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.138 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » What I think and the future of Age.
Bottom
Topic Subject:What I think and the future of Age.
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4 5  Next Page »
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 22 May 2003 04:54 AM EDT (US)         
I have been done with AoM for a while, but I have come here to post this saddened after I put my copy of AoM on ebay.

I put thousands upon thousands of hours into AoE 1 and 2 online. The AoE series has probobly been 50% of the hours I have ever put into gaming. But I will not force myself to love a game because it's the next Age game.

I really had I hopes for AoM. I really though it would take the genre foward more then just a few baby steps. I was dissapointed to find out it felt like nothing more then an AoE2 mod, bringing nothing new to the table. This does not apply to just AoM. I was also very dissapointed in Empire Earth, Warcraft 3 and Rise of Nations.

I have a question for the ES devs. Do you remember how adventurous you felt when you first developed Age of Empires, a game based on history with a completely new RTS formula? Developing a game from scratch with only your mind and ideas as a foundation? What happened to that spirit? Did Microsoft set to many limits and boundries.? Where you scared to step to far past what worked, sacrificing innovation for guaranteed success? Did the creativity just fizzle out?

Whatever the cause, you guys need to go back to your roots, be adventurous and creative. Make something that will reignite the RTS genre. You can do it, because I know you are some of the most talanted devlopers around, as you made Age of Empires.

Mr_Floppy4

AuthorReplies:
signalfires
Mortal
posted 06 June 2003 04:37 PM EDT (US)     61 / 138       
Sorry to make two posts in a row, but I thought the following quote was in a different thread, but it's here.

Quote:

Im sorry but i just get sick and tired of attacking once everone hits classical. i mean theres 2 more ages thats 1/2 the entire civ that were missing out on thats why the game feels so thin and repetive

I am very pleased AmericanEagle has thought along the same lines as I did. I used to ask rushers, as I went out losing, where is the mythology in this? You are killing me with throwing axemen and raiding cavalry? Is that what Age of Mythology means to you? There are some fantastic technologies out there waiting to be researched (just look at that colourful tech tree!) and awesome myth units to be made... but sadly reaching the Mythic Age doesn't seem to form part of any viable strategy!

LordofEvil
Mortal
posted 06 June 2003 05:17 PM EDT (US)     62 / 138       
I absolutely agree with you signalfires - there is no mythology in losing to a hippikon rush. I lost so many times to RC and TAs in classical it was just no fun. Loki's hersir rush with the free MU was fun, but everything else was just "get to Classical and rush/raid with cavs". I see no "myth" in that.

I say bring back ROR and modernize the interface and game play. That should sell.


Is it time to go home yet?
signalfires
Mortal
posted 06 June 2003 06:48 PM EDT (US)     63 / 138       
Hey thanks for agreeing with me. Now, I wouldn't go as far as suggesting a re-release of RoR; we'll have our memories of that amazing game with us forever. But it's a piece of history now, and should not be modified. Of course, it can still be played however.
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 07 June 2003 08:23 PM EDT (US)     64 / 138       

Quote:

We pushed the message hard that AOM was a lot like AOK, and we tried to make the gameplay familiar because we were branching out, and we didn't want to alienate our core fans by making a game that did away with features that have proven to be fun. I'm not sure what I would do differently -- there are certainly crazier things we could have done, but they also might have been so crazy that we lost some of the "Age of" magic.

You could have at least made it feel like more then just a AoK mod. The magic of AoK was the large epic battles, this just isn't here.

I could ask you the question "Why didn't you add the option to remove settlements" and you would say "because then everyone would". Think about that...

I read your CGW article, and every step into the dev process got you closer and closer to AoK.

Quote:

I like AOM because it is much more diversity between cultures. In AOK it is the same units paladins, halbediers, just different tech trees.

This is simply not true, it was not much more diverse. What they did this time is take a basic infantry unit, add bonuses to each for each civ (like AoK), then reskin them for each culture and make a few more changes from there (If I am wrong it sure seems like it). Whooopdeeeee. I would have rather have them be just strait-foward about it and spend the time used to cover it up on developing other things.

Quote:

AOM team games are more like (1v1)+(1+1) etc where helping your ally is tough especially when you are up against the pop and someone is beating down your door.

This is one of the main reasons I quit.

Quote:

You cant fault ES though as it was a decision that had to be made so that the game would be playable on a wider variety of systems.

I am sure this engine is quite scalable. But then ES thought let's screw the people with decent comps so we do not endanger the pride of potential customers.

Why, oh why ES did you purposly kill DM? AoK was the only game to impliment strategy into having alot of resources. Must we be forced to play your way all the time?

Taking Age of in the right direction would be doing things like adding more units, finding ways to impliment strategy into 300+ pop sizes, (which I am sure you tried and gave up instead of trying again to push the industry foward), adding more uses to buildings, a psuedo-dynamic tech tree (I cannot belive you guys have not done this yet), more ways to advance ages, and many more things I could post.

Irrational games is a developing company I have grown to admire, they are taking a risk with Freedom Force 2. Here is a quote from IGN:

Quote:

Freedom Force is awesome. We know it, you know it, and they know it. Freedom Force 2 could and perhaps should then logically be an extension of the first game with technical improvements and fixes where necessary. But like I said, Irrational likes to do things different.

That's when I learned that development on Freedom Force 2 could go another way, one far more akin to X-Com. Imagine an entire city waiting to be discovered. Imagine, if you will, an incredibly in-depth game with heavier RPG elements. Oh my.

I must give ES major props for one major thing though. You care very much about the Age of game community. Thanks for listening and posting ES.

Mr_Floppy4

[This message has been edited by Mr_Floppy4 (edited 06-07-2003 @ 08:29 PM).]

Frigrating
Mortal
posted 07 June 2003 10:04 PM EDT (US)     65 / 138       
" I used to ask rushers, as I went out losing, where is the mythology in this? You are killing me with throwing axemen and raiding cavalry? Is that what Age of Mythology means to you? "


Bingo. That's probably at least half the reason AOM hasn't been popular online. People buy the game, thinking that with " Mythology " in the title it has to be different from past Age games, then find out it's practically the same concept, get bored fast and end up going back to AOK largely because of team games, or leaving age series altogether. Really, if ES wanted to sell the game as more of an improvement of AOK and not anything particularly innovative, they shouldn't have named it Age of Mythology; it's a bit deceptive.

Intrepid
Mortal
posted 08 June 2003 00:30 AM EDT (US)     66 / 138       
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 June 2003 02:39 AM EDT (US)     67 / 138       
^That's the sequal to Empire Earth (notice how it says Stainless Steel Studios at the end of the trailor). EE was completely inferior to AoK and I do not see a reason why this will be better. Looks like the same gameplay to me.

Mr_Floppy4

Intrepid
Mortal
posted 08 June 2003 10:22 AM EDT (US)     68 / 138       
I know it is the sequel to Empire Earth and that it is created by SSSI, I am not daft. If I had thought that this was AoE III I would have posted something along the lines of “look at AoE III”. I am merely suggesting that the scope, graphics and innovations contained in this game make it a possible successor to the RTS crown that AoK currently holds.

[This message has been edited by iNtRePiD (edited 06-08-2003 @ 10:25 AM).]

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 June 2003 11:42 AM EDT (US)     69 / 138       
No, I pointed that out because I thought it was made by a totally different company until I saw the trailer in which it looed exactly like EE. EE had none of the strategy of AoK and still only 4 ages. Yes, only 4. The reason there were only 4 in the EE beta was because every unit was reskinned from a unit in one of those ages. I was surprised I was the only one who noticed this. Especially since Stone Throwers exploded like cannons when they were destroyed.

Mr_Floppy4

Intrepid
Mortal
posted 08 June 2003 12:44 PM EDT (US)     70 / 138       
Yes, I agree that AoK is a better game in comparison to Empire Earth. However, to suggest that Empire Earth is completely devoid of strategy is very ignorant, and shows that the game was discarded quickly upon initially playing it.
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 09 June 2003 01:21 AM EDT (US)     71 / 138       
BS, including the beta I put about 150 hours into it. I know WTF I am talking about.

Mr_Floppy4

Intrepid
Mortal
posted 09 June 2003 08:20 AM EDT (US)     72 / 138       
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 11 June 2003 08:11 PM EDT (US)     73 / 138       
LOL. I plenty know what ****** strategy is and I know EE had none of it. You could use the same strategy in all the ages because the units were reskinned, and EE.s unit combat was not as refined as AoK's.

Mr_Floppy4

bethlv
Mortal
posted 12 June 2003 08:33 PM EDT (US)     74 / 138       
This problem has existed since AoK, but one thing that sticks out is that there are less and less people online, usually around 1000, at most 2000. The problem with AoM is that I can't pick right opponents, unlike AoK. My ranking varies from 1700-1750, but the usual match happens with late 1600s or early 1700s (since there are much more of them than higher 1700s.) They are too easy for me, and after a winning streak against them, I face late 1700s, which are almost always gg for me early in the game. There is little close matches, where the game might go either way depending on strategic choices suitable for the situations. 2 vs 2 quickmatch is out of question in AoM.

I guess the reason that the Quick Setup matches me with uneven opponents is above all that there are too few people of my level waiting for a player like me.

There were a whole lot of past and current arguments about AoM vs. ... (other games, Warcraft and RoN recently), but one thing for sure is that Blizzard's battle.net has by far the largest on-line players in the RTG game industry. (Usually 100,000-200,000) Of course, they are distributed among Warcraft, Diablo, and Starcraft, but with Warcraft III alone, they have at least 10 to 20 times many on-line players than AoM. Games played a day amount to several hundred thousands, compared to AoM's 15,000 for the last WEEK.

I don't want to compare both games solely in terms of the number of players, but I think that the fun of playing on-line to a certain extent depends on how many people are ready to play even with many options (map, 2 vs 2 etc.) on. I really doubt that Titan expansion would boost the pathetic number of AoM players.

[This message has been edited by bethlv (edited 06-12-2003 @ 08:35 PM).]

KRool
Mortal
posted 13 June 2003 05:24 AM EDT (US)     75 / 138       
I actually liked AoMs new setting ,since i like God powers and Mythology far more than pure history. Also, the ideo to step back on the civs and make the MUCH more different ist nice.

But, the problem came when they shifted the rush to the first 6 minutes. The more "clicky" and hectical games become, the less diversity can be in strategies, since to be able to compete in time, you need a fast strategy, not a powerful one...


RoN is a nice chance, far better made than EE, though from the same offspring prob., it fits nicely - but still, very few new ideas...


K.Rool,
Master of unnecessary knowledge...
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 13 June 2003 03:12 PM EDT (US)     76 / 138       
I would appriciate a responce from ES to my responce to ES.

Mr_Floppy4

solidsnakeSS5
Mortal
posted 13 June 2003 03:34 PM EDT (US)     77 / 138       
cheats is the answer to all ur problems
dave_E
Mortal
posted 13 June 2003 03:47 PM EDT (US)     78 / 138       
KRool, why dont you consider speed to be a "strategy"? I understand what you're saying about the beginings of the games may not always be as diversified as everyone likes but if you can fend that off, which is not THAT hard, you get to heroic and the game is always different thanks to god powers, myth units, and the settlements + siege and everything. In the begining, a FAST strategy does NOT always work, i mean, i've beaten so many Loki players who tried to rush me and i just pushed them off and killed them off with ease in heroic. I'm not even that good of a player, im sure you can do it to. And I don't know about you, but I love the feeling of repelling a rush and kicking that person's ***.
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 04:28 AM EDT (US)     79 / 138       
I would like to give this a little bump and see if any opinions on this game has changed. I have gone back to AoK deathmatch and have been having a blast. I just wish AoM had more options to play with, like a large army deathmatch. I wish I didn't have to play in ES's mold. On top of that, 1.0d for TC was released by some random person that prevents most of the hacks. Apparently ES couldn't spend 1 day to release this patch. They havn't even made this 1.0d patch official so it is required to play. They have done none of this despite the fact that far more people play AoK then AoM. This is just disgusting and I have grown to dislike ES. They have gone from my favorite game developer to one of the dime-a-dozen dev teams churing out lousy sequals and not supporting previous games. Disgusting.

Mr_Floppy4

[This message has been edited by Mr_Floppy4 (edited 07-08-2003 @ 04:56 AM).]

The Dover Demon
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 04:34 AM EDT (US)     80 / 138       
Yes AoK deathmatch was very good, I used to play it all the time. There are probably still more AoK DMers than AoM DMers, and I too and somewhat dissapointed they stopped making patches a year ago. It would be nice to get back to old AoK DM though, but nothing motivates me right now.
Suiken
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 02:44 PM EDT (US)     81 / 138       
I think AOM is far superior the AOE games.

The addition of Myth units and heroes adds a nice twist to the game.

More importantly, having three very distinct and different civs is far, far better than having a large number of civs that are more or less the same except for a few bonuses and specialty units. This fact more than anything is why I think AOM is a superior game. AOE was so bland to me with all the same damn units all over...

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 04:16 PM EDT (US)     82 / 138       
The cultrues are NOT destinct. They are basicly the same units reskinned with slightly different stats.

Ulfsark - Spearman - Hoplite
Slinger - Axeman - Greek Archer (forgot name)
Camels and Calvery.

They are all basicly the same except with different stats. It's only slightly more diverse then AoK with reskinned units.

On top of that, there is the extremely linear gameplay. It's as bad as WC3.

Mr_Floppy4

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 04:27 PM EDT (US)     83 / 138       
THIS is an RTS. it's very in depth for such quick and fun gameplay. u make ur own goddamn game if u dont like it. like peopl ehave been saying. an RTS is an RTS. u can't really create a completely new kind of RTS. it wouldnt be an RTS would it?

hmmm with ur unit comparisons...

lets suppose norse dont have an ulfsark. they have something completely different. some cavalry that can build buildings ok? well then how the **** will they counter cavalry? if u make everything completely different, one culture will completely counter another, and the game would be thrown out of balance.

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 05:10 PM EDT (US)     84 / 138       
Ulfsark ~= Spearman ~= Hoplite [hoplites are stronger but slower than ulfsark and neither get a dmg mod vs. cav that spearmen get]
Slinger ~= Axeman ~= Greek Archer (forgot name) [slingers are an archer that is counter archer; eggy axeman is an infantry that is counter infantry; norse axeman is an infantry/archer that is a ranged counter infantry; toxotes are a true archer that is counter infantry; peltasts are an archer that is counter archer but is stronger than the slinger... wow those are really different actually]
Camels ~= Calvery [raiding cavalry are faster than but weaker than hippikons; prodromos are a cavalry, counter-cavalry unit that can beat the camel which is a cavalry, counter-cavalry, counter-archer unit; iirc, camelry are the fastest cavalry in the game]

plus then u have all the MUs, heroes, and GPs.

i've played RON and, trust me, aom is WAY more diverse, WAY better play control, WAY better graphics, and WAY more fun.

i understand that AOK:C is a landmark although i haven't played it. give the xpac a chance for aom. i have a feeling that it will enhance aom a great deal.

as for less players online, well, part of that is smurfs. however, i think the BULK of the reason is that aom is a frickin' hard game and most people, myself included, don't have the time it takes to get half-decent at it... from what i've heard, games like wc3 take much less thought-power, skill, etc. i.e., it's more of a game where u can just play and have fun and not think so hard. and, if u look at the world these days, that's the kinda outlet more people are looking for.

i have played diablo 2 and it takes next to no thought-power.

fh

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 05:23 PM EDT (US)     85 / 138       
"u can't really create a completely new kind of RTS. it wouldnt be an RTS would it?"

Bull, games like Sacrifice and Total War manage to bring a breath of fresh air into the genre.

"u make ur own goddamn game if u dont like it. like peopl ehave been saying"

Shove your bs logic. That is like saying you have to have made movies to be a movie critic.

Let me try to spell it so you can understand.

Shov ur bs logik tat is lik sayin u hav to hav made movees to B a movee critik.

Now then, let's compare AoM to AoK TC:

Ulf/Hop=militia line
Spear=spear line
Slinger=Skirms
Toxotes=Archers
Chariot Archer=Calvery Archer
Camel=Camel
Hippikons=Knight Line
Raiding Cav=Scout Cav Line

Then you have a few more units which are similar to the listed above. The myth units are nice and but to not take the gameplay anywhere. Not much different from UUs, either.

"i've played RON and, trust me, aom is WAY more diverse, WAY better play control, WAY better graphics, and WAY more fun."

I never said a liked RoN

"i think the BULK of the reason is that aom is a frickin' hard game and most people, myself included, don't have the time it takes to get half-decent at it..."

It's not harder, it requires stricter build orders, which sucks.

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 05:30 PM EDT (US)     86 / 138       
it only really requires stricter build orders til classical (i.e., the first 5 min of the game). after that, it's pretty open.

sure, the core units might not be that much diff from other rts games... for, ex, in RON (btwn, i know u never said u like it, it's just one of the only others i've played) i saw units named hoplites and slingers... yeah, it'd be nice if some cool new rts games came out that didn't suck...

however, u have to admit that centaur/anubite raiding is pretty cool, and the godpowers add a unique dimension. i sure missed them in RON.

i don't find the mythtechs to be that "mythological" but what can u do?

i agree with u on many points, however, es is trying to add a new dimension without straying too far from the excellence that they have established. if they just created something completely different, it might turn out that no one likes it and end up turning away from es.

i think the xpac will be cool and es has been dropping hints that they're workin' on a new game which will blow us away.

can't wait,

fh

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 05:38 PM EDT (US)     87 / 138       
"it only really requires stricter build orders til classical (i.e., the first 5 min of the game). after that, it's pretty open."

When I was playing with good players I found myself using build orders until the mid-end of heroic.

"however, u have to admit that centaur/anubite raiding is pretty cool..."

Over and over and over. Which is one of the reasons I quit-no dynamic gameplay.

"i think the xpac will be cool and es has been dropping hints that they're workin' on a new game which will blow us away."

Good.

Mr_Floppy4

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 06:49 PM EDT (US)     88 / 138       
how do u have a build-order til the mid-end of heroic? 25-27th villie on gold, 28th-30th villie on wood, 31st villie builds another stable up by that gold mine, 32nd villie prays, 33rd-35th villies build fortress... ???

don't u think that 3 cultures, with 9 total civilizations, a bunch of distinct maps, minor god choices on advancing, godpowers, etc. makes for variety?

i mean, there's even set that can convert the wildlife!

what exactly is it that you want from a rts game?

i'm all for a new, unique, cool game, but--staying within the genre--what would that look like?

fh

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 07:07 PM EDT (US)     89 / 138       
In heroic the build orders moved to millitary units.

IMO, the minor gods don't seem to have that much of a difference in the end resault of your of your civ. Your still building mostly the same units. It felt like a gimmik instead of a feature.

Mr_Floppy4

The Red Knight
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 08:34 PM EDT (US)     90 / 138       
Floppy:


First of all I'd just like to say, if you don't like Aom...buzz off and play another game.

Second:

Quote:

In heroic the build orders moved to millitary units.

Who the hell needs a BO for military units? Not even the noobiest noob sits there reading a BO ..."first I make one slinger...then 3..no wait...4 spearmen... and throw in a preist..no make that two! Then I move my little army...hang on... oh, to his villagers and attack."

and third:

Quote:

It's not harder, it requires stricter build orders, which sucks.

There are no set BOs that everyone performs at the start of the game like Aok. The three different cultures have their own setups. Odin can do a RC rush or and FH. Hades can FH or FM. Ra can FH or attack in classic with mass spearmen. Thor can do a dwarf build, FH, or spam RC. These all are different and each one does not have a set BO, I promise you. Everyone modifies the builds to their own liking. The build orders are their to give people a guideling of what they should do. Build orders are not required for survival.

The Red Knight

"Must. Have. Flyswatter" - Soccy
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4 5  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames