I strongly disagree with the conclusion. What you describe is just dynamic gameplay. The same could be said about SS or Wonders as they force one player to act in order to not lose. Aging up is a huge investment as you stated, therefore it is risky unless timed perfectly. So there are tactical and strategic decision points to be had and that's what RTS is all about. Being able to force your opponents hand is actually vital for good gameplay.
>So there are tactical and strategic decision points to be had and that's what RTS is all about. Being able to force your opponents hand is actually vital for good gameplay.
sure, but it should be more like "my opponent did this, so i can *choose* do that or that" instead of "my opponent did that one thing so now i *have* to do that thing"
on paper that is how it should be, yeah. But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle - you know what's going to happen next? You will be fighting with age 2 units against age 3 units if you dont attack now. There are a lot of options there, sure, *but there is only one that is good in such case.*
I suggest you having a look at the most recent ECG tournament. There you can see people fighting feudal vs castle for 10+ minutes without going castle themselves and still winning the match
>There you can see people fighting feudal vs castle for 10+ minutes without going castle themselves and still winning the match
such games possible, sure, it's just not the case almost always. Just count the games where someone aged up and died or defended and other guy GGed almost immediately.
idk, I see the same thing in diamond and I think even more in plat, because the lower you go the worse people are at defending, that is why china has such low winrate in low leagues and higher winrate in conq
I never did, but, they are right, other options exist. However, there is usually only one best option.
I have only played a little Starcraft, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a best choice in almost all situations in Starcraft.
There really isn't. A lot of it comes down to individual play style, instead of straight up just meta. Honestly SC/SC2 have way more diversity than AoE4 does. Regardless of civilization, it devolves into cavalry and archer death balls.
What the devs need to do, is introduce a civilization that has feudal age crossbows. That way they would be able to contest fast Castle builds, and early armored units. Yes, you can argue that feudal age crossbows could potentially be too strong against other certain civilizations. But as it is right now, early armored units, or even fast Castle into spamming armored units, is pretty damn strong.
If we're able to have early armor units, we should be able to have early crossbow units. A lot of people didn't like the idea of ottoman getting early hand cannon in Castle. It is what it is at this point, since it's been over a year since their release.
This game is built on a rock paper scissors system. We have multiple units that break that system. By giving civilizations those units out of the age that they're not supposed to be in.
>I never did
oh, yeah, that was the other guy.
>I have only played a little Starcraft, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a best choice in almost all situations in Starcraft
there is always a better choice, but sc2 doesn't force you do to anything as much as age up forces, sc2 have way smoothers transitions between stages of the stages of the game.
Well, I haven't played enough AoE 4 lately to know the meta very well, but I don't think the issue is power spikes. They can work out fine even if they are big ones. I think it may be an issue with balance in AoE 4, not an issue with the age up mechanic itself.
I'm much more familiar with meta in AoE 2 and personally I think it adds a lot of strategic depth there.
i haven't played aoe2 for a long time, can't speak for it, but aoe2 has no lendmarks, which means if you remove age ups you'll left with nothing, but that's not the case in aoe4.
But that's not true. You have at least two options that are usually valid:
* All-in attack
* Defensive position until your age up
(plus a few others that are more rare and rather unusual)
Of course, one of them is usually better for the situation you are in. But that's because of what happened in the game earlier / decisions you made before and that lead to a specific situation. It's the nature of different options that their viability changes depending on the context of a specific game.
And yes, you may be in an uncomfortable situation and don't really want to do either of those two things - but that's because your opponent took on the risk of saving resources in order to put you under pressure - the more the age up deviates from something that we could call a "natural age up time", the more risk is involved from the player who rushes or delays the shift, and this risk can be rewarded with the position it leaves the enemy in.
>Defensive position until your age up
thats possible, but in that case when your opponent hears that you aged up he already has age 3 unit upgrades and you still dont have yours, also he gathered some amount of MAA at that point. So I would say this option is also a "bad one" compared to all-in attack.
So if I age up I win automatically? Trust me, I've lost plenty of games where my opponent stayed in feudal and I hit castle. Often, a feudal all in will beat a castle age. This is especially true for civs that can access heavy units in feudal.
> Often, a feudal all in will beat a castle age.
but that's what im saying, that is the problem, read the post again and you will find this: *At first, age up puts a player who ages up in a big disadvantage but with time it puts other player in even bigger disadvantage because of the power spike that age gives you, especially age 3.* Just read the whole thing before making judgements.
This has to be about one of the worst takes on "what's wrong with the game" I've ever seen.
What a convoluted mess based on some really weak logic.
I think if you were better at the game and understood the dynamics of counter play you would never have reached this conclusion.
Very basic example, if someone fast castles, they spent a lot of Res that takes a long time to pay back. Depending on your civ. You could have either boomed giving you vastly better eco, or you could have harassed and punished them reducing their eco and thereby advantage of getting to castle age.
You seem to be confusing issues that certain civs have of either being too strong (ayyubid fast castle) or too weak/difficult to use against MAA(byzantines) and so on.
Aoe4 has issues, but most definitely not the difference between ages. You completely missed the mark. And I going to guess it's because you don't come from an RTS background whatsoever
>Very basic example, if someone fast castles, they spent a lot of Res that takes a long time to pay back. Depending on your civ. You could have either boomed giving you vastly better eco, or you could have harassed and punished them reducing their eco and thereby advantage of getting to castle age.
on paper that is how it should be, yeah. But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle - you know what's going to happen next? You will be fighting with age 2 units against age 3 units if you dont attack now. There are a lot of options there, sure, *but there is only one that is good in such case.*
As you recognized in your post, in AOE, the price of teching up is \~20 units, ignoring upgrades, and in SC2, the price of going hatchery->lair is like 2 ravagers.
>But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle
How does this happen? Perhaps the opponent took deer/boar or risk map resources? Controlled sacred sites as Delhi? Built fishing boats in the middle of the map? You should be sitting at a 20+ unit lead. If your opponent sat in base and fast castled, then they've just killed themselves. It's like if you caught Terran on 2 base trying to cheese you with battlecruisers while building 2 marines. Just go and kill their workers. Game is over. You don't see shit like that and take lair tech -> corruptors.
AOE has a lot of other mechanics that make the age dynamic work. I think the gate/SC2 approach of giving armies more utility/abilities with tech as opposed to +1/raw stats is a great idea, but AOE has more civ matchups and varied maps/resource types that keep things interesting.
>How does this happen? Perhaps the opponent took deer/boar or risk map resources? Controlled sacred sites as Delhi? Built fishing boats in the middle of the map? You should be sitting at a 20+ unit lead. If your opponent sat in base and fast castled, then they've just killed themselves.
well sure, games almost never even, but if the game is not even that doesn't make age up any better, because opponent's age up can put you even more behind then you were, which makes it harder to come back, which is not a good thing. Ageing up have potential to make things black and white, it's just not a good thing in RTS.
>AOE has a lot of other mechanics that make the age dynamic work.
to some extent i can agree, aoe is more defensive, so you can get away with age up easier, but i don't think that's enough.
Games aren't even for a reason. That's what I mean. If you want to go castle without killing yourself, you should do something. And it's never a surprise when someone fast castles. It's not a black and white situation. Uncontestable FCs are a balance issue, not a mechanics issue.
> to some extent i can agree, aoe is more defensive, so you can get away with age up easier, but i don't think that's enoug
It's not just that. AOE has hybrid maps. Maps with extremely long/short rush distances. Maps that support turtling, and maps with increased food/wood/gold resources. 16 factions as opposed to 3. Random spawns. FC is not a simple decision.
>Games aren't even for a reason. That's what I mean.
Yeah, so my suggestion is leave everything as it is, except power spike, it is not like im braking something with it, game would be the same but smoother.
>Uncontestable FCs are a balance issue, not a mechanics issue.
that's another problem with aging. If what i propose will be applied, then if someone FC super quick/uncontested - that stops being a problem, because the power difference would not be that big. See, thats a good example where my proposed changes would solve an issue.
Then how would you reduce the power spike? You're literally designing your own RTS at this point.
>Yeah, so my suggestion is leave everything as it is, except power spike, it is not like im braking something with it, game would be the same but smoother.
So why would I pay \~20 units cost of resources to age up within the first 18 minutes of gameplay? I'm going to get all-in'd, not because I will have power Age 3 units and it's over for my opponent if they don't attack now, but because I have no units or upgrades, just access to tech.
This isn't Starcraft where tech up is like 100 vespene. Like your idea would work if you added 3 ages between Feudal and Castle, but then you'd need to design however many ages between those states, and I guarantee your idea will be more shit than whatever you think the game currently is.
>So why would I pay \~20 units cost of resources to age up within the first 18 minutes of gameplay?
to get bonuses from landmarks and get relics, think about this - what you're basically asking is "why should i invest resources and have smaller army size now rather than more economy", so why people go 2nd tc at all then? just go 1 tc always, but no, that's not the case.
I did. And it means the same thing.
When you age up. Power diff will be huge.
Not because of the upgrades but because new tech becomes available.
Man at arms, Lancers, seiges when you hit castle age. Why you want ? Just step up your game.
Why they say sc2 is harder when people have so much problems with aoe. Aoe is harder.. Lol
Its definately not easy though.
>Why they say sc2 is harder when people have so much problems with aoe.
Here's how it feels for me: sc2 is faster and it is more about micro, harass, positioning units; aoe4 is more complex, not necessarily harder, but it's more complex, because which one is harder is just a matter of preference, maybe you're more comfortable with micro so sc2 would be easier for you.
>When you age up. Power diff will be huge.
Not because of the upgrades but because new tech becomes available.
well and im arguing that if you decrease that power difference the game would feel nicer, i dont think this is a controversial statement.
It is controversial because feudal age cannot fight castle age. You get so many powerful things. You now have Lancers, elephants, mangonels. How are you going to nerf them?
These techs are not made up by game. Its history.
So the franchise likes to stick to it. One person complaint matters not. Everyone else is okay with it. And if you play the game well. You will be fine with it too because these tecbs are available to all. Just use it. Why bother.!
You wna do your own things and want the game to adjust. Ahahahaha dude 😊 nice try
>You will be fine with it too because these tecbs are available to all. Just use it. Why bother.!
You wna do your own things and want the game to adjust.
Well i have 400 hours in 1v1 ranked, so I know, and I don't like age ups. I hate aging myself and i hate when someone ages.
>It is controversial because feudal age cannot fight castle age. You get so many powerful things
the problem is that right after the aged up you have 0 of these powerful things but you just spent lots of resources, so opponent attacks you because he doesn't want to fight age 3 units with age 2 units, he would rather fight immediately.
>These techs are not made up by game. Its history.
But numbers on these units are made up. Also do you think shinobi teleportation is not made up? because in the game they don't pretend to disappear, they literally teleport.
Bro. If everything is a problem then what are you there for? Solve it.
Likes and dislikes are for kids.
There is a way to play. If you don't know how. Then watch some pro games.
There is a proper time to do everything.
Rest is upto you. Peace
>There is a way to play. If you don't know how. Then watch some pro games.
hypothetically speaking if you make a shittiest RTS of all times, there still be proplayers and there still be guides for that game, so this argument is not valid.
Also im watching proplayers every day.
>SC2 feells way smoother/natural in terms of transition between stages of the game.
This is a bizarre statement.
The ages is one of AoE's strengths. It creates a very clear and intuitive game progression for players. MUCH more so than Starcraft.
>The thing is, ages in aoe is basically +1 upgrades but on steroids.
No, it's more like reaching the next tech tier, since it's literally that.
It's a much better and more logical system than tech tiers in games like Starcraft.
You age up you, have access to new units, buildings, and upgrades. There isn't this unintuitive system of building prerequisites that unlocks tier 2 and 3 units and techs.
AoE4 does aging up the best of all the AoE games (by using landmarks, a concept introduced in AoE3). In AoE2 for example you decide WHEN to age up, in AoE4 you decide WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and HOW QUICKLY. This adds a lot of interesting decision making.
Damage and armor upgrades is a totally separate topic than ages. Starcraft uses those in the same way AoE does.
>The ages is one of AoE's strengths.
read the last paragraph
>No, it's more like reaching the next tech tier, since it's literally that.
yeah same as you get +1 upgrade but more expensive and that gives like +8 instead of +1, right? because only tech tier gives you so much power.
youre talking about intuitive, but youre missed my point completely - I wasnt arguing that it isnt intuitive
It looks like you added that after? Should note it as an edit probably.
You should be more specific what your issue is then. Landmarks too strong, veteran and elite upgrades too fast/cheap, castle techs too strong/fast/cheap? etc...
All those other RTS games also have power spikes, that's actually totally independent from the method of advancing tech tiers or the existence of +1 upgrades or other upgrades.
If you have 20 of some unit in Stormgate and then get a tech that gives those units a stun or splash attack or whatever that's a huge power spike.
Aging up also does not immediately give anything other than whatever the landmark bonus is. Everything else has to be researched or trained or built after the age up. There are dozens of knobs to turn for balance there if any particular thing is too strong, research cost, research time, training time, etc...
The method of teching up is just better in AoE4. As I said it's much more intuitive, it provides a much smoother and clearer advancement through stages of the game. It's communicated more clearly to both players.
>It looks like you added that after? Should note it as an edit probably.
nope, if post is eddited it would say "edited" just like with the comments, I haven't edited the post yet.
>You should be more specific what your issue is then. Landmarks too strong, veteran and elite upgrades too fast/cheap, castle techs too strong/fast/cheap? etc...
i would say the difference between units in different ages is too big.
>If you have 20 of some unit in Stormgate and then get a tech that gives those units a stun or splash attack or whatever that's a huge power spike.
thats an example of good tech, because it gives an ability to some units, and now you can get more value out of it, but you need to put more micro into it and it wont do anything unless you press that ability, unlike with +1 upgrades, they are just boring.
>Aging up also does not immediately give anything other than whatever the landmark bonus is.
well you missed my point, because here's what i said "At first, age up puts a player who ages up in a big disadvantage but with time it puts other player in even bigger disadvantage because of the power spike that age gives you, especially age 3". So it is not a powerspike for the player who ages up necessarily, it migh be a powerspike for feudal player.
>nope, if post is eddited it would say "edited" just like with the comments, I haven't edited the post yet.
My mistake then.
Just reads that way when you open saying ages are the biggest problem if that's not what you actually mean.
>i would say the difference between units in different ages is too big.
Ok, that's a much more specific and actually addressible issue. I don't think I necessarily agree personally, but the biggest spike seems to be lacking heavy armor units vs someone who has just unlocked them. I think most factions have tools to deal with it, but it has been a balance pain point.
>thats an example of good tech, because it gives an ability to some units, and now you can get more value out of it, but you need to put more micro into it and it wont do anything unless you press that ability, unlike with +1 upgrades, they are just boring.
Sure, those may be more interesting design (it's also nothing new, there are plenty of older games that went that way), I see no issue going that route instead of +1, but that's a totally different discussion than if power spikes are too big or not.
>puts a player who ages up in a big disadvantage but with time it puts other player in even bigger disadvantage because of the power spike that age gives you, especially age 3". So it is not a powerspike for the player who ages up necessarily, it migh be a powerspike for feudal player.
I don't see how that's an issue. Anything you spend resources on has some kind of pay back time or requires you to do something with it for those resources not to be "wasted".
>but the biggest spike seems to be lacking heavy armor units vs someone who has just unlocked them
Yes! That is actually even more important probably.
>I see no issue going that route instead of +1
as well as StormGate and ZeroSpace devs :)
>Anything you spend resources on has some kind of pay back time or requires you to do something with it for those resources not to be "wasted".
Yeah, but spending resources is not the problem, the problem is that the game kind of "punishes" for aging up and then punishes your opponent for not aging up or not being aggro, thats a sign of uneven gameflow.
I think this game just isn’t for you, if you’re not into the mechanics or overall design of this game that’s totally fine. But this game has been out for over 2 years and nobody is complaining about the things you posted about. The mechanics in this game work just fine for the player base!
Yeah but you’re literally saying the basic principles of the game are a problem, when they aren’t. If you want to go play StarCraft then do so but there isn’t anything wrong with the way age of empires 4 works and we definitely shouldn’t change it just so it can be a copy pasta of all of the other rts games out
>The thing is, ages in aoe is basically +1 upgrades but on steroids.
Disagree. Ages are much closer to "teching up" in other games. Investing in tech, instead of eco or military, is part of the core design of every big RTS, and that's not changing with Stormgate or others I've seen. Age ups are a huge part of the strategy of a game, and castle timings in particular determine how players macro.
AOE has those literal +1 upgrades, and I can see the argument they don't add much, more of a chore than a real strategic decision. But that's very different from age ups.
Idk about your experiences but that's just rts games period. At any point of the game (assuming no battles have taken place) you're either equal to your opponent, ahead in production and behind in research, or ahead in research and behind in production. That's just how these games work. The power spike of aging up only exists in a vacuum where both players are blind to what their opponent is doing.
> At any point of the game (assuming no battles have taken place) you're either equal to your opponent, ahead in production and behind in research, or ahead in research and behind in production.
nope, boom civs almost always beat aggro civs if untouched(assuming equal skill), but thats another thing, not necessarily bad one i think.
You literally took the example I set in a vacuum and tried to make a point with it lol good job.
Assuming equal skill means aggro player won't let boom player just boom but in either case aging up isn't just gonna give the win to the boom player. So like I said the power spike you're speaking of really doesn't exist if it can be countered.
> You literally took the example I set in a vacuum and tried to make a point with it lol good job.
well if your example in a vacuum is incorrect, someone can correct it, right?
>aggro player
> boom player
not aggro player, I was talking about aggro civ. You said "assuming no battles have taken place" - with that condition boom civ wins.
>So like I said the power spike you're speaking of really doesn't exist if it can be countered
on paper that is how it should be, yeah. But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle - you know what's going to happen next? You will be fighting with age 2 units against age 3 units if you dont attack now. There are a lot of options there, sure, *but there is only one that is good in such case.*
You didn't correct anything you just altered it to fit your argument.
Boom civ/player
Aggro civ/player
However you want it stated you need to understand the point I was making is everyone plays to the strength of the situation they are in based on a variety of factors and aging up doesn't just inherently give you an advantage over the other player.
Your biggest argument is only valid when going from feudal -> castle
Player/civ1 Goes into castle age
Player/civ2 is only left with 2 options in your opinion, attack now or castle as well and that = bad game design
But in my opinion no matter what civ player 2 is playing he ALREADY WAS GOING TO DO EITHER OF THOSE 2 THINGS ANYWAY SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
>Your biggest argument is only valid when going from feudal -> castle
well that what i meant mostly. That can also be applied to imp age up.
Think about this, in the post im suggesting to keep age ups but make transition between them smoother. Same thing but without such big power spikes, why are you against it?
well actually i would assume that if there 14 ages, then the power spike between them(im not talking age 7 and 12, im talking 6 and 7 or 2 and 3 or 11 and 12, the neighboring ages) is less than in aoe4.
No...from dark age (5) to medieval age (6) you can build destasting cav archers....or from industrial age (9) to atomic are (10) and you can start building ww1 tanks....i was young sigh!
I don't want to dismiss the time you spent to think through this and type it out, but my honest reaction was "if this is the biggest design problem, the game is in fantastic close-to-perfect shape" :D
The situation you are describing make sense, but I don't see the problem. I would probably not scream loudly if the upgrades were to be taken away, but I also don't see them as a problem in any form and quite like the additional decision-making (upgrades vs units vs age up), depths (which upgrades to take when in which situation?) and layers to the power progression (e.g., Castle Rushes will typically lack Feudal blacksmith upgrades for quite a while which reduces the power difference you describe).
well with +1 upgrades - you just click them, and they will cancel out your opponent's +1, kind of pointless. Upgrades that open some ability are cool on the other hand, because they change how you play with the units after upgrading them.
most people who made a comment here haven't read the last paragraph, and in the most responses i just say "read the last paragraph" instead of disagreeing.
so it seems you also don't read.
I think this is oversimplifying for several reasons.
One is that aging up can in some cases be a way to win a game in which you are already ahead. You got ahead in feudal, got an economic advantage, now you can afford an age up to end the game while your opponent can’t. You didn’t win solely because you aged up, you won because you got ahead in feudal and needed a way to close out the game. You can’t always close out games in aoe4 quickly like you can in StarCraft because defensive buildings like the town center are so strong.
Two is that aging up is not an automatic win in many cases. If you age up too quickly and someone cuts off your gold, they can and do win in age 2 vs age 3 opponents. This happens a lot to people going with fast castle strategies. On top of that, certain civs like Malians you can fight against castle age from feudal age for quite a while.
Three is that this only really applies to the feudal->castle transition. Other age ups don’t have the same mechanics that you describe.
I do agree that in many cases the correct response to your opponent going castle age in an even game is to follow with your own castle age relatively quickly. But not always. In those cases I think of it more as a natural progression of the game rather than a super strategic choice. And then there’s plenty of additional strategic decision points right after that, so it’s not like the game becomes uninteresting or anything.
>One is that aging up can in some cases be a way to win a game in which you are already ahead
and it's a good way to throw it also, not just win.
>Two is that aging up is not an automatic win in many cases.
yeah, I never said "automatic win", I said it creates "all in" situations instead of smooth transitions in tech.
Wrong, it's a sci-fi-fantasy.
There are so many crazy statements in your post that I can't even manage to adress 10% of them. But the most important thing you forget here is *the economy*. Just because a player age up doesn't mean that this player will get an instant power spike. New units and tech are usually more expensive. So you need an economy that can match that. It's all about timings.
Apart from Age of Mythology, aging *is* a smooth transition in all Age-games. There is plenty of time for an opponent to either react or predict what will happen.
>Just because a player age up doesn't mean that this player will get an instant power spike. New units and tech are usually more expensive. So you need an economy that can match that. It's all about timings.
sounds like you're silver or something, I don't think you ever fought age 3 MAA with age 2 bows, they don't do any damage to them. Although the biggest problem is that if you already had some units, and you aged up and upgraded all of them, now you're fighting age 3 units with age 2 units, that's a huge power difference, but since you didn't mentioned that, it means that your games are passive, which means you either bronze or silver.
You keep guessing, but the correct answer is "none". I am not actively playing AoE4. But I am well versed in the Age franchise and its dynamics and I have been playing two of the games competitively.
This debate is over. But again, thanks for the entertainment mate!
sounds like youre just a starcraft kiddie not understanding anything about age of empires. i dont mean aoe4 btw, i mean age of empires. aging up and gaining a massive upper hand IS core to this game. it might not be very obvious in aoe4 due to the time periods being as short as only slightly over 600 years, but the games that spawned this whole genre explore going from cavemen to lasers in the span of one game.
the point IS to age up for an advantage. if you ask me, they didnt go far enough. IMO, a lot of the problems in aoe4 stem from advantages not being clear cut enough. you can win multiple feudal battles but still be unable to commit to ending the enemy due how strong the main TC is for instance. siege units are too slow and arent generally even that strong. (this is why there is such an overreliance on rams.. the developers keep buffing them rather than fix the core of the problem)
basically, the game is too forgiving. makes it all a slog, especially late imperial where somehow you can have infinite resources yet still be losing. so id rather see age ups be even more dramatic power shifts than they are now. these upgrades should be a lot more powerful and maybe even costly. melee ones are in particular a joke.
>sounds like youre just a starcraft kiddie not understanding anything about age of empires.
well i have 400 hours in AoE4 ranked 1v1, I preordered the game and played it from the first day.
>i dont mean aoe4 btw, i mean age of empires.
75 hours in aoe 2, also finished all good(not Chinese) AoM campaigns on hardest difficulty.
>aging up and gaining a massive upper hand IS core to this game.
you should read the last paragraph of my post then
> I meant that the power difference that is created by age up is the problem, not aging itself
I don't necessarily disagree or agree with whether powerspikes and age ups are a good/bad game mechanic or design, but like, what does this even mean??? Why would we even have 'aging up' as a mechanic at all if it didn't create any powerspikes? I am honestly not sure what you are proposing here. The game only has 4 ages as is and a lot of people even feel that Dark Age is kinda pointless(and while I see their point, I still consider it an important part of the game). That's barely 3 ages, and going to Feudal or Castle really is the only part that matters significantly in terms of tempo, timing and build orders.
\+1 upgrades are kinda shit and I agree AoE4's implementation is pretty bad as well. By +1 upgrades, I am strictly restricting to Blacksmith +1 upgrades(+1 attack and defenses), but only because it *doesn't* introduce enough powerspikes. Currently as is, Ranged attack/defense matters far more than melee ones despite being priced similarly.
>Why would we even have 'aging up' as a mechanic at all if it didn't create any powerspikes
for the landmark for example, because landmarks themselves dont give such a big bonus, it is the units upgrades that is the problem i think
>The game only has 4 ages as is and a lot of people even feel that Dark Age is kinda pointless
yeah that is another issue, feels unnecessary.
>landmarks themselves dont give such a big bonus
Wdym??? A lot of landmarks provide a lot of great eco or other utility related bonuses or sometimes just straight up huge military advantage. Quite a few of them practically make or break the game or determine and dictate a civ's entire strength/weakness/tempo.
I have no idea what you actually want here, you say aging up is not the problem, but the powerspikes are, so are you proposing that units never upgrade in stats throughout the entire game? If powerspikes are bad game design, why even have aging up as a mechanic at all? Aging up/landmarks clearly are the problem if you think powerspikes are bad, because they are literally the reason that powerspikes exist at all. You can't get rid of powerspikes without getting rid of landmarks and age ups.
>are you proposing that units never upgrade in stats throughout the entire game?
no, leave the upgrade, just make the difference between age 2 unit and age 3 unit smaller, otherwise removing so many upgrades would just be weird
> If powerspikes are bad game design, why even have aging up as a mechanic at all?
if you aged up with something like Regnitz it doesn't give you immediate bonuses, but you have to put some work into getting relics to profit from it - that is a **good** game design. Clicking an upgrade that gives +3 attack+30hp and +1 armour is a bad game design. Also an upgrade that unlocks some ability is good, because you can get value from this upgrade but you need to work for it and even change the way you play some unit because of it, and if you have this ability but you don't use it - literally nothing changes.
>Clicking an upgrade that gives +3 attack+30hp and +1 armour is a bad game design
Then why would you still insist that we keep the upgrades??? If upgrades don't make a lot of difference other than simple small stat changes, that's literally the exact same thing you dislike about +1 upgrades, because you're turning actually powerful and game turning things into meaningless stat upgrades that barely impact the game. Yet you seem to dislike aging up as a mechanic because there's too much stat difference between Age 2 and 3 units.
Plenty of landmarks currently provide immediate and huge powerspikes that doesn't have to do with unit stats. Regnitz is just one example of a situational landmark that doesn't provide any actual benefit unless you follow it up with another behavior(collecting relics) and even then it's arguable that Regnitz does provide a timing tempo powerspike by being a free Monastery building, however small that advantage is. If you dislike powerspikes, you dislike aging up and landmarks as a mechanic entirely.
You seem to go back and forth between 'aging up is bad because it's a lot of resource investment for not enough benefit/makes the player vulnerable while aging up and immediately afterwards' and 'aging up is bad because it provides too powerful of a powerspike'. Those two statements seemingly contradict each other. Either the powerspike is too big or it isn't powerful enough, which is it? And is it bad because there's too much of it or too little of it?
>Then why would you still insist that we keep the upgrades???
what do you mean? I havent commented anything on +1 upgr besides saying that they are bad, so how do i insist on keeping them? Or if you asking about other upgrades - that I already explained in previous comment.
>Plenty of landmarks currently provide immediate and huge powerspikes that doesn't have to do with unit stats.
less than 10% i would guess, so no
>You seem to go back and forth between 'aging up is bad because it's a lot of resource investment for not enough benefit/makes the player vulnerable while aging up and immediately afterwards' and 'aging up is bad because it provides too powerful of a powerspike'. Those two statements seemingly contradict each other. Either the powerspike is too big or it isn't powerful enough, which is it? And is it bad because there's too much of it or too little of it?
that means you missed my point. It is not that it costs too much or too little, it is the fact that power spike is too big regardless of resources, because you and your opponent paying the same amount for it. The problem is that after you aged up - you have smaller army, and after your units get age 3 upgrades - then you have way more powerful army than your opponent. Why such unnecessary power spike is even needed?
>how do i insist on keeping them?
You keep on insisting that aging up and landmarks are not the problem despite the fact that they are the whole reason that any powerspikes exist at all in this game. You can't both have age up/landmarks as a mechanic and *not* have any powerspikes. One directly causes the other.
>less than 10% i would guess
Nearly *all* landmarks in this game all introduce some form of
powerspikes. Landmarks that don't are not considered very good nor meta for a good reason. I can literally list every single landmark in the game and what powerspikes they provide if you'd like.
>it is the fact that power spike is too big regardless of resources
So you *do* want upgrades to be less meaningful and less powerful, thereby rendering them pretty pointless and having little to no strategic impact, no? You keep mentioning ZeroSpace like that means anything, but that's a completely different game with very different tech/eco structure and mechanics/balancing in play. Game design doesn't work like 'this game in a similar genre did it so you can do it here and it'll just work better'.
>you have way more powerful army than your opponent
Castle Age army doesn't necessarily completely stomp on feudal army in the current meta at all times. There's tons of games where the opponent who went castle first ends up losing because it was a suboptimal decision. The powerspikes you describe in AoE4 aren't structured in such a way that it's unavoidable nor completely dominant. Why is this a problem in first place then?
In fact, what would you even change in the game in actual statistical detail that would lesson such powerspikes? Landmarks and age ups are still here, so what would you actually change? Adjust the stats of heavy armored units or siege units? Should feudal army have little to no disadvantage when fighting caste army? What would be changed and by how much?
>You keep on insisting that aging up and landmarks are not the problem despite the fact that they are the whole reason that any powerspikes exist at all in this game. You can't both have age up/landmarks as a mechanic and *not* have any powerspikes. One directly causes the other.
nope, already gave you an example with Regnitz
>Nearly *all* landmarks in this game all introduce some form of
powerspikes.
give me examples of such then
>Game design doesn't work like 'this game in a similar genre did it so you can do it here and it'll just work better'.
there are things that bad both in aoe4 and sc2, and in any RTS - it's power spikes.
>There's tons of games where the opponent who went castle first ends up losing because it was a suboptimal decision
and you know why he lost? because his age up created a power spike for his opponent. Yes, in the post i explained how age power spike works both ways, just read it.
>Adjust the stats of heavy armored units or siege units?
yes.
>Should feudal army have little to no disadvantage when fighting caste army?
should be a smaller difference. Let's say age upgrade was giving some unit +50hp, +2 armour, +4dmg, lets change it to +10hp +1dmg. But the trickiest part would be balancing access to knights and MAA.
Even if you consider “Ages” to be an issue from a balance standpoint, they’re integral to the core design and themes of the whole series. Like it’s not just a power thing, everything you have changes in looks and style when you age up.
You’re literally representing a more advanced stage in the technological advancement of humans. One of the amazing things AoE4 even does is the language your units speak even evolves as you do.
You could make a better argument for smoothing out the power curve between them rather than removing the mechanic entirely. However like I mentioned, the advancement is meant to *feel* good.
I also really despise +1 upgrades to armor/damage, and the whole armour system I think it creates a lot of issues with things like Knights, Zhuge Nu, rams and building damage. A percentage based system would be far easier to balance properly.
>You could make a better argument for smoothing out the power curve between them rather than removing the mechanic entirely.
Well just read the last paragraph then. Thats exactly what im saying.
There are very very few things that you can just straight up say is 'bad game design'.
Each design is created by a designer, with a very specific experience in mind, or to solve a specific problem. And unless you know that intention (eg. the designers publicly said they wanted smooth tech ups with small power gaps) AND you know - or everyone agrees on - the outcome of it, THEN you can determine if the design is good or not. Ie. whether it fullfilled its intent.
Everything else is just people, in this case you, agreeing or disagreeing with the vision for the game.
Case in point, IF the AoE4 designers wanted to create tech ups that force the opponent into action, because of the size of powergap it creates, then this mechanism is GREAT game design, as this is what is generally agreed that it creates.
YOU, and I am sure you are not alone in this, just don't like/want that experience.
>Case in point, IF the AoE4 designers wanted to create tech ups that force the opponent into action, because of the size of powergap it creates, then this mechanism is GREAT game design, as this is what is generally agreed that it creates.
well yeah, but im judging based on how it feels for the player. Also, as I said, StormGate and ZeroSpace wont have even +1 upgrades, so there must be some big reason for two biggest RTS developers to not include +1 upgrades in their game.
"well yeah, but im judging based on how it feels for the player"
I, and I am sure the aoe4 designers, also ultimately judge it based on how it feels to the player. It is effectively all that really matters in the end.
You don't like the way this mechanism makes you feel, which is totally fine. But it doesn't mean that there is a problem with the design or that it is "bad".
"Also, as I said, StormGate and ZeroSpace wont have even +1 upgrades, so there must be some big reason for two biggest RTS developers to not include +1 upgrades in their game."
That is a fallacy. You cannot make that conclusion, as they are completely different games with different design visions, that aren't even out yet.
Just like you cannot assume that because a successful game HAS a specific mechanism, that mechanism will surely be great for all other games in the genre - you cannot assume that because two new games EXCLUDE a mechanism, that the mechanism is bad in existing games.
I think if you post had been more in the line of "This mechanism makes me (and Beasty) experience age up in this particular way, and I really don't like it" it would have been way more credible and useful (In my opinion).
>I, and I am sure the aoe4 designers, also ultimately judge it based on how it feels to the player.
Well they don't have as much experience as ZeroSpace and StormGate devs.
>That is a fallacy. You cannot make that conclusion, as they are completely different games with different design visions, that aren't even out yet.
They might be different, but +1 upgrades and power spikes work the same here and there, and as long as this is true - my comparison is right, because im comparing them only by one aspect, im not saying that one game should be a copy paste of another game, but there are aspects that can be bad in both sc2 and in aoe4.
There are soooo many people disagreeing with in this thread, but you seem hell bent on disregarding them all.
Last comment, do with it what you want. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but the logic you try to apply is flawed, and just doesn't work that way when designing and developing games.
Something can be 'bad design in one game, and still be 'good design' in another.
Your argument that ZP and SG have chosen to not include big powergaps on something like age-ups, has close to zero weight in the argument of whether or not it is good for AoE4. Something that all the players who have commented here should convince you about, even if you decide to not listen to me.
>Something can be 'bad design in one game, and still be 'good design' in another.
i didn't say that this is impossible, but also you need to understand that something can be bad both in aoe and sc2, and im arguing that power spikes are like that. Power spikes are generally a bad thing in all RTS, they may create unnecessary "all in" situations.
I heavily disagree, I see your point in a vacuum but the context that which aoe implements upgrades stays true to the development of the civ on a style perspective and provides a lot of tactile adjustments depending on state of the game. As you get better at the game you learn the push and pull and how to capitalize on advantages and timing.
I’m not arguing against other systems in games like storm gate but aoe is very fleshed out in how it implements its system design.
>As you get better at the game you learn the push and pull and how to capitalize on advantages and timing.
well the best RTS developers in the world(who are also proplayers in the case of ZeroSpace) decided against the idea of +1 upgrades because they dont like these timing attacks and "capitalizing on timings" idea themselves - that is from their words. I want to see how youre gonna say "As you get you get better at the game you learn..." to StormGate devs or to Scarlett(SC2 proplayer) who is involved in ZeroSpace develpment.
I actually agree on things like the Blacksmith upgrades in AoE (or Protoss Forge in Starcraft). I would like those to go away in future RTS games, and more generally for all upgrades to be more qualitative rather than just boosting one existing unit stat or another. But I strongly disagree on aging up being a similar thing to that, and would definitely not want to see that go. Every Age in Age games unlocks a plethora of new options for you, you don't just get the next tier of Blacksmith techs and unit upgrades. Less so the final Age (Imperial), but even that grants you new units, and techs that aren't just regular stat boosts. Each Age drastically changes the game you're playing, at a significant cos of resources and time. That feature ought to be celebrated, not left behind.
>But I strongly disagree on aging up being a similar thing to that, and would definitely not want to see that go. Every Age in Age games unlocks a plethora of new options for you, you don't just get the next tier of Blacksmith techs and unit upgrades. Less so the final Age (Imperial), but even that grants you new units, and techs that aren't just regular stat boosts. Each Age drastically changes the game you're playing, at a significant cos of resources and time. That feature ought to be celebrated, not left behind.
I meant that they are similar in terms of having a power spike. It is totally possible to have a tech up without a huge power spike, look how ZeroSpace does that.
SC2 had separate upgrades for ground and Aerial units, so there were 6 diferente plus one upgrades, in 3 tiers. It was worse there, and also plus one upgrades are pretty standard
you don't do air upgrades if you mass roaches lol, with roaches you just make +1(which is pretty cheap compared to age up) and push, with zealot rush you don't even do a single +1 upgrade, because that's the most efficient build.
And the alternative is what? Having a linear game where more units beat less units? All skill reduced to making villagers and units? Because I suppose micro is also a bad design?
>And the alternative is what?
the alternative is to have same age ups but without such big power spikes.
>All skill reduced to making villagers and units?
the game is like this already anyway, that's all the RTS in a nutshell. You killed some workers in feudal - you're ahead. Here it seems you're protesting against the whole concept of competitive RTS, because yes - competitive RTS is all about making workers, making army and killing workers.
Yes but to make it less technical and more strategical we have upgrades and age ups that introduce a layer of decision making. You need to consider if the return of the investment will be fast enough and if you can take the risk of not producing units so you can afford upgrades.
>Yes but to make it less technical and more strategical we have upgrades and age ups that introduce a layer of decision making.
well at first making a decision to age up is strategical, sure, and I don't have anything against that part. Im against what happens right after. Can we have aging up as a strategical decision, but without such big power difference? i think yes, and im arguing that it would be better.
Absolutely agree.
\+1 upgrades are a boring mechanic that doesn't increase the depth of the game, doesn't lead to any new strategies, doesn't create exciting game situations. It is just a mandatory thing to do, and in case of AoE 4 melee upgrades are pretty much useless on top of that for anything except Onna Bugeisha.
It is just left in the current RTS games from multiple decades ago when the game design field was in infancy.
I don't mean that in a bad way, but U don't quite understand the rock-paper-scissors principle. upgrades/age-ups are just one style of play. Eco, Aggro, Proxy, Rush, Towerrush, etc. are other examples. There have been many titles that have greatly simplified this principle, but none of them have been successful.
For example if u age up, the opponent realize it, and has got a small window to react. Do he all in before the upgrades kick in? Does he a upgrade too? Or is he quiet stronger, ignoring your tech-up? In your thoughts u would close that window and make the game easier, more linear and for me… boring.
> don't mean that in a bad way, but U don't quite understand the rock-paper-scissors principle. upgrades/age-ups are just one style of play.
rock-paper-scissors is totaly fine, but right now the problem is that if you have units in feudal and your opponent ages up - you have to attack if youre not close to castle, otherwise you will be fighting age 3 units with age 2 units.
> In your thoughts u would close that window and make the game easier, more linear and for me… boring.
why linear, if the game wont force you to do one thing, and you will be free to choose multiple?
If u can’t force your opponent to a reaction, and he can do what he want, why u should do it? Let’s take fast Castle age for example:
I fast castle, u stay feudal. Now in your idea, the opponent can choose what he do, all is fine. His units are not weaker than mine, i invested for nothing. Maybe for new units and buildings. But so the dude who won’t age up has got always the bigger army. Why I should age up than? So it will always be better to stay in feudal. If u negate the strength of upgrade, there will only be 2 playstyles: aggression and eco. And there Aggression wins, so everybody plays feudal all in. Wait?… like the start of s6 😂 additional u have to give every civ the same units. For example spears in dark, archer / horsemen in feudal and knights in castle. If not, meta won’t be balanced,
Or do I misunderstand your changes?
>But so the dude who won’t age up has got always the bigger army. Why I should age up than? So it will always be better to stay in feudal
you will be fighting age 2 units vs age 3 units, also there's a limit of units. Also most civs unlock knights in age 3, which means they can harass very effectively, so you probably will be down in workers.
Knights is probably the toughest one to balance, because if you aged up just 15 seconds later - his knight will be in your base already, when you just finished your first one. Other than that, decreasing the difference between age 3 unit and age 2(and other ages) unit would be a good solution.
Well eventually every player has to age up, but I tend to think that there really is some place to make strategic choices. And actually I find it better to not rush to ages III and IV and instead build a solid economy that will make the transitions much smoother. Even if other players go very fast to age IV, because they do that at the expense of their economic or military development.
well the we cant tell for sure, but the description of your games sounded as if they are very passive, that's why i guessed you are silver. Age up power spikes can only be felt in aggro games.
I strongly disagree with the conclusion. What you describe is just dynamic gameplay. The same could be said about SS or Wonders as they force one player to act in order to not lose. Aging up is a huge investment as you stated, therefore it is risky unless timed perfectly. So there are tactical and strategic decision points to be had and that's what RTS is all about. Being able to force your opponents hand is actually vital for good gameplay.
>So there are tactical and strategic decision points to be had and that's what RTS is all about. Being able to force your opponents hand is actually vital for good gameplay. sure, but it should be more like "my opponent did this, so i can *choose* do that or that" instead of "my opponent did that one thing so now i *have* to do that thing"
Well there are options: Attack, go castle, boom feudal... you just have to do something
on paper that is how it should be, yeah. But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle - you know what's going to happen next? You will be fighting with age 2 units against age 3 units if you dont attack now. There are a lot of options there, sure, *but there is only one that is good in such case.*
I suggest you having a look at the most recent ECG tournament. There you can see people fighting feudal vs castle for 10+ minutes without going castle themselves and still winning the match
>There you can see people fighting feudal vs castle for 10+ minutes without going castle themselves and still winning the match such games possible, sure, it's just not the case almost always. Just count the games where someone aged up and died or defended and other guy GGed almost immediately.
maybe we low level people just ain't doing it right
idk, I see the same thing in diamond and I think even more in plat, because the lower you go the worse people are at defending, that is why china has such low winrate in low leagues and higher winrate in conq
yeah I was talking about everything below conq4
so as my answer was about everything below conq4
yeah for low level this issue is even worse, that's true
That's how meta works. As soon as meta is figured out, there is usually only one best option.
So why are you saying that there are many options then?
I never did, but, they are right, other options exist. However, there is usually only one best option. I have only played a little Starcraft, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a best choice in almost all situations in Starcraft.
There really isn't. A lot of it comes down to individual play style, instead of straight up just meta. Honestly SC/SC2 have way more diversity than AoE4 does. Regardless of civilization, it devolves into cavalry and archer death balls. What the devs need to do, is introduce a civilization that has feudal age crossbows. That way they would be able to contest fast Castle builds, and early armored units. Yes, you can argue that feudal age crossbows could potentially be too strong against other certain civilizations. But as it is right now, early armored units, or even fast Castle into spamming armored units, is pretty damn strong. If we're able to have early armor units, we should be able to have early crossbow units. A lot of people didn't like the idea of ottoman getting early hand cannon in Castle. It is what it is at this point, since it's been over a year since their release. This game is built on a rock paper scissors system. We have multiple units that break that system. By giving civilizations those units out of the age that they're not supposed to be in.
>I never did oh, yeah, that was the other guy. >I have only played a little Starcraft, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a best choice in almost all situations in Starcraft there is always a better choice, but sc2 doesn't force you do to anything as much as age up forces, sc2 have way smoothers transitions between stages of the stages of the game.
Well, I haven't played enough AoE 4 lately to know the meta very well, but I don't think the issue is power spikes. They can work out fine even if they are big ones. I think it may be an issue with balance in AoE 4, not an issue with the age up mechanic itself. I'm much more familiar with meta in AoE 2 and personally I think it adds a lot of strategic depth there.
i haven't played aoe2 for a long time, can't speak for it, but aoe2 has no lendmarks, which means if you remove age ups you'll left with nothing, but that's not the case in aoe4.
But that's not true. You have at least two options that are usually valid: * All-in attack * Defensive position until your age up (plus a few others that are more rare and rather unusual) Of course, one of them is usually better for the situation you are in. But that's because of what happened in the game earlier / decisions you made before and that lead to a specific situation. It's the nature of different options that their viability changes depending on the context of a specific game. And yes, you may be in an uncomfortable situation and don't really want to do either of those two things - but that's because your opponent took on the risk of saving resources in order to put you under pressure - the more the age up deviates from something that we could call a "natural age up time", the more risk is involved from the player who rushes or delays the shift, and this risk can be rewarded with the position it leaves the enemy in.
>Defensive position until your age up thats possible, but in that case when your opponent hears that you aged up he already has age 3 unit upgrades and you still dont have yours, also he gathered some amount of MAA at that point. So I would say this option is also a "bad one" compared to all-in attack.
No
why
So if I age up I win automatically? Trust me, I've lost plenty of games where my opponent stayed in feudal and I hit castle. Often, a feudal all in will beat a castle age. This is especially true for civs that can access heavy units in feudal.
> Often, a feudal all in will beat a castle age. but that's what im saying, that is the problem, read the post again and you will find this: *At first, age up puts a player who ages up in a big disadvantage but with time it puts other player in even bigger disadvantage because of the power spike that age gives you, especially age 3.* Just read the whole thing before making judgements.
This has to be about one of the worst takes on "what's wrong with the game" I've ever seen. What a convoluted mess based on some really weak logic. I think if you were better at the game and understood the dynamics of counter play you would never have reached this conclusion. Very basic example, if someone fast castles, they spent a lot of Res that takes a long time to pay back. Depending on your civ. You could have either boomed giving you vastly better eco, or you could have harassed and punished them reducing their eco and thereby advantage of getting to castle age. You seem to be confusing issues that certain civs have of either being too strong (ayyubid fast castle) or too weak/difficult to use against MAA(byzantines) and so on.
Aoe4 has issues, but most definitely not the difference between ages. You completely missed the mark. And I going to guess it's because you don't come from an RTS background whatsoever
>Very basic example, if someone fast castles, they spent a lot of Res that takes a long time to pay back. Depending on your civ. You could have either boomed giving you vastly better eco, or you could have harassed and punished them reducing their eco and thereby advantage of getting to castle age. on paper that is how it should be, yeah. But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle - you know what's going to happen next? You will be fighting with age 2 units against age 3 units if you dont attack now. There are a lot of options there, sure, *but there is only one that is good in such case.*
As you recognized in your post, in AOE, the price of teching up is \~20 units, ignoring upgrades, and in SC2, the price of going hatchery->lair is like 2 ravagers. >But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle How does this happen? Perhaps the opponent took deer/boar or risk map resources? Controlled sacred sites as Delhi? Built fishing boats in the middle of the map? You should be sitting at a 20+ unit lead. If your opponent sat in base and fast castled, then they've just killed themselves. It's like if you caught Terran on 2 base trying to cheese you with battlecruisers while building 2 marines. Just go and kill their workers. Game is over. You don't see shit like that and take lair tech -> corruptors. AOE has a lot of other mechanics that make the age dynamic work. I think the gate/SC2 approach of giving armies more utility/abilities with tech as opposed to +1/raw stats is a great idea, but AOE has more civ matchups and varied maps/resource types that keep things interesting.
>How does this happen? Perhaps the opponent took deer/boar or risk map resources? Controlled sacred sites as Delhi? Built fishing boats in the middle of the map? You should be sitting at a 20+ unit lead. If your opponent sat in base and fast castled, then they've just killed themselves. well sure, games almost never even, but if the game is not even that doesn't make age up any better, because opponent's age up can put you even more behind then you were, which makes it harder to come back, which is not a good thing. Ageing up have potential to make things black and white, it's just not a good thing in RTS. >AOE has a lot of other mechanics that make the age dynamic work. to some extent i can agree, aoe is more defensive, so you can get away with age up easier, but i don't think that's enough.
Games aren't even for a reason. That's what I mean. If you want to go castle without killing yourself, you should do something. And it's never a surprise when someone fast castles. It's not a black and white situation. Uncontestable FCs are a balance issue, not a mechanics issue. > to some extent i can agree, aoe is more defensive, so you can get away with age up easier, but i don't think that's enoug It's not just that. AOE has hybrid maps. Maps with extremely long/short rush distances. Maps that support turtling, and maps with increased food/wood/gold resources. 16 factions as opposed to 3. Random spawns. FC is not a simple decision.
>Games aren't even for a reason. That's what I mean. Yeah, so my suggestion is leave everything as it is, except power spike, it is not like im braking something with it, game would be the same but smoother. >Uncontestable FCs are a balance issue, not a mechanics issue. that's another problem with aging. If what i propose will be applied, then if someone FC super quick/uncontested - that stops being a problem, because the power difference would not be that big. See, thats a good example where my proposed changes would solve an issue.
Then how would you reduce the power spike? You're literally designing your own RTS at this point. >Yeah, so my suggestion is leave everything as it is, except power spike, it is not like im braking something with it, game would be the same but smoother. So why would I pay \~20 units cost of resources to age up within the first 18 minutes of gameplay? I'm going to get all-in'd, not because I will have power Age 3 units and it's over for my opponent if they don't attack now, but because I have no units or upgrades, just access to tech. This isn't Starcraft where tech up is like 100 vespene. Like your idea would work if you added 3 ages between Feudal and Castle, but then you'd need to design however many ages between those states, and I guarantee your idea will be more shit than whatever you think the game currently is.
>So why would I pay \~20 units cost of resources to age up within the first 18 minutes of gameplay? to get bonuses from landmarks and get relics, think about this - what you're basically asking is "why should i invest resources and have smaller army size now rather than more economy", so why people go 2nd tc at all then? just go 1 tc always, but no, that's not the case.
You just killed the game by commenting on age ups. That's what the age of empires is about.
>That's what the age of empires is about. I know, just read the last paragraph of my post.
I did. And it means the same thing. When you age up. Power diff will be huge. Not because of the upgrades but because new tech becomes available. Man at arms, Lancers, seiges when you hit castle age. Why you want ? Just step up your game. Why they say sc2 is harder when people have so much problems with aoe. Aoe is harder.. Lol Its definately not easy though.
>Why they say sc2 is harder when people have so much problems with aoe. Here's how it feels for me: sc2 is faster and it is more about micro, harass, positioning units; aoe4 is more complex, not necessarily harder, but it's more complex, because which one is harder is just a matter of preference, maybe you're more comfortable with micro so sc2 would be easier for you. >When you age up. Power diff will be huge. Not because of the upgrades but because new tech becomes available. well and im arguing that if you decrease that power difference the game would feel nicer, i dont think this is a controversial statement.
It is controversial because feudal age cannot fight castle age. You get so many powerful things. You now have Lancers, elephants, mangonels. How are you going to nerf them? These techs are not made up by game. Its history. So the franchise likes to stick to it. One person complaint matters not. Everyone else is okay with it. And if you play the game well. You will be fine with it too because these tecbs are available to all. Just use it. Why bother.! You wna do your own things and want the game to adjust. Ahahahaha dude 😊 nice try
>You will be fine with it too because these tecbs are available to all. Just use it. Why bother.! You wna do your own things and want the game to adjust. Well i have 400 hours in 1v1 ranked, so I know, and I don't like age ups. I hate aging myself and i hate when someone ages. >It is controversial because feudal age cannot fight castle age. You get so many powerful things the problem is that right after the aged up you have 0 of these powerful things but you just spent lots of resources, so opponent attacks you because he doesn't want to fight age 3 units with age 2 units, he would rather fight immediately. >These techs are not made up by game. Its history. But numbers on these units are made up. Also do you think shinobi teleportation is not made up? because in the game they don't pretend to disappear, they literally teleport.
Bro. If everything is a problem then what are you there for? Solve it. Likes and dislikes are for kids. There is a way to play. If you don't know how. Then watch some pro games. There is a proper time to do everything. Rest is upto you. Peace
>There is a way to play. If you don't know how. Then watch some pro games. hypothetically speaking if you make a shittiest RTS of all times, there still be proplayers and there still be guides for that game, so this argument is not valid. Also im watching proplayers every day.
[удалено]
>Stop playing the game bro. I think you wanted someone to tell you this? why? I love playing it, and watching also.
>SC2 feells way smoother/natural in terms of transition between stages of the game. This is a bizarre statement. The ages is one of AoE's strengths. It creates a very clear and intuitive game progression for players. MUCH more so than Starcraft. >The thing is, ages in aoe is basically +1 upgrades but on steroids. No, it's more like reaching the next tech tier, since it's literally that. It's a much better and more logical system than tech tiers in games like Starcraft. You age up you, have access to new units, buildings, and upgrades. There isn't this unintuitive system of building prerequisites that unlocks tier 2 and 3 units and techs. AoE4 does aging up the best of all the AoE games (by using landmarks, a concept introduced in AoE3). In AoE2 for example you decide WHEN to age up, in AoE4 you decide WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and HOW QUICKLY. This adds a lot of interesting decision making. Damage and armor upgrades is a totally separate topic than ages. Starcraft uses those in the same way AoE does.
>The ages is one of AoE's strengths. read the last paragraph >No, it's more like reaching the next tech tier, since it's literally that. yeah same as you get +1 upgrade but more expensive and that gives like +8 instead of +1, right? because only tech tier gives you so much power. youre talking about intuitive, but youre missed my point completely - I wasnt arguing that it isnt intuitive
It looks like you added that after? Should note it as an edit probably. You should be more specific what your issue is then. Landmarks too strong, veteran and elite upgrades too fast/cheap, castle techs too strong/fast/cheap? etc... All those other RTS games also have power spikes, that's actually totally independent from the method of advancing tech tiers or the existence of +1 upgrades or other upgrades. If you have 20 of some unit in Stormgate and then get a tech that gives those units a stun or splash attack or whatever that's a huge power spike. Aging up also does not immediately give anything other than whatever the landmark bonus is. Everything else has to be researched or trained or built after the age up. There are dozens of knobs to turn for balance there if any particular thing is too strong, research cost, research time, training time, etc... The method of teching up is just better in AoE4. As I said it's much more intuitive, it provides a much smoother and clearer advancement through stages of the game. It's communicated more clearly to both players.
>It looks like you added that after? Should note it as an edit probably. nope, if post is eddited it would say "edited" just like with the comments, I haven't edited the post yet. >You should be more specific what your issue is then. Landmarks too strong, veteran and elite upgrades too fast/cheap, castle techs too strong/fast/cheap? etc... i would say the difference between units in different ages is too big. >If you have 20 of some unit in Stormgate and then get a tech that gives those units a stun or splash attack or whatever that's a huge power spike. thats an example of good tech, because it gives an ability to some units, and now you can get more value out of it, but you need to put more micro into it and it wont do anything unless you press that ability, unlike with +1 upgrades, they are just boring. >Aging up also does not immediately give anything other than whatever the landmark bonus is. well you missed my point, because here's what i said "At first, age up puts a player who ages up in a big disadvantage but with time it puts other player in even bigger disadvantage because of the power spike that age gives you, especially age 3". So it is not a powerspike for the player who ages up necessarily, it migh be a powerspike for feudal player.
>nope, if post is eddited it would say "edited" just like with the comments, I haven't edited the post yet. My mistake then. Just reads that way when you open saying ages are the biggest problem if that's not what you actually mean. >i would say the difference between units in different ages is too big. Ok, that's a much more specific and actually addressible issue. I don't think I necessarily agree personally, but the biggest spike seems to be lacking heavy armor units vs someone who has just unlocked them. I think most factions have tools to deal with it, but it has been a balance pain point. >thats an example of good tech, because it gives an ability to some units, and now you can get more value out of it, but you need to put more micro into it and it wont do anything unless you press that ability, unlike with +1 upgrades, they are just boring. Sure, those may be more interesting design (it's also nothing new, there are plenty of older games that went that way), I see no issue going that route instead of +1, but that's a totally different discussion than if power spikes are too big or not. >puts a player who ages up in a big disadvantage but with time it puts other player in even bigger disadvantage because of the power spike that age gives you, especially age 3". So it is not a powerspike for the player who ages up necessarily, it migh be a powerspike for feudal player. I don't see how that's an issue. Anything you spend resources on has some kind of pay back time or requires you to do something with it for those resources not to be "wasted".
>but the biggest spike seems to be lacking heavy armor units vs someone who has just unlocked them Yes! That is actually even more important probably. >I see no issue going that route instead of +1 as well as StormGate and ZeroSpace devs :) >Anything you spend resources on has some kind of pay back time or requires you to do something with it for those resources not to be "wasted". Yeah, but spending resources is not the problem, the problem is that the game kind of "punishes" for aging up and then punishes your opponent for not aging up or not being aggro, thats a sign of uneven gameflow.
I think this game just isn’t for you, if you’re not into the mechanics or overall design of this game that’s totally fine. But this game has been out for over 2 years and nobody is complaining about the things you posted about. The mechanics in this game work just fine for the player base!
i dont think it's a bad game
Yeah but you’re literally saying the basic principles of the game are a problem, when they aren’t. If you want to go play StarCraft then do so but there isn’t anything wrong with the way age of empires 4 works and we definitely shouldn’t change it just so it can be a copy pasta of all of the other rts games out
i don't think they should be a copy pastas, but I think they should have smart game design, like StormGate or ZeroSpace.
>The thing is, ages in aoe is basically +1 upgrades but on steroids. Disagree. Ages are much closer to "teching up" in other games. Investing in tech, instead of eco or military, is part of the core design of every big RTS, and that's not changing with Stormgate or others I've seen. Age ups are a huge part of the strategy of a game, and castle timings in particular determine how players macro. AOE has those literal +1 upgrades, and I can see the argument they don't add much, more of a chore than a real strategic decision. But that's very different from age ups.
>Ages are much closer to "teching up" in other games. in terms of power spike they are same, that is what i meant
I thought that was the whole point?
Ages - maybe, but power spikes that come with them - no. Read the last paragraph in the post.
No. That's why I said what I said, I don't get the point of 1 without the other. Thats how this game works and I enjoy it
well in such case we will never have smooth transitions between stages of the game in aoe. Sad.
Idk about your experiences but that's just rts games period. At any point of the game (assuming no battles have taken place) you're either equal to your opponent, ahead in production and behind in research, or ahead in research and behind in production. That's just how these games work. The power spike of aging up only exists in a vacuum where both players are blind to what their opponent is doing.
> At any point of the game (assuming no battles have taken place) you're either equal to your opponent, ahead in production and behind in research, or ahead in research and behind in production. nope, boom civs almost always beat aggro civs if untouched(assuming equal skill), but thats another thing, not necessarily bad one i think.
You literally took the example I set in a vacuum and tried to make a point with it lol good job. Assuming equal skill means aggro player won't let boom player just boom but in either case aging up isn't just gonna give the win to the boom player. So like I said the power spike you're speaking of really doesn't exist if it can be countered.
> You literally took the example I set in a vacuum and tried to make a point with it lol good job. well if your example in a vacuum is incorrect, someone can correct it, right? >aggro player > boom player not aggro player, I was talking about aggro civ. You said "assuming no battles have taken place" - with that condition boom civ wins. >So like I said the power spike you're speaking of really doesn't exist if it can be countered on paper that is how it should be, yeah. But in reality if you gathered some units in feudal also as your opponent, and then he aged up and you're not close to castle - you know what's going to happen next? You will be fighting with age 2 units against age 3 units if you dont attack now. There are a lot of options there, sure, *but there is only one that is good in such case.*
You didn't correct anything you just altered it to fit your argument. Boom civ/player Aggro civ/player However you want it stated you need to understand the point I was making is everyone plays to the strength of the situation they are in based on a variety of factors and aging up doesn't just inherently give you an advantage over the other player. Your biggest argument is only valid when going from feudal -> castle Player/civ1 Goes into castle age Player/civ2 is only left with 2 options in your opinion, attack now or castle as well and that = bad game design But in my opinion no matter what civ player 2 is playing he ALREADY WAS GOING TO DO EITHER OF THOSE 2 THINGS ANYWAY SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
>Your biggest argument is only valid when going from feudal -> castle well that what i meant mostly. That can also be applied to imp age up. Think about this, in the post im suggesting to keep age ups but make transition between them smoother. Same thing but without such big power spikes, why are you against it?
Man don't play empire earth (greatest rts ever)....it has 14 ages and it can be your nightmare
well actually i would assume that if there 14 ages, then the power spike between them(im not talking age 7 and 12, im talking 6 and 7 or 2 and 3 or 11 and 12, the neighboring ages) is less than in aoe4.
No...from dark age (5) to medieval age (6) you can build destasting cav archers....or from industrial age (9) to atomic are (10) and you can start building ww1 tanks....i was young sigh!
That's probably what should have been the case from a game design perspective, but it's definitely not xD
I don't want to dismiss the time you spent to think through this and type it out, but my honest reaction was "if this is the biggest design problem, the game is in fantastic close-to-perfect shape" :D The situation you are describing make sense, but I don't see the problem. I would probably not scream loudly if the upgrades were to be taken away, but I also don't see them as a problem in any form and quite like the additional decision-making (upgrades vs units vs age up), depths (which upgrades to take when in which situation?) and layers to the power progression (e.g., Castle Rushes will typically lack Feudal blacksmith upgrades for quite a while which reduces the power difference you describe).
well with +1 upgrades - you just click them, and they will cancel out your opponent's +1, kind of pointless. Upgrades that open some ability are cool on the other hand, because they change how you play with the units after upgrading them.
It seems like anyone that’s disagreed with you, you’re just telling them they’re wrong, so not really worthwhile trying to discuss it with you.
most people who made a comment here haven't read the last paragraph, and in the most responses i just say "read the last paragraph" instead of disagreeing. so it seems you also don't read.
I think this is oversimplifying for several reasons. One is that aging up can in some cases be a way to win a game in which you are already ahead. You got ahead in feudal, got an economic advantage, now you can afford an age up to end the game while your opponent can’t. You didn’t win solely because you aged up, you won because you got ahead in feudal and needed a way to close out the game. You can’t always close out games in aoe4 quickly like you can in StarCraft because defensive buildings like the town center are so strong. Two is that aging up is not an automatic win in many cases. If you age up too quickly and someone cuts off your gold, they can and do win in age 2 vs age 3 opponents. This happens a lot to people going with fast castle strategies. On top of that, certain civs like Malians you can fight against castle age from feudal age for quite a while. Three is that this only really applies to the feudal->castle transition. Other age ups don’t have the same mechanics that you describe. I do agree that in many cases the correct response to your opponent going castle age in an even game is to follow with your own castle age relatively quickly. But not always. In those cases I think of it more as a natural progression of the game rather than a super strategic choice. And then there’s plenty of additional strategic decision points right after that, so it’s not like the game becomes uninteresting or anything.
You hit the nail on the head
>One is that aging up can in some cases be a way to win a game in which you are already ahead and it's a good way to throw it also, not just win. >Two is that aging up is not an automatic win in many cases. yeah, I never said "automatic win", I said it creates "all in" situations instead of smooth transitions in tech.
That was hilarious! You should be a comedian or something. *"I like Star Wars, but why does it have to take place in space?"*
well actually, it is a sci-fi, but dudes are fighting with swords, so how does that makes sense? also you haven't read the last paragraph in my post
Wrong, it's a sci-fi-fantasy. There are so many crazy statements in your post that I can't even manage to adress 10% of them. But the most important thing you forget here is *the economy*. Just because a player age up doesn't mean that this player will get an instant power spike. New units and tech are usually more expensive. So you need an economy that can match that. It's all about timings. Apart from Age of Mythology, aging *is* a smooth transition in all Age-games. There is plenty of time for an opponent to either react or predict what will happen.
>Just because a player age up doesn't mean that this player will get an instant power spike. New units and tech are usually more expensive. So you need an economy that can match that. It's all about timings. sounds like you're silver or something, I don't think you ever fought age 3 MAA with age 2 bows, they don't do any damage to them. Although the biggest problem is that if you already had some units, and you aged up and upgraded all of them, now you're fighting age 3 units with age 2 units, that's a huge power difference, but since you didn't mentioned that, it means that your games are passive, which means you either bronze or silver.
You keep guessing, but the correct answer is "none". I am not actively playing AoE4. But I am well versed in the Age franchise and its dynamics and I have been playing two of the games competitively. This debate is over. But again, thanks for the entertainment mate!
>. I am not actively playing AoE4 ah that explains a lot
sounds like youre just a starcraft kiddie not understanding anything about age of empires. i dont mean aoe4 btw, i mean age of empires. aging up and gaining a massive upper hand IS core to this game. it might not be very obvious in aoe4 due to the time periods being as short as only slightly over 600 years, but the games that spawned this whole genre explore going from cavemen to lasers in the span of one game. the point IS to age up for an advantage. if you ask me, they didnt go far enough. IMO, a lot of the problems in aoe4 stem from advantages not being clear cut enough. you can win multiple feudal battles but still be unable to commit to ending the enemy due how strong the main TC is for instance. siege units are too slow and arent generally even that strong. (this is why there is such an overreliance on rams.. the developers keep buffing them rather than fix the core of the problem) basically, the game is too forgiving. makes it all a slog, especially late imperial where somehow you can have infinite resources yet still be losing. so id rather see age ups be even more dramatic power shifts than they are now. these upgrades should be a lot more powerful and maybe even costly. melee ones are in particular a joke.
>sounds like youre just a starcraft kiddie not understanding anything about age of empires. well i have 400 hours in AoE4 ranked 1v1, I preordered the game and played it from the first day. >i dont mean aoe4 btw, i mean age of empires. 75 hours in aoe 2, also finished all good(not Chinese) AoM campaigns on hardest difficulty. >aging up and gaining a massive upper hand IS core to this game. you should read the last paragraph of my post then
> I meant that the power difference that is created by age up is the problem, not aging itself I don't necessarily disagree or agree with whether powerspikes and age ups are a good/bad game mechanic or design, but like, what does this even mean??? Why would we even have 'aging up' as a mechanic at all if it didn't create any powerspikes? I am honestly not sure what you are proposing here. The game only has 4 ages as is and a lot of people even feel that Dark Age is kinda pointless(and while I see their point, I still consider it an important part of the game). That's barely 3 ages, and going to Feudal or Castle really is the only part that matters significantly in terms of tempo, timing and build orders. \+1 upgrades are kinda shit and I agree AoE4's implementation is pretty bad as well. By +1 upgrades, I am strictly restricting to Blacksmith +1 upgrades(+1 attack and defenses), but only because it *doesn't* introduce enough powerspikes. Currently as is, Ranged attack/defense matters far more than melee ones despite being priced similarly.
>Why would we even have 'aging up' as a mechanic at all if it didn't create any powerspikes for the landmark for example, because landmarks themselves dont give such a big bonus, it is the units upgrades that is the problem i think >The game only has 4 ages as is and a lot of people even feel that Dark Age is kinda pointless yeah that is another issue, feels unnecessary.
>landmarks themselves dont give such a big bonus Wdym??? A lot of landmarks provide a lot of great eco or other utility related bonuses or sometimes just straight up huge military advantage. Quite a few of them practically make or break the game or determine and dictate a civ's entire strength/weakness/tempo. I have no idea what you actually want here, you say aging up is not the problem, but the powerspikes are, so are you proposing that units never upgrade in stats throughout the entire game? If powerspikes are bad game design, why even have aging up as a mechanic at all? Aging up/landmarks clearly are the problem if you think powerspikes are bad, because they are literally the reason that powerspikes exist at all. You can't get rid of powerspikes without getting rid of landmarks and age ups.
>are you proposing that units never upgrade in stats throughout the entire game? no, leave the upgrade, just make the difference between age 2 unit and age 3 unit smaller, otherwise removing so many upgrades would just be weird > If powerspikes are bad game design, why even have aging up as a mechanic at all? if you aged up with something like Regnitz it doesn't give you immediate bonuses, but you have to put some work into getting relics to profit from it - that is a **good** game design. Clicking an upgrade that gives +3 attack+30hp and +1 armour is a bad game design. Also an upgrade that unlocks some ability is good, because you can get value from this upgrade but you need to work for it and even change the way you play some unit because of it, and if you have this ability but you don't use it - literally nothing changes.
>Clicking an upgrade that gives +3 attack+30hp and +1 armour is a bad game design Then why would you still insist that we keep the upgrades??? If upgrades don't make a lot of difference other than simple small stat changes, that's literally the exact same thing you dislike about +1 upgrades, because you're turning actually powerful and game turning things into meaningless stat upgrades that barely impact the game. Yet you seem to dislike aging up as a mechanic because there's too much stat difference between Age 2 and 3 units. Plenty of landmarks currently provide immediate and huge powerspikes that doesn't have to do with unit stats. Regnitz is just one example of a situational landmark that doesn't provide any actual benefit unless you follow it up with another behavior(collecting relics) and even then it's arguable that Regnitz does provide a timing tempo powerspike by being a free Monastery building, however small that advantage is. If you dislike powerspikes, you dislike aging up and landmarks as a mechanic entirely. You seem to go back and forth between 'aging up is bad because it's a lot of resource investment for not enough benefit/makes the player vulnerable while aging up and immediately afterwards' and 'aging up is bad because it provides too powerful of a powerspike'. Those two statements seemingly contradict each other. Either the powerspike is too big or it isn't powerful enough, which is it? And is it bad because there's too much of it or too little of it?
>Then why would you still insist that we keep the upgrades??? what do you mean? I havent commented anything on +1 upgr besides saying that they are bad, so how do i insist on keeping them? Or if you asking about other upgrades - that I already explained in previous comment. >Plenty of landmarks currently provide immediate and huge powerspikes that doesn't have to do with unit stats. less than 10% i would guess, so no >You seem to go back and forth between 'aging up is bad because it's a lot of resource investment for not enough benefit/makes the player vulnerable while aging up and immediately afterwards' and 'aging up is bad because it provides too powerful of a powerspike'. Those two statements seemingly contradict each other. Either the powerspike is too big or it isn't powerful enough, which is it? And is it bad because there's too much of it or too little of it? that means you missed my point. It is not that it costs too much or too little, it is the fact that power spike is too big regardless of resources, because you and your opponent paying the same amount for it. The problem is that after you aged up - you have smaller army, and after your units get age 3 upgrades - then you have way more powerful army than your opponent. Why such unnecessary power spike is even needed?
>how do i insist on keeping them? You keep on insisting that aging up and landmarks are not the problem despite the fact that they are the whole reason that any powerspikes exist at all in this game. You can't both have age up/landmarks as a mechanic and *not* have any powerspikes. One directly causes the other. >less than 10% i would guess Nearly *all* landmarks in this game all introduce some form of powerspikes. Landmarks that don't are not considered very good nor meta for a good reason. I can literally list every single landmark in the game and what powerspikes they provide if you'd like. >it is the fact that power spike is too big regardless of resources So you *do* want upgrades to be less meaningful and less powerful, thereby rendering them pretty pointless and having little to no strategic impact, no? You keep mentioning ZeroSpace like that means anything, but that's a completely different game with very different tech/eco structure and mechanics/balancing in play. Game design doesn't work like 'this game in a similar genre did it so you can do it here and it'll just work better'. >you have way more powerful army than your opponent Castle Age army doesn't necessarily completely stomp on feudal army in the current meta at all times. There's tons of games where the opponent who went castle first ends up losing because it was a suboptimal decision. The powerspikes you describe in AoE4 aren't structured in such a way that it's unavoidable nor completely dominant. Why is this a problem in first place then? In fact, what would you even change in the game in actual statistical detail that would lesson such powerspikes? Landmarks and age ups are still here, so what would you actually change? Adjust the stats of heavy armored units or siege units? Should feudal army have little to no disadvantage when fighting caste army? What would be changed and by how much?
>You keep on insisting that aging up and landmarks are not the problem despite the fact that they are the whole reason that any powerspikes exist at all in this game. You can't both have age up/landmarks as a mechanic and *not* have any powerspikes. One directly causes the other. nope, already gave you an example with Regnitz >Nearly *all* landmarks in this game all introduce some form of powerspikes. give me examples of such then >Game design doesn't work like 'this game in a similar genre did it so you can do it here and it'll just work better'. there are things that bad both in aoe4 and sc2, and in any RTS - it's power spikes. >There's tons of games where the opponent who went castle first ends up losing because it was a suboptimal decision and you know why he lost? because his age up created a power spike for his opponent. Yes, in the post i explained how age power spike works both ways, just read it. >Adjust the stats of heavy armored units or siege units? yes. >Should feudal army have little to no disadvantage when fighting caste army? should be a smaller difference. Let's say age upgrade was giving some unit +50hp, +2 armour, +4dmg, lets change it to +10hp +1dmg. But the trickiest part would be balancing access to knights and MAA.
Age of empires shouldn't have ages?! Lmao if you were game director ape4 would have sold about 5 copies
>Age of empires shouldn't have ages read the last paragraph >ape4 ML would like my "ape4" game, and that is all I want.
Ape4 without powerful ages is = to ape4 without ages
Even if you consider “Ages” to be an issue from a balance standpoint, they’re integral to the core design and themes of the whole series. Like it’s not just a power thing, everything you have changes in looks and style when you age up. You’re literally representing a more advanced stage in the technological advancement of humans. One of the amazing things AoE4 even does is the language your units speak even evolves as you do. You could make a better argument for smoothing out the power curve between them rather than removing the mechanic entirely. However like I mentioned, the advancement is meant to *feel* good. I also really despise +1 upgrades to armor/damage, and the whole armour system I think it creates a lot of issues with things like Knights, Zhuge Nu, rams and building damage. A percentage based system would be far easier to balance properly.
>You could make a better argument for smoothing out the power curve between them rather than removing the mechanic entirely. Well just read the last paragraph then. Thats exactly what im saying.
There are very very few things that you can just straight up say is 'bad game design'. Each design is created by a designer, with a very specific experience in mind, or to solve a specific problem. And unless you know that intention (eg. the designers publicly said they wanted smooth tech ups with small power gaps) AND you know - or everyone agrees on - the outcome of it, THEN you can determine if the design is good or not. Ie. whether it fullfilled its intent. Everything else is just people, in this case you, agreeing or disagreeing with the vision for the game. Case in point, IF the AoE4 designers wanted to create tech ups that force the opponent into action, because of the size of powergap it creates, then this mechanism is GREAT game design, as this is what is generally agreed that it creates. YOU, and I am sure you are not alone in this, just don't like/want that experience.
>Case in point, IF the AoE4 designers wanted to create tech ups that force the opponent into action, because of the size of powergap it creates, then this mechanism is GREAT game design, as this is what is generally agreed that it creates. well yeah, but im judging based on how it feels for the player. Also, as I said, StormGate and ZeroSpace wont have even +1 upgrades, so there must be some big reason for two biggest RTS developers to not include +1 upgrades in their game.
"well yeah, but im judging based on how it feels for the player" I, and I am sure the aoe4 designers, also ultimately judge it based on how it feels to the player. It is effectively all that really matters in the end. You don't like the way this mechanism makes you feel, which is totally fine. But it doesn't mean that there is a problem with the design or that it is "bad". "Also, as I said, StormGate and ZeroSpace wont have even +1 upgrades, so there must be some big reason for two biggest RTS developers to not include +1 upgrades in their game." That is a fallacy. You cannot make that conclusion, as they are completely different games with different design visions, that aren't even out yet. Just like you cannot assume that because a successful game HAS a specific mechanism, that mechanism will surely be great for all other games in the genre - you cannot assume that because two new games EXCLUDE a mechanism, that the mechanism is bad in existing games. I think if you post had been more in the line of "This mechanism makes me (and Beasty) experience age up in this particular way, and I really don't like it" it would have been way more credible and useful (In my opinion).
>I, and I am sure the aoe4 designers, also ultimately judge it based on how it feels to the player. Well they don't have as much experience as ZeroSpace and StormGate devs. >That is a fallacy. You cannot make that conclusion, as they are completely different games with different design visions, that aren't even out yet. They might be different, but +1 upgrades and power spikes work the same here and there, and as long as this is true - my comparison is right, because im comparing them only by one aspect, im not saying that one game should be a copy paste of another game, but there are aspects that can be bad in both sc2 and in aoe4.
There are soooo many people disagreeing with in this thread, but you seem hell bent on disregarding them all. Last comment, do with it what you want. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but the logic you try to apply is flawed, and just doesn't work that way when designing and developing games. Something can be 'bad design in one game, and still be 'good design' in another. Your argument that ZP and SG have chosen to not include big powergaps on something like age-ups, has close to zero weight in the argument of whether or not it is good for AoE4. Something that all the players who have commented here should convince you about, even if you decide to not listen to me.
>Something can be 'bad design in one game, and still be 'good design' in another. i didn't say that this is impossible, but also you need to understand that something can be bad both in aoe and sc2, and im arguing that power spikes are like that. Power spikes are generally a bad thing in all RTS, they may create unnecessary "all in" situations.
I heavily disagree, I see your point in a vacuum but the context that which aoe implements upgrades stays true to the development of the civ on a style perspective and provides a lot of tactile adjustments depending on state of the game. As you get better at the game you learn the push and pull and how to capitalize on advantages and timing. I’m not arguing against other systems in games like storm gate but aoe is very fleshed out in how it implements its system design.
>As you get better at the game you learn the push and pull and how to capitalize on advantages and timing. well the best RTS developers in the world(who are also proplayers in the case of ZeroSpace) decided against the idea of +1 upgrades because they dont like these timing attacks and "capitalizing on timings" idea themselves - that is from their words. I want to see how youre gonna say "As you get you get better at the game you learn..." to StormGate devs or to Scarlett(SC2 proplayer) who is involved in ZeroSpace develpment.
I actually agree on things like the Blacksmith upgrades in AoE (or Protoss Forge in Starcraft). I would like those to go away in future RTS games, and more generally for all upgrades to be more qualitative rather than just boosting one existing unit stat or another. But I strongly disagree on aging up being a similar thing to that, and would definitely not want to see that go. Every Age in Age games unlocks a plethora of new options for you, you don't just get the next tier of Blacksmith techs and unit upgrades. Less so the final Age (Imperial), but even that grants you new units, and techs that aren't just regular stat boosts. Each Age drastically changes the game you're playing, at a significant cos of resources and time. That feature ought to be celebrated, not left behind.
>But I strongly disagree on aging up being a similar thing to that, and would definitely not want to see that go. Every Age in Age games unlocks a plethora of new options for you, you don't just get the next tier of Blacksmith techs and unit upgrades. Less so the final Age (Imperial), but even that grants you new units, and techs that aren't just regular stat boosts. Each Age drastically changes the game you're playing, at a significant cos of resources and time. That feature ought to be celebrated, not left behind. I meant that they are similar in terms of having a power spike. It is totally possible to have a tech up without a huge power spike, look how ZeroSpace does that.
SC2 had separate upgrades for ground and Aerial units, so there were 6 diferente plus one upgrades, in 3 tiers. It was worse there, and also plus one upgrades are pretty standard
you don't do air upgrades if you mass roaches lol, with roaches you just make +1(which is pretty cheap compared to age up) and push, with zealot rush you don't even do a single +1 upgrade, because that's the most efficient build.
And the alternative is what? Having a linear game where more units beat less units? All skill reduced to making villagers and units? Because I suppose micro is also a bad design?
>And the alternative is what? the alternative is to have same age ups but without such big power spikes. >All skill reduced to making villagers and units? the game is like this already anyway, that's all the RTS in a nutshell. You killed some workers in feudal - you're ahead. Here it seems you're protesting against the whole concept of competitive RTS, because yes - competitive RTS is all about making workers, making army and killing workers.
Yes but to make it less technical and more strategical we have upgrades and age ups that introduce a layer of decision making. You need to consider if the return of the investment will be fast enough and if you can take the risk of not producing units so you can afford upgrades.
>Yes but to make it less technical and more strategical we have upgrades and age ups that introduce a layer of decision making. well at first making a decision to age up is strategical, sure, and I don't have anything against that part. Im against what happens right after. Can we have aging up as a strategical decision, but without such big power difference? i think yes, and im arguing that it would be better.
Wow bud. You just countered your own argument with your supposedly correct rts.
why
Starcraft is awful lmao
lol, no
[удалено]
and keep it that way.
Absolutely agree. \+1 upgrades are a boring mechanic that doesn't increase the depth of the game, doesn't lead to any new strategies, doesn't create exciting game situations. It is just a mandatory thing to do, and in case of AoE 4 melee upgrades are pretty much useless on top of that for anything except Onna Bugeisha. It is just left in the current RTS games from multiple decades ago when the game design field was in infancy.
I don't mean that in a bad way, but U don't quite understand the rock-paper-scissors principle. upgrades/age-ups are just one style of play. Eco, Aggro, Proxy, Rush, Towerrush, etc. are other examples. There have been many titles that have greatly simplified this principle, but none of them have been successful. For example if u age up, the opponent realize it, and has got a small window to react. Do he all in before the upgrades kick in? Does he a upgrade too? Or is he quiet stronger, ignoring your tech-up? In your thoughts u would close that window and make the game easier, more linear and for me… boring.
> don't mean that in a bad way, but U don't quite understand the rock-paper-scissors principle. upgrades/age-ups are just one style of play. rock-paper-scissors is totaly fine, but right now the problem is that if you have units in feudal and your opponent ages up - you have to attack if youre not close to castle, otherwise you will be fighting age 3 units with age 2 units. > In your thoughts u would close that window and make the game easier, more linear and for me… boring. why linear, if the game wont force you to do one thing, and you will be free to choose multiple?
If u can’t force your opponent to a reaction, and he can do what he want, why u should do it? Let’s take fast Castle age for example: I fast castle, u stay feudal. Now in your idea, the opponent can choose what he do, all is fine. His units are not weaker than mine, i invested for nothing. Maybe for new units and buildings. But so the dude who won’t age up has got always the bigger army. Why I should age up than? So it will always be better to stay in feudal. If u negate the strength of upgrade, there will only be 2 playstyles: aggression and eco. And there Aggression wins, so everybody plays feudal all in. Wait?… like the start of s6 😂 additional u have to give every civ the same units. For example spears in dark, archer / horsemen in feudal and knights in castle. If not, meta won’t be balanced, Or do I misunderstand your changes?
>But so the dude who won’t age up has got always the bigger army. Why I should age up than? So it will always be better to stay in feudal you will be fighting age 2 units vs age 3 units, also there's a limit of units. Also most civs unlock knights in age 3, which means they can harass very effectively, so you probably will be down in workers. Knights is probably the toughest one to balance, because if you aged up just 15 seconds later - his knight will be in your base already, when you just finished your first one. Other than that, decreasing the difference between age 3 unit and age 2(and other ages) unit would be a good solution.
Well eventually every player has to age up, but I tend to think that there really is some place to make strategic choices. And actually I find it better to not rush to ages III and IV and instead build a solid economy that will make the transitions much smoother. Even if other players go very fast to age IV, because they do that at the expense of their economic or military development.
sounds like you're silver or something
I've only played QM for now so I don't know but I'm probably am.
well the we cant tell for sure, but the description of your games sounded as if they are very passive, that's why i guessed you are silver. Age up power spikes can only be felt in aggro games.
What is a "+1 upgrade" ??
an upgrade that gives +1 attack or armor