4 ms·

Archer micro is a huge part of the competitive AoE2 scene. AoE4 had auto tracking arrows and I think folks didn't like it as much as it lowered the skill ceilin

Archer micro is a huge part of the competitive AoE2 scene. AoE4 had auto tracking arrows and I think folks didn't like it as much as it lowered the skill ceiling

spywaregorilla 4y ago
I understand what was said. I'm saying that sucks. I don't really care about the tiny minority of people who care about the skill ceiling within a super low level micro. RTS entices people into a strategy game. But the games are so similar that everyone but the top 1% of players will do better by simply following a predefined strategy and executing it as tightly as they possible can. And that sucks. Nudging guys a few inches to the side is the opposite of what makes the game fun for most people. I'd like to see RTS games that randomize game parameters each time, requiring you to actually strategize.
- the__alchemist 4y ago
  Get ballistics!
  - dayjaby 4y ago
    You can still dodge ballistic shots, if you move your units after the projectiles got shot.
- doix 4y ago
  > I don't really care about the tiny minority of people who care about the skill ceiling within a super low level micro. I'd argue that most people that kept playing aoe2 online and kept it "alive" all care about that. > I'd like to see RTS games that randomize game parameters each time, requiring you to actually strategize. aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense). In games with fixed maps, you see much more interesting one-off strategies (people like to call it cheese[0]) because you can plan everything down to the second. You'd plan & practice strategies on specific maps in specific matchups against the "standard" build orders. AoE2 has these types of strategies too, but since the maps are always slightly different, you can't plan your building placement etc ahead of time. There's also MegaRandom [1] which takes the randomisation to the next level. But I'd argue micro matters significantly more in that map, since you can end up in "unfair" situations where you need to outplay with micro to stand a chance. > Nudging guys a few inches to the side is the opposite of what makes the game fun for most people. That's how these games stay popular for 20 years. It's like complaining about strafe jumping in quake, it's what kept the game alive all this time. [0] https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Cheese https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Cheese [1] https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/MegaRandom https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/MegaRandom
  - Haga 4y ago
    [dead]
  - ookdatnog 4y ago
    > aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense). I'm more of a fan of the in-game, on the spot strategizing that randomized maps force you to do, than the out-of-game meta-strategizing of fixed maps, where you do comparatively limited in-game strategizing.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > I'd argue that most people that kept playing aoe2 online and kept it "alive" all care about that. I didn't say they didn't? > aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense). In games with fixed maps, you see much more interesting one-off strategies (people like to call it cheese[0]) because you can plan everything down to the second. You'd plan & practice strategies on specific maps in specific matchups against the "standard" build orders. AoE2 has these types of strategies too, but since the maps are always slightly different, you can't plan your building placement etc ahead of time. There's also MegaRandom [1] which takes the randomisation to the next level. But I'd argue micro matters significantly more in that map, since you can end up in "unfair" situations where you need to outplay with micro to stand a chance. The random maps are random within a very narrow set of parameters. They don't change the strategy. Practicing standard build orders is what 99% of players will need to do. I agree, at the very top level there is a level of strategy again. But in that grind to the top, the way you do better is by simply narrowing the time to get your first rush online. There's very little chance to actually change your gameplan. > That's how these games stay popular for 20 years. It's like complaining about strafe jumping in quake, it's what kept the game alive all this time. These games have not stayed popular. RTS has not done very well as a genre. You've got Starcraft and AoE2. And that's kind of it. AoM, AoE3, the shittier spinoffs, and AoE4 haven't made particularly big splashes. Nor have other franchises. The thing is, these games are really fun to play casually, or in single player. But playing competitively where people are going to do stuff that works is so different and not compatible with what people liked when they were introduced to the series. Consider a comparison to fighting games, where it's also a hard requirement to be obsessively deep with the game to make any progress. Fighting games have still seen a ton of success with many popular new titles. edit: I was super deep on the AoM scene and mildly deep on the AoE2 scene; dropping off well past the title's prime but sometime before AoE2:DE edit edit: I can also recall that the majority of online players back in the day would like the setting but seem to lose interest in playing normal maps and eventually settle on silly scenarios. It's not surprising that MOBA games have really taken off as that's what a lot of these scenarios were in some form; but worse.
- poglet 4y ago
  If you get as chance give AOE2:DE a shot, I feel like it's what you are describing. It's impressive how many randomized game parameters it has... they even included a randomize button. https://i.imgur.com/xbbXKdq.png https://i.imgur.com/xbbXKdq.png Additional you can add mods such as 'Random Costs' where units and buildings have random costs so standard build orders are impossible. Because the game is still being updated, people are making new maps and mods, there are often new strategies being discovered frequently. But to me, the best part of the game is playing with a group that are all a similar skill level. Fortunately the game has a match making system letting my mates and I get paired up with others.
  - alternatetwo 4y ago
    The randomize button was added in UserPatch, which was the de-facto version people played (on Voobly) until DE2 came around, it just took that over from there.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  Nah, micro can definitely be exciting for even more casual players. They'll be worse at it, obviously, just like casual FPS players are worse at headshots, but it's not like they can't do those things at all. The data we have suggests that people with your opinion -- "people want RTSes just about the strategy, not about control" -- are dead wrong. The most enduringly popular RTSes are mechanically demanding games: StarCraft 2, Age of Empires 2, StarCraft 1. If you remove the control aspects of an RTS, you get something that's closer to turn-based strategy. Nothing wrong with turn-based, but that's just not what most people come to RTS for.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > The data we have suggests that people with your opinion -- "people want RTSes just about the strategy, not about control" -- are dead wrong. The most enduringly popular RTSes are mechanically demanding games: StarCraft 2, Age of Empires 2, StarCraft 1. I think this data suggests the opposite. These titles are all more than a decade old. They have endured, but the genre has died. People often find it really compelling to get into these games and do the singleplayer stuff. The multiplayer experience didn't live up to that. Limited strategic choices and a demanding micro are not what most people liked when they first entered the genre. There are some indie titles that seem to understand this.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      > I think this data suggests the opposite. These titles are all more than a decade old. They have endured, but the genre has died. What you're missing is that there have been many titles that have reduced the mechanical demands in pursuit of "greater accessibility", and have been even less popular. That's been most RTSes over the last 15 years, really. They're always talking about how they wanna get rid of the clickiness or base building or what have you. "We're not gonna be APM heavy like Starcraft!" they crow, as they quickly fall into obscurity while Starcraft remains. It's not wrong to want the genre to be more accessible or fun, or less frustrating, but getting rid of technical and tactical options by reducing control of your units is generally a bad way to go about that. > People often find it really compelling to get into these games and do the singleplayer stuff. The multiplayer experience didn't live up to that. Limited strategic choices and a demanding micro are not what most people liked when they first entered the genre. Nah, what points the way forward is SC2's co-op mode. That was extremely popular among more casual players -- being more popular than ranked ladder at least for a time -- despite getting only limited support as a new feature in LotV. And the way SC2 co-op worked is that it had the same mechanical inputs of course, but it actually had less strategy, not more; similar to campaign AI's, the AI in co-op mode is largely scripted and predictable, no scouting and very little reacting required. People loved it!
ookdatnog 4y ago
It doesn't lower the skill ceiling, it moves the emphasis on which skills contribute to winning. It's relatively easy to spot when a game has a problem with low skill ceiling: the very best players have difficulty distinguishing themselves from other top players. So if the top player plays the 100th best player, in a game with low skill ceiling the top player might have a 55% chance of winning or so. This is very much not the case in AoE4. And if AoE2 would add auto tracking arrows tomorrow, you wouldn't see the skill ceiling drop appreciably. You'd see players with strong micro but weaker macro and strategy fall in the rankings, and slower players with better macro and strategy rise.

Archer micro is a huge part of the competitive AoE2 scene. AoE4 had auto tracking arrows and I think folks didn't like it as much as it lowered the skill ceiling

spywaregorilla 4y ago

I understand what was said. I'm saying that sucks. I don't really care about the tiny minority of people who care about the skill ceiling within a super low level micro. RTS entices people into a strategy game. But the games are so similar that everyone but the top 1% of players will do better by simply following a predefined strategy and executing it as tightly as they possible can. And that sucks. Nudging guys a few inches to the side is the opposite of what makes the game fun for most people. I'd like to see RTS games that randomize game parameters each time, requiring you to actually strategize.

the__alchemist 4y ago
Get ballistics!
- dayjaby 4y ago
  You can still dodge ballistic shots, if you move your units after the projectiles got shot.
doix 4y ago
> I don't really care about the tiny minority of people who care about the skill ceiling within a super low level micro. I'd argue that most people that kept playing aoe2 online and kept it "alive" all care about that. > I'd like to see RTS games that randomize game parameters each time, requiring you to actually strategize. aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense). In games with fixed maps, you see much more interesting one-off strategies (people like to call it cheese[0]) because you can plan everything down to the second. You'd plan & practice strategies on specific maps in specific matchups against the "standard" build orders. AoE2 has these types of strategies too, but since the maps are always slightly different, you can't plan your building placement etc ahead of time. There's also MegaRandom [1] which takes the randomisation to the next level. But I'd argue micro matters significantly more in that map, since you can end up in "unfair" situations where you need to outplay with micro to stand a chance. > Nudging guys a few inches to the side is the opposite of what makes the game fun for most people. That's how these games stay popular for 20 years. It's like complaining about strafe jumping in quake, it's what kept the game alive all this time. [0] https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Cheese https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Cheese [1] https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/MegaRandom https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/MegaRandom
- Haga 4y ago
  [dead]
- ookdatnog 4y ago
  > aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense). I'm more of a fan of the in-game, on the spot strategizing that randomized maps force you to do, than the out-of-game meta-strategizing of fixed maps, where you do comparatively limited in-game strategizing.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > I'd argue that most people that kept playing aoe2 online and kept it "alive" all care about that. I didn't say they didn't? > aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense). In games with fixed maps, you see much more interesting one-off strategies (people like to call it cheese[0]) because you can plan everything down to the second. You'd plan & practice strategies on specific maps in specific matchups against the "standard" build orders. AoE2 has these types of strategies too, but since the maps are always slightly different, you can't plan your building placement etc ahead of time. There's also MegaRandom [1] which takes the randomisation to the next level. But I'd argue micro matters significantly more in that map, since you can end up in "unfair" situations where you need to outplay with micro to stand a chance. The random maps are random within a very narrow set of parameters. They don't change the strategy. Practicing standard build orders is what 99% of players will need to do. I agree, at the very top level there is a level of strategy again. But in that grind to the top, the way you do better is by simply narrowing the time to get your first rush online. There's very little chance to actually change your gameplan. > That's how these games stay popular for 20 years. It's like complaining about strafe jumping in quake, it's what kept the game alive all this time. These games have not stayed popular. RTS has not done very well as a genre. You've got Starcraft and AoE2. And that's kind of it. AoM, AoE3, the shittier spinoffs, and AoE4 haven't made particularly big splashes. Nor have other franchises. The thing is, these games are really fun to play casually, or in single player. But playing competitively where people are going to do stuff that works is so different and not compatible with what people liked when they were introduced to the series. Consider a comparison to fighting games, where it's also a hard requirement to be obsessively deep with the game to make any progress. Fighting games have still seen a ton of success with many popular new titles. edit: I was super deep on the AoM scene and mildly deep on the AoE2 scene; dropping off well past the title's prime but sometime before AoE2:DE edit edit: I can also recall that the majority of online players back in the day would like the setting but seem to lose interest in playing normal maps and eventually settle on silly scenarios. It's not surprising that MOBA games have really taken off as that's what a lot of these scenarios were in some form; but worse.
poglet 4y ago
If you get as chance give AOE2:DE a shot, I feel like it's what you are describing. It's impressive how many randomized game parameters it has... they even included a randomize button. https://i.imgur.com/xbbXKdq.png https://i.imgur.com/xbbXKdq.png Additional you can add mods such as 'Random Costs' where units and buildings have random costs so standard build orders are impossible. Because the game is still being updated, people are making new maps and mods, there are often new strategies being discovered frequently. But to me, the best part of the game is playing with a group that are all a similar skill level. Fortunately the game has a match making system letting my mates and I get paired up with others.
- alternatetwo 4y ago
  The randomize button was added in UserPatch, which was the de-facto version people played (on Voobly) until DE2 came around, it just took that over from there.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
Nah, micro can definitely be exciting for even more casual players. They'll be worse at it, obviously, just like casual FPS players are worse at headshots, but it's not like they can't do those things at all. The data we have suggests that people with your opinion -- "people want RTSes just about the strategy, not about control" -- are dead wrong. The most enduringly popular RTSes are mechanically demanding games: StarCraft 2, Age of Empires 2, StarCraft 1. If you remove the control aspects of an RTS, you get something that's closer to turn-based strategy. Nothing wrong with turn-based, but that's just not what most people come to RTS for.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > The data we have suggests that people with your opinion -- "people want RTSes just about the strategy, not about control" -- are dead wrong. The most enduringly popular RTSes are mechanically demanding games: StarCraft 2, Age of Empires 2, StarCraft 1. I think this data suggests the opposite. These titles are all more than a decade old. They have endured, but the genre has died. People often find it really compelling to get into these games and do the singleplayer stuff. The multiplayer experience didn't live up to that. Limited strategic choices and a demanding micro are not what most people liked when they first entered the genre. There are some indie titles that seem to understand this.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    > I think this data suggests the opposite. These titles are all more than a decade old. They have endured, but the genre has died. What you're missing is that there have been many titles that have reduced the mechanical demands in pursuit of "greater accessibility", and have been even less popular. That's been most RTSes over the last 15 years, really. They're always talking about how they wanna get rid of the clickiness or base building or what have you. "We're not gonna be APM heavy like Starcraft!" they crow, as they quickly fall into obscurity while Starcraft remains. It's not wrong to want the genre to be more accessible or fun, or less frustrating, but getting rid of technical and tactical options by reducing control of your units is generally a bad way to go about that. > People often find it really compelling to get into these games and do the singleplayer stuff. The multiplayer experience didn't live up to that. Limited strategic choices and a demanding micro are not what most people liked when they first entered the genre. Nah, what points the way forward is SC2's co-op mode. That was extremely popular among more casual players -- being more popular than ranked ladder at least for a time -- despite getting only limited support as a new feature in LotV. And the way SC2 co-op worked is that it had the same mechanical inputs of course, but it actually had less strategy, not more; similar to campaign AI's, the AI in co-op mode is largely scripted and predictable, no scouting and very little reacting required. People loved it!

ookdatnog 4y ago

It doesn't lower the skill ceiling, it moves the emphasis on which skills contribute to winning. It's relatively easy to spot when a game has a problem with low skill ceiling: the very best players have difficulty distinguishing themselves from other top players. So if the top player plays the 100th best player, in a game with low skill ceiling the top player might have a 55% chance of winning or so. This is very much not the case in AoE4. And if AoE2 would add auto tracking arrows tomorrow, you wouldn't see the skill ceiling drop appreciably. You'd see players with strong micro but weaker macro and strategy fall in the rankings, and slower players with better macro and strategy rise.