You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.34 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Were are the other 4,000 player gone?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Were are the other 4,000 player gone?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Almojo
Mortal
posted 24 July 2003 06:03 PM EDT (US)         
Whenever i go online i only seem to get 800-1400 players online, were did they all go? and the more important question why?
AuthorReplies:
chunky_monkey
Mortal
posted 24 July 2003 06:58 PM EDT (US)     1 / 34       
i can anser y bunt not where....
why?? cuz therez
a. SMURFS all around us.
b. SET is all over the top what 1000??
c. there isnt enuf going on in DM or any other mode to make it worthwhile to learn.
d. the game is unbalanced and unfair.

those r my reasons.


People with creative minds can create their own signatures, unlike me.
Mokon
Mortal
posted 24 July 2003 07:02 PM EDT (US)     2 / 34       
the game is basicly balanced.... however there are a few unbalnces

Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • NoFx_Jim
    Mortal
    posted 24 July 2003 07:18 PM EDT (US)     3 / 34       
    smurfs,hackers and set
    Aetius
    HG Alumnus
    (id: Flavius Aetius)
    posted 24 July 2003 07:34 PM EDT (US)     4 / 34       
    Unfortunetely, those few unbalances are major unbalances.

    <--Aetius-->
    <--Ex Angel-->
    <--eX Clan - Support HG-->
    <--ESO: eX_Aetius-->

    [This message has been edited by Aetius (edited 07-24-2003 @ 07:42 PM).]

    Defiler_of_INRI
    Mortal
    posted 24 July 2003 07:53 PM EDT (US)     5 / 34       
    All problems mentioned above is also problems raging on at WarCraft III, so i don't think that those supposed problems prevent people from playing AoM.

    We must look deeper than just such surface problems.

    - comoplex economy models
    This prevents many from really getting into the game, before getting fustrated.

    Compared to both StarCraft and WarCraft, their economy is wery simple and straightforward, this leads to fast gameplay, no wating too long, for a good impact army.

    An AoM player might end up with too much wood or food, then unable to make any soldiers because he has no gold.

    - fanbase
    Blizzards stunning blockbuster-reputation has laid a wery solid foundation, resulting in loyal fans, playing only Blizz games.

    Secondly most Blizz games has wery low system demands, thus the guy with the humble pc, can have his daily gamefix.

    - Support
    AoE and AoK did only have a sparse patching, where only AoM has gotten the deserved attention.

    Blizzard has laid a wery zealous effort in patching, even 6 years after they released a game. *bows humbly to their efforts*

    [This message has been edited by Defiler_of_INRI (edited 07-24-2003 @ 07:55 PM).]

    Dealer
    Mortal
    posted 24 July 2003 08:58 PM EDT (US)     6 / 34       
    Well said, Mr. Chekov Seriously, you make some good points.

    I think you really have to take the ESO factor into consideration. The popularity of chat-games like Everquest proves that the human interaction element of every mp game is very important to the players. If ESO was more like Blizzard.net or had some of the POSITIVE elements of Zone.com (not the crappy parts though) then people would feel like they were a part of a social event instead of just staring at this stupid blue screen.

    D

    a_screen_name
    Banned
    posted 24 July 2003 10:17 PM EDT (US)     7 / 34       
    ever think people stoped playin because they just plain hated the game? lol
    Tordenskiold
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 02:13 AM EDT (US)     8 / 34       
    It's summer, people have better stuff to do than play computer games

    Normally I see around 1500 people online whenever I am on (which is 7-9 pm GMT) and that is actually pretty good.

    Have a look over on Rise of Nations which is fresh out and everybody was very excited about it two months ago. At the same time 1500 is playing AOM, I see about 100 people online, playing RON In the unrated room last night there was 2-3 games to join Now there's talk about difficulty getting a game !!

    so AOM isn't really doing all that bad online considering everybody is kind of waiting for the X-pack to be released.


    TORDENSKIOLD(1690-1720)

    During the Great Nordic War (1700-1720), he was commander of the danish navy, which defeaded the swedish army at Kristiania (modern Oslo). After the war, he was killed in a duel on Nov. 12, 1720 just outside Hamburg, Germany, during a travel to England.

    ESO: TORDENSKIOLD
    alpine
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 02:28 AM EDT (US)     9 / 34       
    The thing is, people keep saying smurfs are keeping people from playing. But, not everyone plays rated, where most smurfs are. I don't see smurfing so much in unrated nor do I see hacks hardly ever in non rated. I don't think these are valid reasons.

    The game just hasn't caught on. Pure and simple, and that sucks because the game is fun.


    ESO Name: Commodus
    Coming soon to a theater near you...
    CokaCola_KiD
    Banned
    posted 25 July 2003 07:04 AM EDT (US)     10 / 34       
    I checked out the Zone this afternoon. 1600+ in Age of Kings and 3200+ in Age of Conqs. Maybe thats where they all are. lol.
    Frigrating
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 08:02 AM EDT (US)     11 / 34       
    The game gets boring too quickly. Too repetuous and not as many workable strategies compared to other games of its genre. The strategy forum is always dead, the only threads that exist are from noobs. It needs to be more dynamic. If it had some randomization added ( weather, terrain, etc ) the game's replayability would last alot longer. But most people are afraid of what would happen if they couldn't follow a pre-designed BO, and had to adapt on the spot.

    I think RTS games in general are dying a slow death, much like adventure games did when first person shooters took over.

    deano3985
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 09:58 AM EDT (US)     12 / 34       
    How can you say AoM is too repetuous and AoK and AoC aren't? I mean those games you basically have the same strategy regardless of civilization (mainly because ever civ is exactly the same) and that is spam castles, town centers, and barracks. I was playing AoC with fo my friends a few days back and never realized how truly unbalanced and boring it is. You have to manage your economy 2x as much as in AoM and buildings are ridiculously strong. But I think someone did say it already, I think people just don't like AoM, which is a shame because it is a great game. I mean I have friends at school that still love AoK but don't even want to touch AoM. I can't even image why. AoM is better in so many ways. I think it adds a lot of strategy. The randomness of Settlements and Gold Mines easily controls where the key areas on the map are. And the diversity of the 9 civilizations makes the game have nearly 9x as many strategies as AoK could ever have. All I can say is I just really hope that I'm wrong and it is just balance issues, ESO issues, and high system requirements, because all those can be fixed. But if people just plain don't like the game then you really can't do much about that and its a real shame to see a good game die.
    FOPT_Strawberry
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 10:25 AM EDT (US)     13 / 34       
    my 2 cents:

    1) eso simply sucks. leaving a well working system like msn gaming zone was a terrific mistake.

    2) most people who bought aom bought it because they saw in it the legitimate follower of aok. but aom is a totally different game - no matter if you think itīs a good or just an average game (which is my personal point of view). now many people are dissappointed and either go back to aok (which is still going much stronger than aom) or completely leave es-games.

    3) smurfing is a huge problem. for top-ratings itīs basically impossible to find opponents. so they start with 1600 names again and do rookie-bashing. whatīs the fun if you get killed within 5 min?

    4) no community feel. brings us back to 1.) + the fact the es/ms simply donīt care about multiplayer. all they care about is sell rates. and now they want to sell the xpack so donīt expect ANYTHING from them for original aom any more.

    5) game still unbalanced.

    there are some more reasons but i think those are the most important ones. my personal conclusion: they can stick their xpack elsewhere.


    FOPT_Strawberry http://www.fopt-clan.de

    Almojo
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 11:19 AM EDT (US)     14 / 34       
    FOPT_Strawberry - I agree with every thing you said but point number 5. While in AoM Set is overpowred but no way near how the Huns are in aoc, while i loved aoc and still do and think its modle is much better then the AoM one i just got sick of Huns/Arabia.

    The best thing that ES could have dont is limit its 3D engin so that you can have more unites in the game like aoc had.

    I think ESO is a good thing in the long run, dont look at it now its ES's first try wait till the x-pac and we will see "some" improvments. Lets not forget that there was not time to make "a whole new ESO", i would be waiting till the nest ES game after AoM x-pac and see how ESO is then.

    BTW if someone is in 3 diffrent room on the zone.com does he count as 1 person or 3? that might be the reason oh the high numbers.

    hades27
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 12:42 PM EDT (US)     15 / 34       
    unbalanced factors and repititive playing. Waiting for Titans....

    - BITE MY SHINY METAL ASS!!
    ESO: IamHades27

    Winner of the least favorite forumer AoMH's award 2002!!
    Frigrating
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 01:52 PM EDT (US)     16 / 34       
    This guy named Andrew from planetageofmythology.com has the general idea -

    Quote:

    In this guide I will outline the basics of AoM and how to become "1337" in a fairly quick time. First off I'll teach you the basic strategies for every culture.

    Greek: Mass Cavs*
    Norse: Mass Cavs*..............Note****
    Egypt: Monkies/Slingers***

    EXCEPTIONS: If you want to live a little wild you can make Toxotes or TAxers but that's only if you want to live life on the edge. Or if your enemy has 180 pop of Anti-Cav. Which he won't for 3 simple reasons -

    1) Cav rule.
    2) Anti-Cav suck... even against cav.
    3) Since you're only making cav you'll Heroic faster and get the TCs thus he won't even have more than 120 of anti-cav.

    * NOTE: Use Poseidon then Hermes then Dionysus for best results. In fact, don't even consider using Zeus or Hades. They blow.

    ** NOTE: Use Odin then Freyja then Njord for best results. In fact, don't even consider using Loki or Thor. They blow.

    *** NOTE: Since Isis and Ra can't make Monkies, don't even consider using them. They blow.

    **** NOTE: In fact, just play Set.

    If you can't get a "1337" rating this way then you could just droptrick and/or resign hack your way to "1337ness." Nobody will mind! Well, that is unless you 0wnz0r them with your "1337" haxez. But hey, it doesn't matter, you don't care, and ES won't do a damn thing!

    [This message has been edited by Frigrating (edited 07-25-2003 @ 02:00 PM).]

    Alexandergreat3
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 01:54 PM EDT (US)     17 / 34       
    I think FOPT_Strawberry have pretty much covered the major reasons as to why there aren't that many players on ESO. In my case, the design of ESO played the biggest role in deterring my interest in playing online. 1v1 rated games were the only thing that I could easily do; team games were very difficult to get into without proper room layout and messaging system.

    The ZONE had a really poor system for 1v1 rated games, but its team-game system was (and still is) one of the best out there. ESO system focus too heavily on 1v1 rated games, and too lightly on team games, and the small number of players reflect this.

    ColdWind2Valhala
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 03:27 PM EDT (US)     18 / 34       
    That Andrew guy hit the nail on the head.

    1) Cav rule.
    2) Anti-Cav suck... even against cav.

    Sets not that that big a problem. He can and will be fixed...However, ES refuses do anyting about ridiculous calvary calvary calvary calvary calvary calvary calvary every game. They reduced hoplites by 10 food. This just gives players a false sense of security to build them. They still suck.

    question answered... no need for more replies. Finally after months of waiting for them to do something about calvary I give up. This is age of calvary. I am done... BF1942 is much more fun online. So many Strats, its amazing. Just give it a try. :-) Peace.

    Phat Fox
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 03:38 PM EDT (US)     19 / 34       
    Iv'e quit Aom. Im waiting for the titans to come out. And even then I might not get it.

    AOM Titan Info.
    Rating: 1650+
    Civ. : #1 Thor #2 kronos #3 Odin
    ESO : Blunt_69 aka CV_KiNGPiN
    Celois
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 08:39 PM EDT (US)     20 / 34       
    I think that AoM is a great game that just didn't catch on enough. I don't nessacary believe that AoM has a lot of imbalances, especialy compared to other more popular games.


    I contribute the 'didn't catch on' bit to:
    1) Very different than AoK. When most AoK players and it wasn't 'AoE3' they got disapointed and didn't give it a second chance. I'm sure if they tried to play it as a different game, they would enjoy it.

    2) Modding and Scenerio devolpment. IMO there is where AoM falls behind. The whole modding/scenerio is very limited although modding is a better easier and more powerful than in AoK, scenerio design is far more behind. The editor has some nice features and triggers but doesn't match up to AoK's and it just isn't exactly 'fun' making a scenerio here. One of the things that keeps games like WC3 so popular is the very powerful modding and scenerio.

    3) ESO. While its not a bad service, and its just starting out, it isn't great. It is really a pain to chat and such. It could be much better designed. I don't think ES should go back to The Zone but it could definatly improve here. I actually think Titan will fix this.

    4) Its tatical/strategical depth isn't all that high. While it does have more strategy than AoK or AoE and even some games. Build orders unfortunatly still exist dispite ES's attempts to stop it.

    5) AI. Lets face it, the AI is 500x more intelligent than in AoK, but it isn't exactly fun to play against after awhile and is very easy to beat. The plus side here is its very easy to program a custom AI, unfortunatly, very few people are even trying anymore.

    hades27
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 07:08 AM EDT (US)     21 / 34       
    Anti-cav DO NOT SUCK. Especially not Prodromos, and not Ulfsarks if he gets his bonus dam to cav upgrade..nor spearmen although he gets his upgrade in mythic. *Sigh* what a NEWB :P

    Otherwise, I agree; but not to his stupid 1337 talk whatever the heck that means.


    - BITE MY SHINY METAL ASS!!
    ESO: IamHades27

    Winner of the least favorite forumer AoMH's award 2002!!
    CokaCola_KiD
    Banned
    posted 26 July 2003 07:31 AM EDT (US)     22 / 34       
    I checked battlenet today, they had 150,000 players online. I dont know but maybe that can answer your question.
    Quintus
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 09:54 AM EDT (US)     23 / 34       
    Reasons for the disappearance:
    1)SMURFS!
    2)Hackers
    3)It's summer, people are out doing other stuff
    4)Set
    5)People get deppressed when their rating goes too low. Therefore go and play another game that they're good at or has an easier economic system.
    6)Lack of community on ESO. I.E. Chat is not as good as "The Zone". In AOK some people went online just to chat! ESO is definitly an improvement, but needs a few improvements itself.

    These I think are the main reasons. There might be one or two others but who knows?
    Also, I've never seen more than 2100 players online. I get online about 6-8pm GMT normally. (But any time of day now it's the holidays).
    So I don't think 4000 people have disappeared but People are dissappearing.
    Hopefully with the release of the expansion, balance errors will be fixed and the unplayed (and probably underpowered gods) will be played more often. And hopefully more people will play online


    Don't judge those who try and fail.
    Judge only those who fail to try.
    Pipalonias
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 10:28 AM EDT (US)     24 / 34       
    I don't understand how it's even possible for 150,000 people to be on battle.net at one time playing wc3...... it must be from a range of all of their games, or simply made up so more people play it =P.

    The only thing I think people hate about aom is that the whole economy first then military makes people think it's boring. In Warcraft 3 you build like 8 villagers then go military and it's a lot more fun and exciting then AOM.

    Other games also are a lot more fun and exciting but you get the picture I still like AOM above all since it's IMPOSSIBLE to master as one day you will be beaten ( Fox vs Cutty PRE-Ra nerf patch ), however in other games there may not be that scenario.

    I really like rambling

    Fwiffo del desierto
    Mortal
    (id: Fwiffo)
    posted 26 July 2003 10:30 PM EDT (US)     25 / 34       
    Firstly, I`m new to these forums so dont flame my reply to badly if it is completely wrong. Anyway, I believe that the main reason why many people dont play multiplayer on this game as opposed to AoK is that AoM is much more focused on the rating. For most players, team games on advanced setup the most fun. However, in order to play good team games a player must get is rating up so that other players will not boot him from their game. This will annoy many players because they have to play the more boring rated games in order to get good games in advanced setup. It takes time to get ones rating up, time which many players do not have, and would prefer to spend playing team games. When players cannot get into games would enjoy, they will not find the game fun, and stop playing.

    Everyone got AIDS and shit
    Almojo
    Mortal
    posted 27 July 2003 09:58 PM EDT (US)     26 / 34       
    I dont agree with people who said its bec its summer, today i played some WC3 TFT and there were +35,000 people online. It does not matter if its summer night or day.
    daunno
    Mortal
    posted 27 July 2003 10:17 PM EDT (US)     27 / 34       
    It doesn't matter how much more of an imbalance the Huns were in AoC over Set in AoM ...

    In AoC it was unbelievably easy for someone to switch to huns ... Same basic build ups, same techs to research, etc.

    The reason Set is (100x) more frustrating is because it is VERY hard to switch from norse or greek to Set. I have played Norse since November, and I know them inside and out. And now this Set imbalance is not only impossible to stop, and it would take me what, 3 months?, to learn an equivalency of Egyptian as I know of Norse.

    THATS why the Set imbalance is so much more crippling to the AOM communitity then the Hun imbalance is to AOC.

    In 3 months, the Titans will be out, so it would be smarter of me to just quit RM rated in general and stick to non-set advanced setup games.

    [This message has been edited by daunno (edited 07-28-2003 @ 12:29 PM).]

    Almojo
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 11:13 AM EDT (US)     28 / 34       
    Set is easy to play, watch some rec games and follow. The hardest thing with Set is countroling so many things at the same time. If you find it hard then use waypoints but after some games you will get tried of Set.
    daunno
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 12:27 PM EDT (US)     29 / 34       
    you say that but it is very frustrasting going from Norse to Egypt ... the number of techs u have to research is increased ten fold, along with learning copmletely new build ups for each map / opponent
    The Dover Demon
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 01:04 PM EDT (US)     30 / 34       
    IMO, there are two main things which lead to less players (both of which have already been mentioned):

    1) The game *is* repetitive; in almost every game you have to carry out a very similar build order and use the same units over and over again. I played AoC a year ago but uninstalled it to save hard disk space thinking AoM would replace it. AoC was a really, really fun game, I remember I used to play it almost everyday for hours and every game would be different, I could use a different civ with a different build order with different units and still win, and I'd hang out on the Zone and talk to people. In AoM, you experiment with strategies -- if one doesn't work, it probably never will and you'll be limited to gods and build orders.

    2) ESO. ESO is great for quick setup but advanced setup needs attention. It's difficult to join a game let alone play in one and the interface is buggy. The chat system is poor and inconvenient -- I don't want to have to click chat, then move my cursor onto the friends list and then click on someone's name, and then click "chat" and then type a message just to chat with someone. I want an interface like the former Zone where I would simply double click someone on my friends list to chat or right click > add friend to add a friend conveniently.

    All players searching for advanced setup games should be shown in a box somewhere with their pings and the game they're in. Right now, having to switch back and forth to the chat interface (which takes up the entire screen) and back is too time consuming. A little box like ZoneFriends is nice, convenient and serves its purpose -- to communicate easily.

    Note: I am a DM player

    « Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register

    Hop to:    

    Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames