the lower ranks to often forget to train villagers or have their attention strained and be unable to do so for a while. If they’re matched against an opponent of similar skill, it should be normal for their opponent to do so too or make some other mistake that results in a similar strategic disadvantage. Not everyone needs to be competent at 4d chess to succeed in a game or be rewarded for their skill. And I think that should usually apply to campaign, casual games, vs. ai, even custom games too, not just competitive and ranked.
I agree with 2gv’s previous comment about going outside of one’s comfort zone (i.e. learning to be better at, what is in my opinion at least, an important part of gameplay), however I do get the argument of accessibility for new players. RTS traditionally does have a steep learning curve and that can unfortunately be a detriment to the experience of some players. So I will concede that. I do think that features like autoqueue are ultimately a detriment to the game, but I understand that from the perspective of many players it may not be.
By the way, I seem to have forgotten how to quote others’ posts in my reply to them. Apologies for that.
People who are opposed to auto queue could also leave their comfort zone and embrace a QOL change that may improve their gameplay… no need to give yourself artificial limits just to feel like you are improving. Does it make the game easier to play, or does it actually improve your ability to play?
Crediting a loss to: they were using a feature of the game I eschew and is therefore unbalanced, could be applied to any feature in a game that alters gameplay that required micro previously. Past features that required more micro before being changed were:
unit pathing
production queues
multiple building types on one control group
gathering waypoints
shift-queueing commands
You can see the same kind of resistance to those changes in games like starcraft broodwar vs starcraft 2, or warcraft 2 vs warcraft 3. We even see arguments about qol changes between release versions aoe and DE versions.
Since the features are already guaranteed in the console version, and crossplay is present, the addition of autoqueue to pc is inevitable. It’s more than likely going to be in future age titles as well, y’all may as well adapt today.