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.85 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » RM vs DM Who shall be the victor?
Bottom
Topic Subject:RM vs DM Who shall be the victor?
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 04:22 PM EDT (US)         
No Flaming or Trolling. Only a peaceful debate.

Which should the ES people concentrate more on? There will probably be problems making a game that balances both types of games equally.

So which is better, RM or DM? Lets have a fun little debate.

I say RM(random map).
Requires more economic management abilities.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
AuthorReplies:
tHe fReAk
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 00:48 AM EDT (US)     61 / 85       
I remember in my AoE days I liked DM 'cuz I didn't want to do any real econ and I only played single player.

One day, I decided to play on the Zone. I started out like an RM, used to the easy computer, and I had an army of maybe 20 guys when my enemy came at me with scores of centurians and ballistas (well, the next upgrade of them), and of course I was slaughted. I was amazed at the amout of guys he had... *stops reminicing*

Since AoK I've played RM. I'm still slow with the econ and I like it a little slower. I've played some AoK DM games, but those times totally ignored my econ, unlike my AoE days, and found myself without resources and dead. Needless to say, I'm no good at DM and I'm only a bit better at RM.

My conclusion? In DM you experience things on a large scale. Most games are in Post-Imperial, so there's no upgrading or age advancing to be done. You jump right into large scale production, and start your econ once most of your initial building have been built. As far as military, you have huge armies of elite units, dieing often.

RM? Well, now that I think of it, for games that last to imperial, you end up with so much resources due to such a large economy started in Dark that your armies are about as expendable as in DM.

Btw, in EE, the majority of the games are DM.


tHe fReAk

"It would be very irresponsible of me to give you my thoughts as you are clearly incapable of handling the ones you already have." - Wulfhere
"There's too many people in this thread who should have been shot in the face a long time ago." - The Outlaw Torn
c r e e z y
Mortal
(id: Hairy Scary Man)
posted 23 May 2002 00:52 AM EDT (US)     62 / 85       
DM is kinda like Starcraft games too...no age advancin so u get to battle as soon as u upgrade ur units and get sum

BiggN
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 03:24 AM EDT (US)     63 / 85       
I know you have all misssed me, so i'll post again.
If any of these have already been answered, sorry, i'm starting at where i last posted and working my way back.

Let me start off by giving you what used to be the norm for DM 1v1 games before the TC patch came in.

http://aok.heavengames.com/university/articles/110.shtml

Quoted from From the Stratagy:

"Obviously, the battle part is down to you, but right now, you should have everything built, and there shouldn’t be more then 12min on the in game clock… And you should be near if not on Pop limit."

The reason i said 12 min was to help give the player confidence enough to try the strat against a real person as they would of been finishing this strat at about the 10min mark, even if it was there first DM game.
But that should of said 7 min to give a real idea of how powerful the strat is.

Here is a game that will probably show off what i mean, i'm guessing its probably old, but its between two people that are pretty damn good DM players so it should show how quick you can and will run out of resouces.

Download the game Here!
Now, back to the post

Quote:

"Ah, the deer has only 30 food left so if I only take one villager to finish it more food will "deteriate" and I will not have enough for feudal so the delay will undoubtedly lose me the game..."

How is that Economic Skill?

Quote:

"Not really. You couldnt have even built enough villagers to "pour in" every resource. In the first 5-10 minutes actually you are constructing barracks for halbs, stables for pals, and casltes to rush... The only thing economic is perhaps you have started mining gold, and you have built a market...Not sure where you got these figures. You might have a small economy at 10 minutes... Not enough to "pour in" "all resources" though..."

Read my strat, use my strat, find out what i am talking about.
And that "small" economy is probably double the econ you will have in RM for at least 30 min.

Quote:

"Not particularly for finding his economy though. Your scout gets there 30 secs into the game. Not even you has an economy by then. His vills are all busy building stables, and hopefully you can kill one or two with your hussar before his halbs/pals come out...

He, if hes rushing (which every player is), will not have much defense anyway. And there is no economy to guard lol..."

I wasn't refering to Scouting as in uncovering the black areas, but like you said, we have a "small" econ within 10 min, if you can take out parts of that "small" econ then you have already won, because you know what he can now build *i.e. you've taken out wood, so he can't build scorps, cav archers, skrims, halbs*

This is what you need to do, maybe not with your scout, but it is still scouting to find where he is concentrating his vilalgers to collect resources.

Quote:

"I'm sorry, my friend, but they do not. I have yet to see, in all the rated zone games I have played, I have yet to see someone run out of resources in five minutes. Its impossible. And NO one has an economy up by then..."

Ok, not exactly all your gold depleted, that should never happen because you should have mines setup around your gold.
But look at the recorded game at the top of the game, that was just one quick example, i havn't seen the game but i'm sure those two players will show you how you have to econ ASAP in a DM game to keep units flowing.

Quote:

"When someone says they prefere RM, what they are
really saying is they prefere slower paced games. "

This was ment as no insult, but RM is slower paced, you've got more time to think about what you are going to do.

If 10 Skirms find there way to your TC or 10 Paladins its obvious which is going to give you less time to figure out what you do next and how you do it.

Quote:

"I play RM because yes, it has more depth than a DM. Even if it is predictable, its not as predictable as a DM..."

How is it not as predictable?
At the first age, what can you build? 1 military unit, next age you can build 2 or 3? *can't remember now*
How is it not more predictable what he is going to attack with?

Quote:

" beating up on people who cant frankish rush with the same speed they can. "

I could say the same about RMers and that Skirmisher tower rush thing you do, the fact is, a rush is only a rush if you arn't as fast as your enemy.

If you can't build up a army until 10 min, and then attack me with it.. that is YOUR rush, i wouldn't concider it a rush, but it is your idea of a rush.

Quote:

"True, but I really think RM is even more so. It is a matter of having 499 food or 500. A matter of your sheep having 8 food left of 12..."

How is this a mistake? how is having 499 food and not 500 food a mistake?

Quote:

"If you built this many if I remember correctly you have about 2500 gold left..."

If you built this army, so might your enemy of, or your enemy might have built 120 Halbs ready for your Pals, you just don't know unless you "scout" first

so that gold that you have left, say maybe 2500 gold isn't going to last you very long, and you could of just given your enemy the game.

Quote:

"To me, DM has always felt like the "wrong" way to play the game.
Like reading a book and skipping to the last chapter to see how it ends."

Can i just say, in this reading the book and skipping to the end part.
How many RM AOK games that you play in goto the last age?
So isn't RM like reading a book but ever finding out how it ends?

Quote:

"All I will say is that the DMs that I HAVE played have either been on Black Forest or Oasis, and in both cases it was just a straight-ahead war and there was no factor of surrounding an enemy"

What would you expect it to be on a map where you only have 1 or 2 ways to get to the enemy?

On Gold Rush or Arabia maps you will find these surrounding the enemy tactics often.

Quote:

"It is more important in the RM. When you have to focus on it at all (in the longer games), you have the resources to get enough villagers to give you all the stuff you want...

Whats more, its automatic. You dont have to think what to use the resources on. Just build more pals, more halbs, more scorps, more trebs.

Click another 30 times. I have so much gold I dont have to worry about it! How bout a few more castles down there to prevent his retreat? Heck, why not? Hey how bout I just replace the 150 guys I just lost with the rest of my stockpile? Its all given to me!"

That so much gold won't last very long if you are building 30 paladins every few seconds, and even less if you are building trebs at that rate.

Quote:

"Its easier than you think. Take two vills build stable. Take one build two dozen houses in lines. Take new vill build stable. Take two vills tell them each to build a stable. Build more stables. Build market. Take 5 vills go to enemy and build 2 castles. Build another castle. Build barracks... "

LMAO
Yeah ok, maybe that is it.
but you've forgot to build anything from those stables and you've forgot about your enemy Hussar that is now attacking your house buildings, and you've forgot about what your hussar is doing.

Quote:

"OK. Who should I be? Franks, huns or goths? Maybe in some games the saracens to counter the frankish rush?"

Or how about Mayan for that extra villager, or how about Celts? but will i be able to keep up on all that extra gold i will need as Celts as he's now gone saracans/huns/goths/mayans to hit me with speed and to cripple my econ?

Quote:

"RMers really don't study the game like us DMers do"

Yeah, i don't agree with that either, RMers know more about early stages than DMers, but DMers know more about late stages than RMers

Quote:

">Once again, RM is *not* about strategic decision; it's about better execution.

If you say so. LOL"

That's exactly how us DMers are feeling when we read a RMers POV on DM.

Quote:

"simply DM cuts half of the game because it elminates the need for economis management.
RM gives you the entire game to play.
So DM cuts economy while RM doent."

RM Cuts out Micromanagement,
RM Cuts out Learning about late stages in the game
RM Cuts out the need for Team work in Team games

*these are not my opinions, i just felt like i neeeded to say somthing stupid to keep up with these people that come in, don't read and think they are contributing to this topic.


Quote:

"In RM, you don't start out with a significant amount of resources, so location of resources makes things different and more random. While in DM, you start out with those resources.

If anything, RM is more random, therefore more fun."

Ok, i'll explain.
In DM, we all know you need lightning fast reflexes to compete with the best, the thing is, on the most open map Arabia *not green arabia* you have things which can block you.

Hills/trees in your base hindering your build time, gold at the front of your base near your enemy, more open gold pits closer to your enemy than you, Relics not evenly spaced.

All these things help decide a DM game
Location of gold pits is more important in DM than RM, you have to secure those gold pits and relics early in the game to stop your enemy from having any gold.

____

Ok i think thats me done, again, thanks for all of you that read this post and i hope it doesn't offend anyone.

-BiggN


ENGLAND
ENGLAND
ENGLAND
Seaman, Mills, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Heskey, Beckham, Scholes, Hargreaves, Vassell, Owen, Butt, Sinclair, Dyer
England 1 - 1 Sweden, England 1 - 0 Argentina, England 0 - 0 Nigeria, England 3 - 0 Denmark, England 1 - 2 Brazil
:: Roll on 2006 C'Mon England ::
Hagbard
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 05:43 AM EDT (US)     64 / 85       
I'm a DM player and been playing for a long time.

I must say there are two types of DM that differs from each other a little bit.

First playing a 1v1 DM is different than playing Team games even if playing 1v1 RM is different from team game.

Playing a DM team game, you really need to play as a team and help each other out, otherwise the other team will smack you down like a little B-----TCH. Atleast in the beginning, cause in RM team games,(played that alot aswell) you don't have to worry as much about that in the beginning you can think you and you only.

This is why I like to play DM team games.

Also in DM you need to wall in and defend you villies much earlier then in RM, cause there you have more time to build up an econ, without having 20 hussar knocking on your back door. Because if you lose 5 to 10 lumberjacks, you might as well go hang yourself.


But if a RM or DM game take more than 1H they are quite the same, but there is no more fun that playing a game that last 3h of pure combat, man I wish that would happen again.


When children blow themself up it is called stupidity. When soldiers do it is called Heroism.

It is with mixed feelings you sit down on a hot toilet seat.

Behind every succesful AoM player there is ........ME.

wrotong
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 05:51 AM EDT (US)     65 / 85       
ok,
for people who were saying you dont get into the later stages of the game in a rm you are mistaken. On the zone if you write "no rush till imp" 95% of people dont.
And if you play aok on the zone all the people (was gonna say lamers but changed my mind :O) who would rush anyway even though the host asked them not to have moved onto aoc anyways.
And if you want a REALLY difficult and different RM game that is definitely a break from the norm, try getting together with a group of friends and just playing them virtually ALL the time you play. Sure, if you are better at them at first you win each time, but gradually they become btter and better and make it more difficult for you. Also if you go random Civs and FFA it makes it so much more interesting, if you are used to playing the Turks and just having hordes of janissary in imperial age your kinda screwed if you end up with the goths.
It is this that make RM 'random' , sure if you play the same settings same map it does get tedious, but because i like they style of game play more i make sure it doesnt get tedious, as i play generally with friends i know in "real life" we dont attack unitl imperial age, afterthe match we give each other tips and we dont moan about a certain map being played

As for DM, its ok IMO, but i was put off by the fact that in my first 2 games: game 1: BF i knew to build lots and lots of people so i built lots and lots of cavaliers (was the britons), pikemen and longbowmen (my fave unit) my enemy decided to attack me after about 3 mins with 50 paladins forward built and just kept sending them in, i know thats the way to win but i think it sucks :P
game 2: Arabia basically a repeating of the first map but even worse because i couldnt even try and hide and wall off anywhere as its too open a map

so not too good DM experiences i know and i suck at both DM and RM, never played a rated game and never intend on doing so, these are just my take on things, feel free to have a go at them and me, that seems the norm for this post


the greatest n00b of them all
vladimir87
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 07:40 AM EDT (US)     66 / 85       
Hy this has become quite a topic. I pretty much said most of what I wanted to say on page 1 and 2. So go up there and read my posts lol...

I still say RM, good discussion...

-vladimir87

Dagobert
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 09:14 AM EDT (US)     67 / 85       
One thing that has not been mentionned (or I didn't see it, this thread is so long) is the TOTAL amount of ressources.

On any given map, there is a given amount of wood, stone and gold and ultimately of food as well because farms are wood dependant.

To this amount you add what the players have at the beginning and in the case of DM, players start with a significant fraction of what the map offers.

Therefore, the total amount of ressources in a DM map is significantly higher than in RM. With surely some important consequences...

(Note, the actual total is really infinite because with trade units and relics you can get gold and from there buy anything you need, but everybody knows that those are nice but little boosts to your overall economy and that you spend your gold much faster than you get it from either relics or trade. This boost represent only a small fraction of all the gold you get from the mines and in DM from the start as well, therefore the potential is infinite but the actual effect is no more and often less than a 10% increase of your economy).

____________________________________________________

I think that we can hardly say that RM is better or DM is better, they are both fun, quite different one from the other and it is a matter of taste much more than a matter of real superiority of one type over the other.

This thread is really interesting, one of the best in this forum, it has only one flaw : some people badly want to say that their game is the best. They try to diminish the other game instead of saying why their own game is fun. I still wait to see a valid proof that either RM or DM is superior to the other. I doubt that such a proof could be made anyway.

Sadly enough for me (I play much more RM than DM) it seems that the arguments for DM in this thread are excellent. May be only because most people (including more experts) prefer RM so that DMers have to defend themselves??

Anyway they do defend themselves so well (BiggN in particular) that nobody should be able to say now that DM is a game for beginners without the depht of RM.

I will continue to play much more RM since I always knew that DM is also a good way to play AOK or AoE, I simply prefer RM.

Now, what about the other choices (there will be something like 15 ways to play AoM. My prediction is that 2 players out of 3 will play RM, one out of three will play DM and the rest (,,,?) will play one or the other of the remaining games...


************
À la guerre comme à la guerre
vladimir87
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 09:52 AM EDT (US)     68 / 85       
Hey BiggN I understand everything your saying, and I like the dm. I still agree with you that dm is cool.

I still agree with what you say, but I think the rm still is, ah you know what I said before...

I personally use the scout to elminate a vill or two, too find out what kinda units hes buildings (you are right) etc. However when I disagreeed, I was disagreeing that the enemy would have an economy set up by the time my hussar could get to the enemy base. He would undoubtedly be building barracks to crank out halbs... That is what I was trying to say...

I change my vote to both because I both of them are very cool

Good discussion everyone...

-Vladimir87

c r e e z y
Mortal
(id: Hairy Scary Man)
posted 23 May 2002 09:56 AM EDT (US)     69 / 85       
i was thinkin bout the title...i dont think one type will b a victor over the other...

DM players can play DM
RM players can play RM

ez as that...but nice discussion and i like DM more but any1 can play anythin


Chris654
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 10:11 AM EDT (US)     70 / 85       
Well when I get them game , the fist mode I will be playing is...

Single Player!
Game Type: DEATH MATCH
Map Type : (Any of the new ones)
Team 1 Vs AI (Easiest) Team 2
Civ : Random!
Starting age: The very first one.

Funny settings eh?

Just cos I want all the stock piles up high to I can build the new units and have a real good look at them in peace (easiest AI) (build time, attack etc..)

But as far as DM, thats the only thing I will be using it for, I dont really like it, *but* I respect the fact that others do like it more than RM, and so equal time should be spent on both.

As everyone likes as little change, I'm sure some RM ppl will try DM, and DM guys will try RM.

[This message has been edited by Chris654 (edited 05-23-2002 @ 10:14 AM).]

Hagbard
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 10:21 AM EDT (US)     71 / 85       
I think mainly of those who are talking about DM here is an expert or better player, since alot of newbies usually play one game of DM, loses and doesn't play it anymore. Atleast most player I won over easily, I have never seen playing another game of DM again.

Maybe that's why this is one of the better threads here.

Of course I will be playing both, but prolly more DM, play maybe three or fours games of DM and then one game of RM. Just to keep my skills up alittle bit.


When children blow themself up it is called stupidity. When soldiers do it is called Heroism.

It is with mixed feelings you sit down on a hot toilet seat.

Behind every succesful AoM player there is ........ME.

dragons89
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 10:26 AM EDT (US)     72 / 85       
RM. The thing I love about RM is the economy managing in the first few minutes. I also prefer smaller skirmishes and raidings over massive battles. I also like getting to the next age quickly, but DM doesn't have that

Give me money, and I might feel generous enough to say something kind.
--My The Ultimate AOK Guide--
--My The Ultimate AOM Guide
BiggN
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 10:29 AM EDT (US)     73 / 85       
Thanks for your kind words, just want to make sure you all understand.

I'm not saying DM is better than RM
** i will tho if someone turns round and says to me that RM is better than DM because that just annoys me from either side**
I respect RM players, they have somthing i do not when i play games... Patience

When I started playing back in AOE ROR i couldn't stand DM, then a real life friend, who got me into the game told me he plays DM so i had to give it a try really
(couldn't let a friend be better than me at somthing )
Didn't like it asmuch in AOE ROR, but in AOK i loved it.

Maybe it was just because of the British Longbow *which is what most of my army in AOK used to be*

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks to all, and to make sure that you all knew i'm not some Anit-RM person


ENGLAND
ENGLAND
ENGLAND
Seaman, Mills, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Heskey, Beckham, Scholes, Hargreaves, Vassell, Owen, Butt, Sinclair, Dyer
England 1 - 1 Sweden, England 1 - 0 Argentina, England 0 - 0 Nigeria, England 3 - 0 Denmark, England 1 - 2 Brazil
:: Roll on 2006 C'Mon England ::
Chris654
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 01:05 PM EDT (US)     74 / 85       
Well that sure was *a lot* of reading! A lot of good reading...
Cloudchaser_Eagle
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 04:14 PM EDT (US)     75 / 85       
Yamato certainly has a right to think what he wants, HSM, but what he DOESN'T have the right to do is to flame us DMers, especially when we are not flaming him (Both Immhotep and I pointed out Yamato's lack of experience in DM, that ain't flaming). Nothing, and I do mean nothing, justified Yamato's foolish and insulting outburst against us.

I don't think that BiggN, Immhotep, or I (the three main DMers @ this thread) are anti-RM at all. It's just that certain people seem to be anti-DM, which I feel is completely unfair to us three.

EDIT: It seems my statement about RMers and DMers has been misinterpreted many many times. What I mean to say is that RMers don't study the game in the same light that DMers do.


29th Greatest AoMH Forumer ever, former (and proud) FPH Templar
Winner of CC_Straight_Og's "Most Humorous Reply" award (though I still have no idea why ).
Winner of AgeofMe's "The Site Jerk" title (and I do have an idea why )
"Character is destiny." -Heraclitus
Official Mascot of the Age of Mythology Heaven forums!

[This message has been edited by Cloudchaser_Eagle (edited 05-23-2002 @ 04:24 PM).]

BiggN
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 05:28 PM EDT (US)     76 / 85       
there is also no need to point the finger

ENGLAND
ENGLAND
ENGLAND
Seaman, Mills, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Heskey, Beckham, Scholes, Hargreaves, Vassell, Owen, Butt, Sinclair, Dyer
England 1 - 1 Sweden, England 1 - 0 Argentina, England 0 - 0 Nigeria, England 3 - 0 Denmark, England 1 - 2 Brazil
:: Roll on 2006 C'Mon England ::
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 05:32 PM EDT (US)     77 / 85       
now lets switch the topic to another topic!!!!!

Do you think there will be a problem in balancing both RM and DM???????????


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
BiggN
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 05:34 PM EDT (US)     78 / 85       
Very much so DD,

For RM and DM to be balanced, they will need 2 different skill and build trees's


ENGLAND
ENGLAND
ENGLAND
Seaman, Mills, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Heskey, Beckham, Scholes, Hargreaves, Vassell, Owen, Butt, Sinclair, Dyer
England 1 - 1 Sweden, England 1 - 0 Argentina, England 0 - 0 Nigeria, England 3 - 0 Denmark, England 1 - 2 Brazil
:: Roll on 2006 C'Mon England ::
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 05:43 PM EDT (US)     79 / 85       
Must it be that extreme??

What makes certain civs and certain units better or worse in DM than in RM. I know there are some civs that are just alittle unbalanced, but what about the civs cause this to be magnified?


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
Gluteus Maximus
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 05:52 PM EDT (US)     80 / 85       
RM players will most likely keep on playing RM, and DM players will most likely keep on playing DM.

The question "which is better, RM or DM?" has no right or wrong answer, and because it is a question of personal taste rather than a question of fact.

As to the comment "[RM] Requires more economic management abilities." - it is only half correct. The reason it is only half correct is because it failed to mention the fact that RM doesn't require the economic skill as someone else has mentioned called the MACRO management, which is the opposite of micro management.

In short, micro econ is in RM, and one of its trademarks is the skill to balance the right number of gatherers on a given resource to maximize villager efficiency (i.e how many vils should I place on this sheep,etc.).

Macro econ, on the other hand, is quite different, such that it does not benefit the player who focus on the efficiency of a single unit or two. Macro econ benefits the player who focus on the efficiency of all his units as a whole, since the reward from one-unit-efficiency will be too little in comparison to the reward from the entire group.

Until we have really played both -- long enough to have a good understanding of it -- we cannot really make an accurate, objective conclusion about either one.

- Maximus


“In the middle of a difficulty lies opportunity” - Albert Einstein
“One must learn to fail in order to succeed” - Michael Jordan

V = TC2 . . . The Gluteus Maximus Equation
{where V is villager, and TC is town center}

Yamato
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 06:08 PM EDT (US)     81 / 85       
It sounds like I was misinterpreting some of the comments. I thought I was getting seriously flamed and trolled before I lashed out in return but I am willing to reconsider that that was not the intent. And either way two wrongs do not make a right so I regret stooping to that perceived level and blatantly breaking dd's wise thread rules. I apologize for taking things personally and being a jerk about it. I guess I am sensitive when terms like "ignorant" and "rookie" are getting thrown about. (By the way, please, you don't need to explain to me again why those comments were made, you made your points about my DM ignorance loud and clear... many times... trust me it was sufficent... ) Those terms are predominant in gaming smack for a reason... they are used to get under people's skin.
Anyway I got mad but I truly am not here to fight so I would like to be as humble and sincere as possible in saying "My bad" and extending the olive branch.

Looks like dd has come up with a great new related topic regarding RM and DM so enjoy! FWIW I have great confidence that ES will work hard and do a fantastic job balancing both games. And like others I hope they have the time make other game types (i.e. NOmad) balanced as well!


H, C, C, H, C, C, H, C, C, H, C, C
BiO
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 06:45 PM EDT (US)     82 / 85       

Quote:

What makes certain civs and certain units better or worse in DM than in RM. I know there are some civs that are just alittle unbalanced, but what about the civs cause this to be magnified?

The only really unbalanced civ was koreans at the start and problems didnt really start till the release of the patch...altho they had good reasons for doing so, it totally screwed up DM balance. For example making cav archers have an attack bonus vs hals made hun wars a rush for market game.. and making castles build slower made rush even more effective and clumping impossible in 1v1...

deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 07:15 PM EDT (US)     83 / 85       
So its the whole extreme rushing factor that makes DM more unbalanced?

How would ES go about countering this? Without taking out Rushing at all.
Or if Koreans were the only unbalanced thing, is it really a problem.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
BiO
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 07:29 PM EDT (US)     84 / 85       
Koreans were the only problem to start with and with the patch it threw everything outta balance and basicly made huns more dominant than they already were. They can solve it easily by listening to DMers a little more :P alot us experts gathered in chat on zone and discussed changes that could be made and i do believe an email was sent to ES about it....the fact is DM doesnt get near the attention that RM does and until it does its gonna have balancing issues. The best solution would to have 2 seperate tech trees for RM and DM and i dont know if that is possible or not so they should do more testing for DM but with only 1 tech tree one game type or the other is gonna get screwed over.....
Dagobert
Mortal
posted 23 May 2002 07:40 PM EDT (US)     85 / 85       
DeadlyDentures,

I would not be too pessimistic. Some civs will be better at DM and some other will be better at RM, as it is the case now with AoK and how it was the case with AoE.


Hopefully, in team games a variety of civs might fare better than all but one and hopefully all civs will be competitive in most situation with most players.

Of course, with expert players, on 1 vs 1 small arabia, some civs will do better (even may be much better) than others. This setting is popular among experts, but overall does it represents the majority of players??

I doubt so and knowing that Microsoft is lurking in the back of ES, I'm quite sure that the designers have to make a good game for the highest number of players, just hoping that it turns not that bad for the few experts who play 100 games a week, 100 weeks a year.

If a few civs dominate 1 vs 1 , either RM or DM, use them in the right context, but play team games as well and use a variety of civs. I think that after a while, the best way to play the game is random civ (even random map) and it is fun because all civs are good enough for a decent player to defend himself properly and have fun in most of the possible settings. If it is like that in AoM, both in DM and RM, I will be happy.

My final hope is : no frank pals flood in DM, no teutonic TCs in RM, no hittites cats, and ... AoK was better balanced than AoE and I expect AoM to be better balanced than AoK. The way you'll play (and choose) your GPs and MUs will add a variety of strats and I doubt that proper execution will dominate that game. We will have probably many viable options besides the official build orders, in RM as well as in DM.


************
À la guerre comme à la guerre
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames