安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
It's not normal for rts games. No other rts does this as far as I know. And comparing golf or soccer to aoe is pretty meaningless. Besides, your comparison doesn't make any sense. Scoreboards only indicate a win/loss percentage. You will have this with ladder in aoe4 as well. But in something like a soccer game, players don't have a calculated score based on the fatigue level, physical performance, and general strength of the combined players.
A game that's all about game sense, scouting, and mechanics should not have this feature period. You want a general sense about the direction of the game? Scout your opponent's base, check their upgrades on their units by clicking on them, check how much they mined gold mines are left on their map etc. That's a skill-based evaluation and not some points you can see on the screen.
And that's a perfect argument against the score. You should never be able to tell from anything other than the current game state about whether you have no chance on winning or are already dominating. I made this comment earlier as well but being able to tell you did enough economy damage or whether the opponent is hiding more production / military units somewhere is really bad for the game.
Anyway, it should be clear by now that a lot of people (probably including the devs) disliked it. I'm also pretty sure the devs got feedback about this from lots of the top players. Therefore the decision is probably final and that's welcome.
Apparently the negatives outweighed the positives and that's why it was cut. There's no reason to hold onto something just because the games before did it.
But thinking about it a little more, I agree that the score can be a fun and interesting element in FFA or big (new player) 4on4 matches where you can try to go for the one with the highest scores to keep things balanced. The only place where I really dislike the score is 1on1 or 2on2 games. Maybe the 20 years old aoe games had their focus more on casual matches between many players and the score was a little casual arcade-like remnant of the early games of video-gaming.
Win by score is kinda stupid by itself, with score being shown makes it even more stupid.
"Im ahead in score? Let me just stall."
"Let me research all techs to boost the score."
111
You wouldn't be able to tell how well your allies are doing just by looking at them on the map either, you'd need a score count that sums up all of their assets to determine if they're in a position to help you out. At that point you can decide to hold out for as long as possible or call gg.
If you're looking to get rid of the scoreboard for better game immersion, that's a fair point that we're going to have to disagree on. While you're at it, for consistency, let's eliminate your ability to click on enemy units and see how much armor they have, how much HP they have remaining and the range of their units and buildings too, as well as all notifications that a player has advanced to the next age. All of that stuff has to go too if your defense is that any and all information you get about the enemy has to be from scouting.
There. Gone is the Medieval ticker, purists can time travel back whenever they want tho.