why ai sucks in IV and not III?

[Thundersnapper]

I really enjoy playing AOE 3 as AI is great and it has good balance but in AOE 4 they constantly makes random attacks from every direction making me spend more time at barracks creating troops all the time and never getting time for economy and structures. why cant developers just copy AOE 3 AI? this makes this game really bad, mean really bad...its like waving away flyes all the time. But worst is then all resurses is empty at the end and you cant fend of AI anymore or both me and AI cant attack more...stagnation to oblivion...

[Stoic_Fish]

Първоначално публикувано от HypeR:

Old titles are better than 4 even 2

That is not true. People just can't move on to new things. AOE4 is a superior game unless your one of those people that played 10000 hours of AOEII and brainwashed yourself into having a false bias. If you are a normal human, for all other normal gamers, who play a variety and games and just want a nice rts experience and your not concerned with being the top 100 on ranked ladder, This game is amazing, each race unique, controls feel great, graphics are very nice. 1 in 1000 people are the guy who wrote the above message, lunatics that must min/max everything in life. Truth is, this is one of the best rts games ever made and is an absolute masterpiece. I highly recommend mastering the art of medieval warfare here in AOE4 over any other rts if i'm being honest, the intermediate level is a really good training tool for players that are newer or just haven't mastered the skills yet. When they attack you, you need to be using your brain and your keyboard and mouse, you must click buttons in response and continue to build economy. It isn't very hard, but it takes some practice.

[Stoic_Fish]

Първоначално публикувано от Great Big Eyeball:

Първоначално публикувано от Diamond 1:

Yes it is simple bias I'm not saying this gameplay is for no one but it's personally not what I want of AoE4 and I voice it, as simple as that. It is no secret that most of the RTS genre was inspired from Warcraft3 which also birthed MOBA genre which is my whole argument ;)
I never liked warcraft3 because of its gameplay flaws. i'm all for heroes combat in pvp, but I find moba maps to be killing my brain neuron by neuron with their simplicity. This is transpiring in AoE4 going for tiny maps meta. We could have a lot bigger maps, and a lot more meaningful expansion and map control aspects to the game without changing what it is today other than units speed and building sizes also. In fact a lot of people complained that the buildings are too small and non immersive. This is another issue transpiring from Starcraft series where buildings are sci-fi and only exist to serve a purpose rather than feel like base building in the artistic sense of appreciation, a sense that historical based lore like AoE could very well develop more into to get more of their own identity in comparison to other RTS games. It is a common critique in today's world to hear that RTS genre whined off and nearly died because the genre failed to evolve and adapt to a wider audience. Not everyone wants to be a math nerd min maxer to win games. Some people want to grow strong through creative, real time adaptative strategy. It's the whole 3 teachings mindset so since we have shaolin monks the least would be to allow a gameplay that fits their background vibe. And it would benefit the whole community really to open up more competitively viable playstyles based on smart map control development rather than knowing how to be first to steamroll the other. That doesn't in essence mean games HAVE to be longer. It just means rebalancing what needs rebalancing. In the end, good changes only happen after good decisions. Being reasonable is how you achieve balance, not being an extreme defender of one specific meta ;) Y'all are just gold or plats and higher fearing that the work you put in computing numbers isn't wasted lol.

A lot of your ideas seem like they fit better into more dynamic RTS games like Dune: Spice Wars and not the resource/combat focused ones like AOE. I understand everything you're saying and I don't mind unique games but I'm glad AOE is just simple and to the point.

This game is not the game you think it is man. Go play a casual city simulation, that is exactly what you want. lol. People come here to play chess dude, with cool looking medieval 3d art. chess is not the game you are looking for.

[Surviva 777]

Yesterday, we had the opposite problem where the AI was patrolling only at their base and the villagers were just standing there like it was a 'game over' situation. Granted, we had 2 players in our team with one AI ally and against only one AI enemy. I guess they worked out from the beginning that they would be defeated which happened really easily because they never even put up a fight, not even once in that game until we attacked them. They were overwhelmed quickly, I suppose next time. the 2 of us normal players won't take an AI ally on our side when we are fighting just one enemy. That was our experience anyway. Such a fun game though.

[Cacomistle]

Първоначално публикувано от Stoic_Fish:

Първоначално публикувано от HypeR:

Old titles are better than 4 even 2

That is not true. People just can't move on to new things. AOE4 is a superior game unless your one of those people that played 10000 hours of AOEII and brainwashed yourself into having a false bias. If you are a normal human, for all other normal gamers, who play a variety and games and just want a nice rts experience and your not concerned with being the top 100 on ranked ladder, This game is amazing, each race unique, controls feel great, graphics are very nice. 1 in 1000 people are the guy who wrote the above message, lunatics that must min/max everything in life. Truth is, this is one of the best rts games ever made and is an absolute masterpiece. I highly recommend mastering the art of medieval warfare here in AOE4 over any other rts if i'm being honest, the intermediate level is a really good training tool for players that are newer or just haven't mastered the skills yet. When they attack you, you need to be using your brain and your keyboard and mouse, you must click buttons in response and continue to build economy. It isn't very hard, but it takes some practice.

I mean the thread is over a year old, but it was about ai. In terms of ai, the older titles are better. Aoe4 ai started off pretty close to aoe3's ai (both were pretty bad), but for whatever reason its only got worse since. And aoe2's ai has just always been better than aoe4.

Which games are better in pvp is subjective, and even if the ai is worse you can still have more fun playing against in aoe4 than aoe2. But personally, I'd recommend aoe2 to players who aren't planning to pvp. Its got better mod support and the ai can actually put up a fight without massive cheats (and even then sometimes the ai in 4 still doesn't put up a fight cause it breaks so easily). I prefer aoe4 for pvp though, aoe2 is obnoxiously micro heavy and monks are a stupid unit.

[FloosWorld]

Първоначално публикувано от Cacomistle:

Първоначално публикувано от Stoic_Fish:

That is not true. People just can't move on to new things. AOE4 is a superior game unless your one of those people that played 10000 hours of AOEII and brainwashed yourself into having a false bias. If you are a normal human, for all other normal gamers, who play a variety and games and just want a nice rts experience and your not concerned with being the top 100 on ranked ladder, This game is amazing, each race unique, controls feel great, graphics are very nice. 1 in 1000 people are the guy who wrote the above message, lunatics that must min/max everything in life. Truth is, this is one of the best rts games ever made and is an absolute masterpiece. I highly recommend mastering the art of medieval warfare here in AOE4 over any other rts if i'm being honest, the intermediate level is a really good training tool for players that are newer or just haven't mastered the skills yet. When they attack you, you need to be using your brain and your keyboard and mouse, you must click buttons in response and continue to build economy. It isn't very hard, but it takes some practice.

I mean the thread is over a year old, but it was about ai. In terms of ai, the older titles are better. Aoe4 ai started off pretty close to aoe3's ai (both were pretty bad), but for whatever reason its only got worse since. And aoe2's ai has just always been better than aoe4.

Which games are better in pvp is subjective, and even if the ai is worse you can still have more fun playing against in aoe4 than aoe2. But personally, I'd recommend aoe2 to players who aren't planning to pvp. Its got better mod support and the ai can actually put up a fight without massive cheats (and even then sometimes the ai in 4 still doesn't put up a fight cause it breaks so easily). I prefer aoe4 for pvp though, aoe2 is obnoxiously micro heavy and monks are a stupid unit.

And even then, AI aside, while AoE 4 is not a bad game in itself, AoM and AoE 3 kinda put it to shame in terms of variety.
I didn't expect 4 to completely reinvent the wheel but I wanted it to take more risks like AoE 3 did with the Home City feature. 4 is mostly just a safe reboot that makes me usually wonder why I should play it when its features and selling points already exist in AoE 2, 3 and AoM.

[NoobusMaximus]

Първоначално публикувано от FloosWorld:

4 is mostly just a safe reboot that makes me usually wonder why I should play it when its features and selling points already exist in AoE 2, 3 and AoM.

In terms of game design it has improved and modernized on every aspect of previous entries. They didn't go with wacky ideas because they wanted the game to have the highest chance of success, not just be another spin-off of the formula, which is why 3 and Online haven't seen wide adoption. Not every entry has to change the fundamental features of the franchise.

I also don't think the game design is as safe as you claim. There are many new features: Sacred Sites you fight over, neutral market trading as a core feature, landmarks and landmark victory, stealth forests, area influence mechanic of buildings, walls that allow you to place units on top, how the Scouts work - how they collect sheep or carry carcasses and how they have a huge line of sight for scouting purposes, how the armor and the counter system works, how melee units have a special torch attack against buildings, how buildings burn down, how units can't attack stone walls without siege units, how Outposts are upgradeable with weapon emplacements in subsequent ages, how units have a charge mechanic, or how Spears have a bracing mechanic against cavalry which stuns them, small improvements like how armies can build Rams on the field, or monks can no longer convert units without a relic, and many, many more improvements and QoL changes that I haven't even gotten into and which make the game much more enjoyable.

I don't think someone could play AoE4 and say it's too similar to AoE2 gameplay-wise and I think that's unfair for the amount of thought that went into AoE4's features and how much they improve on the formula.

You know full well no gamer that's new to the franchise would pick AoE2 or AoE3 over AoE4, because 4 is better in every way, except the prestige of the older titles. If all of them came out today, 2 and 3 would get laughed at as relics of the past. That's the reality, whether you wanna accept it or not. As someone who has nostalgia for the older titles, the sensible thing to do would be to refrain from making comparisons. And again nothing against you, I just dislike it when people keep bashing the game for no reason. The game is great, it's just your preference for older titles that can't be satisfied no matter what they do.

[Lotor13]

Първоначално публикувано от MetaSamsara:

Първоначално публикувано от Narwhal:

You have to be aggressive against AI and they can't do anything, they'll just let you wipe villagers and structures no matter what difficulty they are on. If you let them macro and just wall up they'll always win because they can resource cheat and boom way bigger than you.

This makes sense when you consider how games like AOE are really played. They aren't wave tower defense games. You're meant to be harassing and preventing the large armies from ever being built in the first place.

See that's the bad influence MOBA and Starcraft had on the genre. For me RTS in a theme such as AoE or AoM is more about total freedom to use natural laws in order to strategically win games creatively. It shouldn't be about speedrunning a specific gameplay style into winning by meta superiority. There are very, very few such moments in human history. Only 4 that come to mind for me are metal forging, gunpowder, electricity and telecoms. This type of game should be more about map control in a 4x style but played like a RTS controls. 2nd and 3rd TC adjoined to main TC should be pure heresy in a context of *strategy* for instance but using it to control more of the map for later battles should be encouraged. We also need bigger default map sizes and asymmetry. For asymmetry of maps to be balanced it takes a rebalance of what characteristics define civs stats and development wise. I'm all in favor for more different age up landmarks for each civ that can help surprise opponent every game and every age, along with more expensive age ups whilst military units become less effective against buildings overall but in return siege is tougher too with still nerfed damage but the increased resistance to troops would make it still as strong if not stronger. It would really just shift the perspective on what kind of things are possible in AoE4 without necessarily changing what makes it what it is already. It would only free us from meta slaving.

It has nothing with a MOBA or Starcraft, older Age of Empires (including original AoE1 from 1997) and RTS (classic C&C) are like this, if You want to win, You need to expand and control map & resources.
If You want to chill game, just lower the AI difficulty.
Rr try different game - Civilisation or Total War, which seems better for You

Първоначално публикувано от Great Big Eyeball:

Първоначално публикувано от RL is DEAD:

See that's the bad influence MOBA and Starcraft had on the genre. For me RTS in a theme such as AoE or AoM is more about total freedom to use natural laws in order to strategically win games creatively. It shouldn't be about speedrunning a specific gameplay style into winning by meta superiority.

Brother every AOE game plays the same way. MOBA had nothing to do with the rules of AOE. There are SO many games that are like what you're describing. If this game had a shred of realism I wouldn't bother playing it. There are so many 4x or massive war games in a historical theme. I'm just interested in a decent multiplayer experience that takes under 30 minutes.

This.

[FloosWorld]

Първоначално публикувано от NoobusMaximus:

Първоначално публикувано от FloosWorld:

4 is mostly just a safe reboot that makes me usually wonder why I should play it when its features and selling points already exist in AoE 2, 3 and AoM.

In terms of game design it has improved and modernized on every aspect of previous entries. They didn't go with wacky ideas because they wanted the game to have the highest chance of success, not just be another spin-off of the formula, which is why 3 and Online haven't seen wide adoption. Not every entry has to change the fundamental features of the franchise.

The game is not yet great for SP, but considering it's only 3 years old, I'm sure it's gonna get some love there at some point. It still has ~40 campaign missions and Skirmish vs AI where the 16 civs have many unique features in terms of voice lines (that update with every age), civ unique music that changes depending not only on age but also what is happening in the game, art that's unique for every unit and building, and especially civ specific gameplay mechanics.

I also don't think the game design is as safe as you claim. There are many new features: Sacred Sites you need to fight over, neutral market trading as a core feature, landmarks and landmark victory, stealth forests, area influence mechanic of buildings, walls that allow you to place units on top, how the Scouts work - how they collect sheep or carry carcasses and how they have a huge line of sight for scouting purposes, how the armor and the counter system works, how melee units have a special torch attack against buildings, how buildings burn down, how units can't attack stone walls without siege units, how Outposts are upgradeable with weapon emplacements in subsequent ages, how units have a charge mechanic, or how Spears have a bracing mechanic against cavalry which stuns them, small improvements like how armies can build Rams on the field, or monks can no longer convert units without a relic, and many, many more improvements and QoL changes that I haven't even gotten into and which make the game much more enjoyable.

I don't think someone could play AoE4 and say it's too similar to AoE2 gameplay-wise and I think that's unfair for the amount of thought that went into AoE4's features and how much they improve on the formula.

I actually hate it when people that don't play the game enough to understand it, or haven't touched it in a long time, keep giving their opinion on it. When is the last time you've played the game? Fooling around in Skirmish for an hour to check out new units doesn't count. If I'm gonna ask you about some of the mechanics of civs that weren't in the game at launch, would you be able to tell me about them from personal experience? You're closer than you think to the trolls that lurk the forums to keep bashing the game. With the main difference that you mask it behind balanced writing, because you are an AoE2 mod and need to keep face, but you intervene here and there just enough to show your bias. No offence but that's what I keep seeing here, on Reddit and even under Youtube videos of AoE4.

You know full well no gamer that's new to the franchise would pick AoE2 or AoE3 over AoE4, because 4 is better in every way, except the prestige of the older titles. If all of them came out today, 2 and 3 would get laughed at as relics of the past. That's the reality, whether you wanna accept it or not. You should at least admit to your bias and refrain from making comparisons. That would be the sensible thing to do as someone that has nostalgia for the older titles. And again nothing against you, I just dislike it when people keep bashing the game for no reason. The game is great, it's just your preference for older titles that can't be satisfied no matter what they do, which I have nothing against btw, you are free to play what you enjoy.

First and foremost: I couldn't care less when a game came out, so this "nostalgia" argument some really love to use is for me just a lazy way of explaining as to why people still play the older games.
A good chunk of my favourite games (Caesar 3, HoMM, Monkey Island, Battlefield 1942 + 2) are old, yet I play them not because I have some weird nostalgic feeling attached to it but rather because they still play well. We should really stop with this attitude of calling games bad just because they're "old".
To understand where I'm coming from: I'm part of AoE 4's community council and was approached to write on its companion book 3 years ago, so I played tons of AoE 4 pre-release. My tracked time on this account is not the full time I've spent. While I don't play it as much as I used to as I honestly got burnt out of it, I still follow its development.

Second, I always praised the sound design which is hands down probably the best thing about AoE 4 that I'd love to see adapted to the other games as well (as long as it's possible). And I'd also like to see more and better campaigns to be added because tbh, the base game campaigns are just bad and feel too much as if they're on rails.

Sacred Sites are not new, they are a reworked version of AoE 1's ruins condition.
Neutral Markets also aren't neccesarily new as they more or less take the role of Trade Posts from AoE 3.
Landmarks are like the Wonders the Asian civs in AoE 3 Age up with but Landmark victory is indeed new.
Outposts and weapon emplacements kinda already existed in AoM with the difference that in AoE 4 you can choose which type of emplacement you want to have.
The other things you mentioned (building siege with infantry etc.) are indeed new but I wouldn't call them "improvements" but rather a design choice. That's as if an AoE 3 player would say that snaring is an improvement while in reality it's just there to make 3's counter system work.

I'm not saying AoE 4 is too similar to AoE 2, I'm saying its features partly already existed in AoE 2, AoE 3 and AoM.

I last played it extensively in July and can name mechanics that weren't there at launch because as I elaborated above, I still follow its development. But this is not an interrogation, or is it?
My main gripe is with people having bad faith arguments from both camps to make "their" game look better i.e. the AoE 4 camp as well as the (mostly) AoE 2 camp tho disappointed AoE 3 players exist as well.
During AoE 4's launch there were tons of bad faith posts aimed towards AoE 4 but these days it flipped a bit. Hardcore games from either AoE 2 or 3 don't care about AoE 4 in the slightest whereas on reddit you often see people sh*t on the other games.

I don't deny that I'm slightly biased to AoE 2. Heck, everyone of us has a bias in some way.
However, my "bias" has the intention of making people at least try out the other games to understand where some of AoE 4's features are coming from and why many players of the older games are underwhelmed about AoE 4.

And yes, an average gamer probably wouldn't try out AoE 4 because in a conditioned way of thinking, they automatically assume "New game = good, old game = bad and outdated". This may be true for Fifa/EA FC, NBA, F1 and any other game released on an annual base, however, the AoE franchise is a unique case where each game has its core playerbase with folks like me also playing multiple entries within the franchise.

[NoobusMaximus]

Първоначално публикувано от FloosWorld:

First and foremost: I couldn't care less when a game came out, so this "nostalgia" argument some really love to use is for me just a lazy way of explaining as to why people still play the older games.
A good chunk of my favourite games (Caesar 3, HoMM, Monkey Island, Battlefield 1942 + 2) are old, yet I play them not because I have some weird nostalgic feeling attached to it but rather because they still play well. We should really stop with this attitude of calling games bad just because they're "old".
To understand where I'm coming from: I'm part of AoE 4's community council and was approached to write on its companion book 3 years ago, so I played tons of AoE 4 pre-release. My tracked time on this account is not the full time I've spent. While I don't play it as much as I used to as I honestly got burnt out of it, I still follow its development.

Second, I always praised the sound design which is hands down probably the best thing about AoE 4 that I'd love to see adapted to the other games as well (as long as it's possible). And I'd also like to see more and better campaigns to be added because tbh, the base game campaigns are just bad and feel too much as if they're on rails.

Sacred Sites are not new, they are a reworked version of AoE 1's ruins condition.
Neutral Markets also aren't neccesarily new as they more or less take the role of Trade Posts from AoE 3.
Landmarks are like the Wonders the Asian civs in AoE 3 Age up with but Landmark victory is indeed new.
Outposts and weapon emplacements kinda already existed in AoM with the difference that in AoE 4 you can choose which type of emplacement you want to have.
The other things you mentioned (building siege with infantry etc.) are indeed new but I wouldn't call them "improvements" but rather a design choice. That's as if an AoE 3 player would say that snaring is an improvement while in reality it's just there to make 3's counter system work.

I'm not saying AoE 4 is too similar to AoE 2, I'm saying its features partly already existed in AoE 2, AoE 3 and AoM.

I last played it extensively in July and can name mechanics that weren't there at launch because as I elaborated above, I still follow its development. But this is not an interrogation, or is it?
My main gripe is with people having bad faith arguments from both camps to make "their" game look better i.e. the AoE 4 camp as well as the (mostly) AoE 2 camp tho disappointed AoE 3 players exist as well.
During AoE 4's launch there were tons of bad faith posts aimed towards AoE 4 but these days it flipped a bit. Hardcore games from either AoE 2 or 3 don't care about AoE 4 in the slightest whereas on reddit you often see people sh*t on the other games.

I don't deny that I'm slightly biased to AoE 2. Heck, everyone of us has a bias in some way.
However, my "bias" has the intention of making people at least try out the other games to understand where some of AoE 4's features are coming from and why many players of the older games are underwhelmed about AoE 4.

And yes, an average gamer probably wouldn't try out AoE 4 because in a conditioned way of thinking, they automatically assume "New game = good, old game = bad and outdated". This may be true for Fifa/EA FC, NBA, F1 and any other game released on an annual base, however, the AoE franchise is a unique case where each game has its core playerbase with folks like me also playing multiple entries within the franchise.

You misinterpret what people mean by nostalgia. Newer players have a much clearer view of how the game actually is, than someone who played it on and off for 20 years.

For instance AoE2 is old, clunky, and simplistic in design. Let me know what about it you find objectively better, that's not feature or content bloat, which is bound to happen when a game is tens of years old. What's undeniably better about it as far as raw gameplay design, or civ design? If you play MP in both games do let me know. The AI is definitely better, but let's not forget how ♥♥♥♥♥♥ it was for the longest time. But strictly game design and game systems, what's better in this game from 1999?

Sacred sites might be a reworked version of AoE1 ruins, but they also might be a wink at Relic's other game Company of Heroes, which has capture points you fight over. I don't remember walls that have units on top in previous entries. Or forests that can hide your units and can be used for setting up pushes, or losing enemy units.

With regards to the smaller changes, building Rams with infantry is a straight-up improvement, by not having to proxy Siege Workshops to be able to siege a position, which happens in AoE2 games as a workaround.

Scouts are also a big improvement, by not being able to lame your opponent's food, or scouting with Sheep which is ridiculous but you have to do it because it's optimal play, just like pushing Deer is.

I don't mind the fact you're biased, but I do mind that you feel the need to campaign for AoE2 on AoE4 forums and Reddit subs, like it's some form of competition. I don't go on AoE2 or AoE3 forums to complain how old and clunky those games are, and I expect respectable members of the Age community and especially Community Council members to not do that to AoE4.

What's the point of the comment you made above other than to ♥♥♥♥ on AoE4? It's a 3 year old game. We're well past first impressions.

Do you actually think AoE4 doesn't have enough variety with 130 matchups? You think people shouldn't play it because it lacks a new gimmick? People should play it because it's an improved version, that corrected most of previous entries design errors and added some subtle but solid ones on top, in a modern engine, with great production value. That's why people should play it. If we go that rabbit hole we might also say Starcraft 2 is worse than Brood War because it doesn't have any new gimmicks. Which is blatantly false for someone who lacks nostalgia. Starcraft 2 is an improvement in every way.

[Jebe]

Aoe3 so is also weird for example in a ffa with 8 players all 7 ai‘s will send their troops to your base and fight each other there, so I guess it’s some sort of anti player bias

[FloosWorld]

Първоначално публикувано от NoobusMaximus:

Първоначално публикувано от FloosWorld:

First and foremost: I couldn't care less when a game came out, so this "nostalgia" argument some really love to use is for me just a lazy way of explaining as to why people still play the older games.
A good chunk of my favourite games (Caesar 3, HoMM, Monkey Island, Battlefield 1942 + 2) are old, yet I play them not because I have some weird nostalgic feeling attached to it but rather because they still play well. We should really stop with this attitude of calling games bad just because they're "old".
To understand where I'm coming from: I'm part of AoE 4's community council and was approached to write on its companion book 3 years ago, so I played tons of AoE 4 pre-release. My tracked time on this account is not the full time I've spent. While I don't play it as much as I used to as I honestly got burnt out of it, I still follow its development.

Second, I always praised the sound design which is hands down probably the best thing about AoE 4 that I'd love to see adapted to the other games as well (as long as it's possible). And I'd also like to see more and better campaigns to be added because tbh, the base game campaigns are just bad and feel too much as if they're on rails.

Sacred Sites are not new, they are a reworked version of AoE 1's ruins condition.
Neutral Markets also aren't neccesarily new as they more or less take the role of Trade Posts from AoE 3.
Landmarks are like the Wonders the Asian civs in AoE 3 Age up with but Landmark victory is indeed new.
Outposts and weapon emplacements kinda already existed in AoM with the difference that in AoE 4 you can choose which type of emplacement you want to have.
The other things you mentioned (building siege with infantry etc.) are indeed new but I wouldn't call them "improvements" but rather a design choice. That's as if an AoE 3 player would say that snaring is an improvement while in reality it's just there to make 3's counter system work.

I'm not saying AoE 4 is too similar to AoE 2, I'm saying its features partly already existed in AoE 2, AoE 3 and AoM.

I last played it extensively in July and can name mechanics that weren't there at launch because as I elaborated above, I still follow its development. But this is not an interrogation, or is it?
My main gripe is with people having bad faith arguments from both camps to make "their" game look better i.e. the AoE 4 camp as well as the (mostly) AoE 2 camp tho disappointed AoE 3 players exist as well.
During AoE 4's launch there were tons of bad faith posts aimed towards AoE 4 but these days it flipped a bit. Hardcore games from either AoE 2 or 3 don't care about AoE 4 in the slightest whereas on reddit you often see people sh*t on the other games.

I don't deny that I'm slightly biased to AoE 2. Heck, everyone of us has a bias in some way.
However, my "bias" has the intention of making people at least try out the other games to understand where some of AoE 4's features are coming from and why many players of the older games are underwhelmed about AoE 4.

And yes, an average gamer probably wouldn't try out AoE 4 because in a conditioned way of thinking, they automatically assume "New game = good, old game = bad and outdated". This may be true for Fifa/EA FC, NBA, F1 and any other game released on an annual base, however, the AoE franchise is a unique case where each game has its core playerbase with folks like me also playing multiple entries within the franchise.

You misinterpret what people mean by nostalgia. Newer players have a much clearer view of how the game actually is, than someone who played it on and off for 20 years.

For instance AoE2 is old, clunky, and simplistic in design. Let me know what about it you find objectively better, that's not feature or content bloat, which is bound to happen when a game is tens of years old. What's undeniably better about it as far as raw gameplay design, or civ design? If you play MP in both games do let me know. The AI is definitely better, but let's not forget how ♥♥♥♥♥♥ it was for the longest time. But strictly game design and game systems, what's better in this game from 1999?

Sacred sites might be a reworked version of AoE1 ruins, but they also might be a wink at Relic's other game Company of Heroes, which has capture points you fight over. I don't remember walls that have units on top in previous entries. Or forests that can hide your units and can be used for setting up pushes, or losing enemy units.

With regards to the smaller changes, building Rams with infantry is a straight-up improvement, by not having to proxy Siege Workshops to be able to siege a position, which happens in AoE2 games as a workaround.

Scouts are also a big improvement, by not being able to lame your opponent's food, or scouting with Sheep which is ridiculous but you have to do it because it's optimal play, just like pushing Deer is.

I don't mind the fact you're biased, but I do mind that you feel the need to campaign for AoE2 on AoE4 forums and Reddit subs, like it's some form of competition. I don't go on AoE2 or AoE3 forums to complain how old and clunky those games are, and I expect respectable members of the Age community and especially Community Council members to not do that to AoE4.

What's the point of the comment you made above other than to ♥♥♥♥ on AoE4? It's a 3 year old game. We're well past first impressions.

Do you actually think AoE4 doesn't have enough variety with 130 matchups? You think people shouldn't play it because it lacks a new gimmick? People should play it because it's an improved version, that corrected most of previous entries design errors and added some subtle but solid ones on top, in a modern engine, with great production value. That's why people should play it. If we go that rabbit hole we might also say Starcraft 2 is worse than Brood War because it doesn't have any new gimmicks. Which is blatantly false for someone who lacks nostalgia. Starcraft 2 is an improvement in every way.

That may be the case, however, too often I made the experience that people mean exactly that when they try to use "nostalgia" as a legit attempt of an argument.
It's also interesting to speak of newer players when AoE 2's youngest pro, Guki, is 15 years old, just as an example. Another young pro for example is Margougou being 22.

I never claimed that AoE 2 is "objectively better". That's a false assumption I often see from others in these kind of discussions. However, here I things I *subjectively* prefer in AoE 2 over AoE 4:
- Unit selection showing as collapsed (also in Starcraft 2 e.g.) instead of stackable as it's the case in AoE 4 (also in AoM and AoE 3), making unselecting units much easier
- Nomad not being a game mode but instead a map type. Nomad maps in AoE 2 tend to be very fun as it's a breakout from the default standard BOs, especially if it's a chaotic map like Water Nomad
- Civs being similar yet different enough in detail, which allows you switching between civs and finding one that suits your playstyle best. You just don't play Franks like you'd play Magyars, Lithuanians, Burgundians or Mongols despite all being labled as "cavalry".
- Being able to "star" one map in ranked in addition to bans to indiciate that I prefer this specific map
- Biweekly map pool vote
- An editor that's not in beta after being introduced post launch
- Customizing games way more in detail without needing to download something like "Advanced Game Settings"

And yes, I know that the original AI was much worse and needed resource cheats at higher level.

By the way, here are the things I like about AoE 4:
- Biomes. Allows it to have differen appearance for the same map script without needing to have multiple copies of it (e.g. Green Arabia in AoE 2)
- The sound design, as said above
- CaptureAge already being integrated (though I find it sad that it has been pretty much abandoned in AoE 4)
- The influence system which rewards you to build things in a certain way (e.g. French Keep + Stable/Archery Ranges or Abbasid Golden Age), this is indeed also a good addition to the series
- The armor system which solves AoE 2's problem of Militia-line being utterly useless against Archers as Archers and Xbows are split in AoE 4, something I'd also like to see adapted in AoE 2

See, I don't hate everything about AoE 4. ;)

I'm aware that they're also a callback to CoH but in AoE context, they're a modernized version of AoE 1's ruins. Did I say that you were able to go on walls or that you have Stealth Forests in past games? I don't think so.
These are indeed nice additions to AoE 4 but not something I'd consider groundbreaking. Stealth Forests however is something I'd like to see added to the other games as well.

Do I campaign for AoE 2 on AoE 4 forums? No. I stand in against bad faith arguments much like I "defended" AoE 4 against stupid posts back in 2021.
What I do campaign for is enouraging people to play the other AoE games as well.
I really wonder how much this can be misinterpreted. Not every criticism is meant negatively and not every negative sounding comment is a hate comment on a game. And to be honest - hating something like a game is utterly stupid.
Notice how I use the plural because I'm tired of people thinking that it's always an AoE 2 vs 4 kind of thing. After all, this series consists of more than just two games.

Also, I'm not the only Council Member being disappointed about the way AoE 4 went the past 3 years but I think I'm probably the only one of them still being interested in AoE 4, which is why I visit this hub in first place.

Do I actually think that? No, I don't.
I just don't see AoE 4 as an "improved version", I see it as a reboot of the series in the vein of classic 2000s base building RTS.

---

Edit: By the way, if you like, we can play some TGs in both AoE 2 and 4, so peace? :)

[NoobusMaximus]

Първоначално публикувано от FloosWorld:

That may be the case, however, too often I made the experience that people mean exactly that when they try to use "nostalgia" as a legit attempt of an argument.
It's also interesting to speak of newer players when AoE 2's youngest pro, Guki, is 15 years old, just as an example. Another young pro for example is Margougou being 22.

I never claimed that AoE 2 is "objectively better". That's a false assumption I often see from others in these kind of discussions. However, here I things I *subjectively* prefer in AoE 2 over AoE 4:
- Unit selection showing as collapsed (also in Starcraft 2 e.g.) instead of stackable as it's the case in AoE 4 (also in AoM and AoE 3), making unselecting units much easier
- Nomad not being a game mode but instead a map type. Nomad maps in AoE 2 tend to be very fun as it's a breakout from the default standard BOs, especially if it's a chaotic map like Water Nomad
- Civs being similar yet different enough in detail, which allows you switching between civs and finding one that suits your playstyle best. You just don't play Franks like you'd play Magyars, Lithuanians, Burgundians or Mongols despite all being labled as "cavalry".
- Being able to "star" one map in ranked in addition to bans to indiciate that I prefer this specific map
- Biweekly map pool vote
- An editor that's not in beta after being introduced post launch
- Customizing games way more in detail without needing to download something like "Advanced Game Settings"

And yes, I know that the original AI was much worse and needed resource cheats at higher level.

By the way, here are the things I like about AoE 4:
- Biomes. Allows it to have differen appearance for the same map script without needing to have multiple copies of it (e.g. Green Arabia in AoE 2)
- The sound design, as said above
- CaptureAge already being integrated (though I find it sad that it has been pretty much abandoned in AoE 4)
- The influence system which rewards you to build things in a certain way (e.g. French Keep + Stable/Archery Ranges or Abbasid Golden Age), this is indeed also a good addition to the series
- The armor system which solves AoE 2's problem of Militia-line being utterly useless against Archers as Archers and Xbows are split in AoE 4, something I'd also like to see adapted in AoE 2

See, I don't hate everything about AoE 4. ;)

I'm aware that they're also a callback to CoH but in AoE context, they're a modernized version of AoE 1's ruins. Did I say that you were able to go on walls or that you have Stealth Forests in past games? I don't think so.
These are indeed nice additions to AoE 4 but not something I'd consider groundbreaking. Stealth Forests however is something I'd like to see added to the other games as well.

Do I campaign for AoE 2 on AoE 4 forums? No. I stand in against bad faith arguments much like I "defended" AoE 4 against stupid posts back in 2021.
What I do campaign for is enouraging people to play the other AoE games as well.
I really wonder how much this can be misinterpreted. Not every criticism is meant negatively and not every negative sounding comment is a hate comment on a game. And to be honest - hating something like a game is utterly stupid.
Notice how I use the plural because I'm tired of people thinking that it's always an AoE 2 vs 4 kind of thing. After all, this series consists of more than just two games.

Also, I'm not the only Council Member being disappointed about the way AoE 4 went the past 3 years but I think I'm probably the only one of them still being interested in AoE 4, which is why I visit this hub in first place.

Do I actually think that? No, I don't.
I just don't see AoE 4 as an "improved version", I see it as a reboot of the series in the vein of classic 2000s base building RTS.

---

Edit: By the way, if you like, we can play some TGs in both AoE 2 and 4, so peace? :)

Nothing of what you listed has anything to do with gameplay and game design, but I'll touch on a couple of them.

I grew to prefer unit selection being stackable. It allows to easily count the number of units. If you press Ctrl+A you can see at a glance how many of each unit type you have on the map. Same if you select the enemy army during fights, you can see exactly what unit types and how many of each he has. I think this fits this kind of RTS better. For more micro oriented games with fewer units, the unstacked unit selection might be better. Either way it's matter of preference.

I disagree that civs being more similar is better. I'm sure if that was the case they wouldn't have bothered designing 16 civs in AoE4, but instead use the same base civ, slap on a unique unit and 6 modifiers to the economy, remove some of the upgrades and call it a day.

With regards to the rest of the items, you seem to be more interested in customizable features and adjacent game modes than the game itself. I'm sure AoE2 didn't have many of those features at launch, like starring the map you prefer to play or voting for the map pool. Some of the features you listed do need to be added to the game, and I'm sure they will eventually, but again things like the Editor have nothing to do with how good the actual game is. You do have to realize making a game in 2024 is a much more complex endeavor than making one in 1999, and although I don't care much about an editor, I do hope they add a better one eventually so that the people have nothing else to nitpick.

I agree about CaptureAge and hope they develop the observer mode in house so that they don't rely on CaptureAge devs. I don't think they need to be supported anyway since they paywall useful features in AoE2 such as knowing the percentage of time your villagers spend walking, behind a monthly subscription which I find ridiculously greedy.

Love the rhetorical questions, but I still find it weird coming to AoE4 spaces and asking people to play the old games. If anything AoE4 needs the support since it's the newest entry and not yet established. You say your comment wasn't negative or hateful but it was exactly that. I honestly think Microsoft made a mistake supporting the old games, which lead to this entire ♥♥♥♥ show. If the hadn't remade them, previous games would be long forgotten and only played in some obscure corner of the internet like Voobly and we'd have nothing to talk about since there would be 0 comparisons.

To end with some rhetorical questions of my own, do I feel AoE4 could have been supported with more money? Hell yes! The bigger the budget the faster the features and content would come in. Do I feel AoE4 isn't an improved version of the formula? Hell no! I've listed everything that's been improved and I can keep going. The only thing that is debatable is reducing the amount of micro, such as dodging projectiles and quick walling, and the current siege design. Other than that, every single gameplay aspect has been improved. Not sideways like AoE3, but actually improved in a meaningful way. And if the Community Council disagrees despite the tens of thousands of people enjoying the game, then maybe they should be replaced, since all they seem to want is recreate some impossible feelings they had during childhood. And even there they failed, since their contribution of making the game feel like an AoE game didn't manage to grab the AoE2 community's attention.

[FloosWorld]

Първоначално публикувано от NoobusMaximus:

Първоначално публикувано от FloosWorld:

That may be the case, however, too often I made the experience that people mean exactly that when they try to use "nostalgia" as a legit attempt of an argument.
It's also interesting to speak of newer players when AoE 2's youngest pro, Guki, is 15 years old, just as an example. Another young pro for example is Margougou being 22.

I never claimed that AoE 2 is "objectively better". That's a false assumption I often see from others in these kind of discussions. However, here I things I *subjectively* prefer in AoE 2 over AoE 4:
- Unit selection showing as collapsed (also in Starcraft 2 e.g.) instead of stackable as it's the case in AoE 4 (also in AoM and AoE 3), making unselecting units much easier
- Nomad not being a game mode but instead a map type. Nomad maps in AoE 2 tend to be very fun as it's a breakout from the default standard BOs, especially if it's a chaotic map like Water Nomad
- Civs being similar yet different enough in detail, which allows you switching between civs and finding one that suits your playstyle best. You just don't play Franks like you'd play Magyars, Lithuanians, Burgundians or Mongols despite all being labled as "cavalry".
- Being able to "star" one map in ranked in addition to bans to indiciate that I prefer this specific map
- Biweekly map pool vote
- An editor that's not in beta after being introduced post launch
- Customizing games way more in detail without needing to download something like "Advanced Game Settings"

And yes, I know that the original AI was much worse and needed resource cheats at higher level.

By the way, here are the things I like about AoE 4:
- Biomes. Allows it to have differen appearance for the same map script without needing to have multiple copies of it (e.g. Green Arabia in AoE 2)
- The sound design, as said above
- CaptureAge already being integrated (though I find it sad that it has been pretty much abandoned in AoE 4)
- The influence system which rewards you to build things in a certain way (e.g. French Keep + Stable/Archery Ranges or Abbasid Golden Age), this is indeed also a good addition to the series
- The armor system which solves AoE 2's problem of Militia-line being utterly useless against Archers as Archers and Xbows are split in AoE 4, something I'd also like to see adapted in AoE 2

See, I don't hate everything about AoE 4. ;)

I'm aware that they're also a callback to CoH but in AoE context, they're a modernized version of AoE 1's ruins. Did I say that you were able to go on walls or that you have Stealth Forests in past games? I don't think so.
These are indeed nice additions to AoE 4 but not something I'd consider groundbreaking. Stealth Forests however is something I'd like to see added to the other games as well.

Do I campaign for AoE 2 on AoE 4 forums? No. I stand in against bad faith arguments much like I "defended" AoE 4 against stupid posts back in 2021.
What I do campaign for is enouraging people to play the other AoE games as well.
I really wonder how much this can be misinterpreted. Not every criticism is meant negatively and not every negative sounding comment is a hate comment on a game. And to be honest - hating something like a game is utterly stupid.
Notice how I use the plural because I'm tired of people thinking that it's always an AoE 2 vs 4 kind of thing. After all, this series consists of more than just two games.

Also, I'm not the only Council Member being disappointed about the way AoE 4 went the past 3 years but I think I'm probably the only one of them still being interested in AoE 4, which is why I visit this hub in first place.

Do I actually think that? No, I don't.
I just don't see AoE 4 as an "improved version", I see it as a reboot of the series in the vein of classic 2000s base building RTS.

---

Edit: By the way, if you like, we can play some TGs in both AoE 2 and 4, so peace? :)

Nothing of what you listed has anything to do with gameplay and game design, but I'll touch on a couple of them.

I grew to prefer unit selection being stackable. It allows to easily count the number of units. If you press Ctrl+A you can see at a glance how many of each unit type you have on the map. Same if you select the enemy army during fights, you can see exactly what unit types and how many of each he has. I think this fits this kind of RTS better. For more micro oriented games with fewer units, the unstacked unit selection might be better. Either way it's matter of preference.

I disagree that civs being more similar is better. I'm sure if that was the case they wouldn't have bothered designing 16 civs in AoE4, but instead use the same base civ, slap on a unique unit and 6 modifiers to the economy, remove some of the upgrades and call it a day.

With regards to the rest of the items, you seem to be more interested in customizable features and adjacent game modes than the game itself. I'm sure AoE2 didn't have many of those features at launch, like starring the map you prefer to play or voting for the map pool. Some of the features you listed do need to be added to the game, and I'm sure they will eventually, but again things like the Editor have nothing to do with how good the actual game is. You do have to realize making a game in 2024 is a much more complex endeavor than making one in 1999, and although I don't care much about an editor, I do hope they add a better one eventually so that the people have nothing else to nitpick.

I agree about CaptureAge and hope they develop the observer mode in house so that they don't rely on CaptureAge devs. I don't think they need to be supported anyway since they paywall useful features in AoE2 such as knowing the percentage of time your villagers spend walking, behind a monthly subscription which I find ridiculously greedy.

Love the rhetorical questions, but I still find it weird coming to AoE4 spaces and asking people to play the old games. If anything AoE4 needs the support since it's the newest entry and not yet established. You say your comment wasn't negative or hateful but it was exactly that. I honestly think Microsoft made a mistake supporting the old games, which lead to this entire ♥♥♥♥ show. If the hadn't remade them, previous games would be long forgotten and only played in some obscure corner of the internet like Voobly and we'd have nothing to talk about since there would be 0 comparisons.

To end with some rhetorical questions of my own, do I feel AoE4 could have been supported with more money? Hell yes! The bigger the budget the faster the features and content would come in. Do I feel AoE4 isn't an improved version of the formula? Hell no! I've listed everything that's been improved and I can keep going. The only thing that is debatable is reducing the amount of micro, such as dodging projectiles and quick walling, and the current siege design. Other than that, every single gameplay aspect has been improved. Not sideways like AoE3, but actually improved in a meaningful way. And if the Community Council disagrees despite the tens of thousands of people enjoying the game, then maybe they should be replaced, since all they seem to want is recreate some impossible feelings they had during childhood. And even there they failed, since their contribution of making the game feel like an AoE game didn't manage to grab the AoE2 community's attention.

Actually all of the points I mentioned are (in)directly connected to gameplay.

I personally never grew on stacked unit selection. Maybe adding a toggle to have optional collapsed selection could please all?
AoE 2 DE solves collapsed unit selection by showing the exact number of units you have selected and sorting units e.g. all Scouts being grouped together, followed by all Knights etc, so having a useful collapsed selection is doable.
But as you said, it boils down to preference.

Funny enough, you do have a template for AoE 4's civs, especially the European ones as they all have access to the same base upgrades and get their unique aspects slapped on top. This is, of course, totally exaggerated but somewhat true in core as they need to follow a baseline for balance reasons.

Well yes, pool voting and starring maps wasn't a feature prior to DE as ranked MP used to be lobby-based instead of matchmaking.
As for editor and modding tools - these are actually important, especially for the Franchise history because we wouldn't be here without a certain AoE 2 mod becoming the first official expansion in 13 years, reviving MS's trust in the franchise after failing with AoE Online. :p

Imo paying minimum 5€ per month for CA pro is not greedy but it's obviously only something you should consider when you're playing a lot. Also, all important stats like Idle time, K/D, Relics etc are already part of base CaptureAge.

How is it weird encouraging people to try the other games in the series? If I hadn't done that after only playing AoE 1 and 2 in my childhood, I would've never appreciated AoE 3 for what it is.
Imo AoE 4 is already established, 3 years post launch.

It would be the much bigger mistake to drop the support of the old games because that's how you effectively kill your own franchise. Luckily Microsoft is not Rockstar in that regard by delisting previous games. Stopping support won't magically migrate people to the newer product, on the contrary, it would make people mad. As said, there are people like me who play more than just one AoE.
This "♥♥♥♥ show" was rather caused by revisiting the same era as AoE 2, making comparisons between both games inevitable. I personally would've preferred antiquity or continuing after AoE 3 i.e. World Wars.

The council doesn't only consist of AoE 2 players btw. It consists of players of all games and all skill levels. From average players like me to pros.


And as said, I'm open for Team Games in both games. :) I have nothing against you!

[NoobusMaximus]

"Funny enough, you do have a template for AoE 4's civs, especially the European ones as they all have access to the same base upgrades and get their unique aspects slapped on top. This is, of course, totally exaggerated but somewhat true in core as they need to follow a baseline for balance reasons."

It's hard taking you seriously after reading this.

Please stop posting negative comments about AoE4 on its forums. You're not doing the series any favors.

[FloosWorld]

Първоначално публикувано от NoobusMaximus:

"Funny enough, you do have a template for AoE 4's civs, especially the European ones as they all have access to the same base upgrades and get their unique aspects slapped on top. This is, of course, totally exaggerated but somewhat true in core as they need to follow a baseline for balance reasons."

It's hard taking you seriously after reading this.

Please stop posting negative comments about AoE4 on its forums. You're not doing the series any favors.

But.. it is when you think about it.

Your main mistake is seeing my posts as "negative comments". That was and is never my intention.

Still open for TGs.