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:
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 09:17 PM EDT (US)     91 / 138       
"...buzz off and play another"

No

Just because different civs have different build orders does not change the fact that they are still build orders.

When I mean millitary build orders:

Build 5 hippikons, attack.

This is just one example. Not to mention that to get those 5 hippikons in that amount of time, a precise economic build must have been properly executed. This is NOT fun.

Set is another example. To get those animals and attack at certain amount of time, a precise economic build order was needed to get the priest in a certain amount of time to get the animals at that amount of time. Again, NOT FUN!

Mr_Floppy4

[This message has been edited by Mr_Floppy4 (edited 07-08-2003 @ 09:20 PM).]

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 11:00 PM EDT (US)     92 / 138       
critics dont rate movies OR talk as much smack as you do about this game. it just occurred to me that u had quite an understanding of what ur talking about. and i type like this cuz it's faster

quote: Build 5 hippikons, attack.

well u could be like aoc. build a bunch of vills. sit. boom. game over in an hour. whoever built the most walls wins. tell me that's a load of fun

quote2: This is just one example. Not to mention that to get those 5 hippikons in that amount of time, a precise economic build must have been properly executed. This is NOT fun

depending on the map, ur starting area, and the amount of resources they give you (watering hole can have 3-8 some deer things, w/e they're called.) plus, u have to take into consideration your opponent. in some instances u may want to boom. in others, u may want to take things cautiously and turtle. choke points become building areas for walls. will u build walls? there's alot mroe than just executing a build order. i think that you're just upset that you didn't find one that worked and now u suck. there's obviously competition more fierce out there than urs.

quote3: Set is another example. To get those animals and attack at certain amount of time, a precise economic build order was needed to get the priest in a certain amount of time to get the animals at that amount of time. Again, NOT FUN!

set is very hard to play considering micro management. again, on a map without hunting or what not, a precise BO will not work. and if ur opponent is loki: u may need to adjust ur BO.

im sorry bud but you obviously missed the strategic parts of this game.

AoM is alot like AoE. just with a twist with MUs. so why the hell do u not like this game? is it because u fcking suck at it and you dont' know how to play?

to be honest, i just think u weren't ready for the faster pace game that AoM is. it's different in that sense from AoE

sorry that u suck. and im sorry that ur mad. but seriously. go away. why are u complaining to us?

Meteora
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 11:10 PM EDT (US)     93 / 138       

Quote:

They are basicly the same units reskinned with slightly different stats.


You are right. Every unit in the game is basicly the same with different stats. Every unit. What is the difference between a spearman and a toxote? Different name, different stats, different art. I don't see your point. How else would you make the units? In every real time strategy it is the same, and there is no way to do otherwise.

EDIT: I forgot the rest:

Quote:

it requires stricter build orders,


It requires just as strict of a build order as RoN and any Age game. Which isn't all that strict.


If you don't like the way the game plays, then find a different genre. It's not ES fault that you don't like the way their games play.

[This message has been edited by Meteora (edited 07-08-2003 @ 11:16 PM).]

Frigrating
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 11:17 PM EDT (US)     94 / 138       
"AoM is alot like AoE"

I disagree. In AOE, you could send villagers for miles and not find food anywhere. In AOM, the berry bushes or chickens are sitting there 10 yards away. IMO, a balance between the two would help keep BO's from being so prevalient. AOE really required some thought because the hand you were dealt was so random. AOM is more of an arcade since every resource you need is within yards of your town's vicinity guarded by overpowered towers.

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 11:28 PM EDT (US)     95 / 138       
in the sense of units and strategy using the units. that's what i meant
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 08 July 2003 11:49 PM EDT (US)     96 / 138       
"well u could be like aoc. build a bunch of vills. sit. boom. game over in an hour. whoever built the most walls wins. tell me that's a load of fun"

I said I played DM.

"o be honest, i just think u weren't ready for the faster pace game that AoM is. it's different in that sense from AoE"

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Like I said, I played DM.

"sorry that u suck. and im sorry that ur mad. but seriously. go away. why are u complaining to us?"

Thanks. Thanks again. Nah. Because I feel like it.

Mr_Floppy4

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 00:07 AM EDT (US)     97 / 138       
if u play DM, then whats with u being discouraged about strategy? all u do is start off with a bunch of resources and hack away at eachother. same as AoE

well if ur looking for people to complain to, we are probably some of the last people in the world that are going to be swayed by ur stupid opinions

The Dover Demon
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 00:17 AM EDT (US)     98 / 138       

Quote:

if u play DM, then whats with u being discouraged about strategy? all u do is start off with a bunch of resources and hack away at eachother. same as AoE

You know Killer, ever since I saw you post, you've posted almost nothing but flames. I hate to say this, but maybe you should shut up sometime (like now) and actually play DM, and then come back and tell people it's just "start off with a bunch of resources and hack away at each other."

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 01:02 AM EDT (US)     99 / 138       
^Thank you. I hate it when people bash DM.

I did not come here flaming anyone. I just feel like ranting. I don't mind having a discussion with anyone about the merits of the game and I don't appriciate people coming here to start a flame war. Now please go away nrs.

Mr_Floppy4

set_slayer
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 01:25 AM EDT (US)     100 / 138       
For all of you who said that AoM is worse or the same as AoK and AoC, I completely disagree.

-Each culture in AoM is completely unique. In AoK, every civ had the same buildings and same units (with the exception of unique units). In AoM, every unit is a unique unit.
-In AoM, the pace of the game is much faster than in AoK. Units are trained faster, vills gather faster, buildings are built faster, and techs are researched faster. In AoK it took 12 or so minutes just to get to feudal. In AoM, you can finish a game in 12 minutes.
-God powers, myth units, minor god choices, etc. give you more options in the game.

As for AoM's pop constraints: while I think the pop cap is low, (and military units taking more than one space doesn't help) this isn't necessarily bad. Less pop= less lag in team games; and as for military units taking up multiple pop slots, this prevents total dominance of a single unit.

For example, let's say that every unit took up one pop slot (like AoK). This would mean that some units (i.e. jarls) could be produced in massive numbers, and would dominate because they can't be beaten 1v1. Since most cavs take up more pop slots than infantry- I do not think cavalry dominates AoM.

If anything should be changed in AoM, it is:
-MU's should be easier to create.
-Shore fishing shouldn't have been taken away
-ES should make more use of their 3d engine (i.e. adding more flying units).

AoM is much better than AoK and AoC, you guys are just difficult to satisfy

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 01:45 AM EDT (US)     101 / 138       
"Each culture in AoM is completely unique."

Let me make my point about this clearer. The difference between the units with bonuses under certain civs in AoK is in many cases equvilent to the differences between the similar units in each culture (Ulfsark, Spearman). The only difference is that in AoK, they are not reskinned.

"In AoM, the pace of the game is much faster than in AoK."

Like I said, I am a DMer, so the pace is still a bit slow. ES crapped all over AoM DM (IMO, purposely [Any DMer could tell you that no arabia type map and no option of a higher pop cap would kill it]), otherwise I would still own the game.

"In AoM, you can finish a game in 12 minutes."

I do not like this to happen all the time. A good expert 3v3 DM in AoK could easily last an hour with hundreds of units on the map all the time. That was what made AoK for me.

Speaking of 3v3, I am not a big fan of 1v1, and this a major problem in AoM. Because of the unit cap team games felt like a 1v1+1v1+1v1. This simply sucked.

"As for AoM's pop constraints: while I think the pop cap is low."

They should have given you the option. If people want more units, why not let them? If balance issues pop up because of this, ES could state that this game was designed for x amount of units and is balanced accordingly.

"If anything should be changed in AoM, it is:
-MU's should be easier to create.
-Shore fishing shouldn't have been taken away
-ES should make more use of their 3d engine (i.e. adding more flying units)."

I agree, I liked shore fishing. Beyond the god powers it felt like a new texture pack for AoK and it dosn't feel like Age of Myhology at all. MUs do not play a big enough part.

"AoM is much better than AoK and AoC, you guys are just difficult to satisfy"

I perfer to think of it as higher standards.

[This message has been edited by Mr_Floppy4 (edited 07-09-2003 @ 01:49 AM).]

Meteora
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 01:53 AM EDT (US)     102 / 138       

Quote:

I don't appriciate people coming here to start a flame war. Now please go away nrs.

Wow you're a smart one. You come to an AoM fansite and whine about how much you hate the game, and then you complain that other people are trying to start a flame war? What the hell did you expect?

If you don't like the game, you should be smart enough to realize that you could always get another one! Yes you can! Believe it or not, Ensemble Studios doesn't have a monopoly on the game industry. There are other games!


As for AoM vs. AoK, I believe they are equal. They both have their high points and were both fun to play. I like the low pop bonus for AoM, it makes you use your army wisely. In AoM, there is more diversity, but in AoK you had more types of units at your disposal at one time. They are equal, but not the same. Now AoE however was more fun than the other two put together. Too bad it is so hard to go back and lose all the features that made the game easier to play.

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 01:55 AM EDT (US)     103 / 138       
After dumping AT LEAST THREE THOUSAND HOURS into the Age series I have every right to come to the most active AoM fansite and complain.

BTW, I never said I hated the game.

Mr_Floppy4

Meteora
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 02:28 AM EDT (US)     104 / 138       
Sure you may have come to the right place, but don't be suprised if people flame you.

Quote:

I never said I hated the game.

You are right. You never said "I hated the game."

Quoted from floppy:

I am even more disappointed in AoM


Quoted from floppy:

The main thing that pis*ed me off about AoM...


Quoted from floppy:

after I put my copy of AoM on ebay.


Quoted from floppy:

I really had I hopes for AoM.... I was dissapointed


Quoted from floppy:

It's as bad as WC3.


Quoted from floppy:

Again, NOT FUN!

You are not going to try and say that you didn't imply it, now are you?

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 02:39 AM EDT (US)     105 / 138       
I thought it was near-mediocre and a step back in the series. That is far from hate.

Mr_Floppy4

Jazzman_Pritch
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 05:23 AM EDT (US)     106 / 138       
Quoted from Floppy4:

"They should have given you the option. If people want more units, why not let them? If balance issues pop up because of this, ES could state that this game was designed for x amount of units and is balanced accordingly"

Doesn't this sound like balance issues popping up in DM because of a (nearly) balanced RM? And you yourself have stated that RM is the mode considered by ES to be the benchmark for balancing issues -- with good reason, as it is far and away the most popular mode of play. Doesn't that make you a bit hypocritical then when you complain about those balance issues on one hand while you make this suggestion about getting rid of set settlements (which I belive the majority of AoM players tend to find to be an interesting strategic element to the game)?

I like AoM better than any RTS I have ever played; it is the first one to get me seriously hooked enough to play extensively online and put up with getting repeatedly schooled in order to get better. I think that the god powers, myth units, and different civs make for a far more interesting game then you can get with most other RTSs. (and the civs ARE different, as fh stated earlier and as is pretty obvious to most players. Otherwise people would use the same strats regardless of who they were playing, and I HOPE you aren't dense enough to think that the exact same strat works against an eggy FH as a loki rush, or a zeus centaur strangle, or a possy... you get the idea, I hope.)

As for your opinions about the system specs for the game, I find it mildly irritating when people with high-end computers whine about their games not being pretty enough. Some of us have mid range comps that already run at low graphics detail, with reduced resolution, and STILL lag some on team games where the unit count gets higher. If the system requirements were raised you lucky people would get a nice, pretty game to play and you would be happy. But what percentage of the market do you think you take up? Considering how many games I play where I'm NOT the one lagging the game, I would be willing to bet that you're the minority here. So should ES screw the majority of it's customers (thus losing them to another game/company), or should you people just stop the whining about how apparent the polygons that make up Arkantos's rear end are? You answer that one, Floppy.

Wow, that ended up being longer than I intended, but after wading through this HUGE thread I felt the need to speak my mind.

I will agree with you on one point though. Sacrifice is a very cool game.


"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams—Mostly Harmless
oxyGENIUS
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 06:12 AM EDT (US)     107 / 138       
AOM is definitly a step forward in RTS games. basically...

If game was fun, but graphics sucked = complain about dated graphics.

And that goes for every element in the game. The only thing that I dont like about AOM compaired to AOE is the number of players online. AOK was funner because being the best wasnt such a must. Having fun was the point. Players on AOM seem to want to concure the world; every game played. Face it people, you cant win them all. only i can haha.

but seriously, AOM is funner to AOK IMO. Theres just a better mix of everything. (AOK all seige was the same, one unique unit) besides a bonus here and there and different unit pathes, AOK civs where the same. (ex only eggies get camels.)


Keep your allies close and you enemies closer.

Harry_Sax

The Dover Demon
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 08:29 AM EDT (US)     108 / 138       
I agree a lot with the amount of people on ESO at a given time. ESO needs improvement, fix bugs and better communication.

I'd like to have the little chatbox at the bottom of the game listing screen again, like the Zone so I can chat and find games at the same time, faster. Also, the game listing needs to list all the games on one page, with a scrollbar to go farther down, again like the Zone for easier navigation. A list of all the people viewing the game listing should also be shown so you can find people to chat with, and invite to a game without having to click back and forth to the chat room, and the game listing, and back.

Communication is something that's lacking on ESO. Like oxyGENIUS said, back in AoK, I remember I played for fun. I only played a few games of rated (even though I didn't suck) but I played hundreds, possibly thousands of games of non-rated. They were fun, I got to know people, I chatted with tons of people at a time, and best of all, it was fun.

On ESO, these digital numbers on a computer screen seem to be the sole thing AoM players care about, leading to smurfs, dissapointment and anger when one loses a game.

Flames
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 09:03 AM EDT (US)     109 / 138       
Mr. Floppy, you act as if every game ES mades it's supposeed to redefien the RTS genre. AoM wasn't supposed to but it made one hell of a game. The only thing bad are the bugs of ESO such as not being able to click in. You setup a 4 player game. You just want to have a good ol' game...then you can't click ready. The smurfs. the smurfs have destroyed the entire community and ES doesn';t give a damn.

Flames
1/5 Winner of AOMH's Funniest Forumer Award

"No! Back away! I'll give you anything you want! Money? Women?... Men?"- Stewie

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 12:20 PM EDT (US)     110 / 138       
i think for the most part, people would agree that RM is more strategic than DM
The Dover Demon
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 01:36 PM EDT (US)     111 / 138       
Nrs_Killer, have you actually played multiplayer? -- I mean, online?

What's your rating? I'm just a moderate DM player, but I'd play you anytime so you can prove just how unstrategic DM is, since you're an RM player DM won't be very difficult for you.

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 02:03 PM EDT (US)     112 / 138       
1800+ RM usually. and i said RM was more strategic than DM. i didn't say DM wasn't strategic. but i bet u anything i could pick up on DM much faster than i picked up on RM.

and of course i've playe online

idiot

click my fcking links

Phate
Banned
posted 09 July 2003 02:09 PM EDT (US)     113 / 138       
Im not saying I dont like DM, in fact its great fun to build whatever you want and hack away at eachother

But you cant say DM has MORE stratergy than RM can you?

DM stratergys include:
When to use your GPs
How to take most Tcs
What units to spam
erm....

I bought this game for stratergy,(because its an rts) so I dont play DM

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 02:14 PM EDT (US)     114 / 138       
Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 02:41 PM EDT (US)     115 / 138       
"And you yourself have stated that RM is the mode considered by ES to be the benchmark for balancing issues -- with good reason, as it is far and away the most popular mode of play. Doesn't that make you a bit hypocritical then when you complain about those balance issues on one hand while you make this suggestion about getting rid of set settlements (which I belive the majority of AoM players tend to find to be an interesting strategic element to the game)?"

I think it was interesting in RM, it kills DM. It wouldn't be hard to turn it off in DM. I am no expert programmer, but I would think all you would have to do is feed a null value into a settlements function this is probobly in the program. Something like this:

if (DeathMatchOption==true)
settlements(null);

something like that. Like I said, I am no expert programmer nor do I know the AoM code, but I cannot see it being any further then that.

"I like AoM better than any RTS I have ever played"

That's nice, I don't. Is that OK?

"...I HOPE you aren't dense enough to think that the exact same strat works against an eggy FH (build order #1) as a loki rush (build order #2), or a zeus centaur strangle (build order #3), or a possy...you get the idea, I hope."

You get the idea, I hope.

"Some of us have mid range comps that already run at low graphics detail, with reduced resolution..."

So your penis would shrink as you turned the graphics slider down?

"On ESO, these digital numbers on a computer screen seem to be the sole thing AoM players care about, leading to smurfs, dissapointment and anger when one loses a game."

One of the reasons I quit. I knew this would happen as soon as ratings become central to ESO.

"DM stratergys include:
When to use your GPs
How to take most Tcs
What units to spam
erm...."

This is AoM DM. I do agree to an extent here. It's one of the reasons I quit. However AoK:TC DM was just as, if not more strategic then AoK:TC RM.

Mr_Floppy4

[This message has been edited by Mr_Floppy4 (edited 07-09-2003 @ 03:20 PM).]

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 03:03 PM EDT (US)     116 / 138       
if ur looking for a bunch of bloodshed, go play unreal tournament


EVERYONE STOP ANSWERING TO THIS GAY POST. LEAVE THIS FCKER ALONE. WHY ARE WE EVEN LISTENING TO HIM?

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 03:26 PM EDT (US)     117 / 138       
Mr_Floppy4,

I think it would help ur cause if u could just give 1-2 examples of what u expect from a new rts game. That way we can all understand ur side of the story.

It's a lot easier to deconstruct something than to construct something (i.e., it's a lot easier to critique something than to develop something)

fh

Mr_Floppy4
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 03:43 PM EDT (US)     118 / 138       
Well, I was planning to play mostly DM but it sucked in AoM.

RM wasn't dynamic enough and was eventuall reduced to build orders. I would have liked to seen someting to fix this. Perhaps more tech and unit options earlier in the game and cheaper units for larger battles early.

I would have also liked to see multiple choice tech trees and dynamic tech trees that are different each game. I also made a suggestion a long time ago and posted it on this thread a while back. It would need alot of work but it's worth a look.

This is just stuff off the top of my head, I could think of more, if you'd like to hear them.

Mr_Floppy4

NrS_KiLLer
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 04:04 PM EDT (US)     119 / 138       
sounds like you'd like RoN

for real - many options, NO BOs

Matei
Mortal
posted 09 July 2003 04:18 PM EDT (US)     120 / 138       
Floppy, what rating did you get to in AoM DM? I'm assuming you haven't gotten very far, or you've tried to use the same old tactics and it didn't work. Settlements are very important and very strategic in DM. They are key targets for enemy attacks, because they provide the needed pop space, and defending and attacking settlements is how the game is won. Also, even though the armies are smaller when you just count units, each unit is far more important in a battle and the game is just as fast-paced. The myth units especially can change how a battle goes, and unlike in RM they are present in practically every DM game because of the auto-increasing favor. It is a very strategic game mode, and it has a lot more depth than AoK DM.

The point is that AoM is a different game from AoK, AoE and the other RTS'es. You can't expect to find the same things in it (high numbers of units, very strong buildings, simple population model, etc), nor can you look for all the features you personally are thinking would be good and ask why they're not there. You could, however, try to adapt to it, see what's possible, and play it. The more you try, the more possibilities will become available.

There's no point arguing with people who do this if you don't do it yourself, it's like trying to convince chess players that games with same-size boards and 6 types of units are boring while in fact chess is not at all about size of maps or types of units.


Programmer on 0 A.D., author of Norse Wars, co-author of Fort Wars.

[This message has been edited by Matei (edited 07-09-2003 @ 04:18 PM).]

« 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