You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires III Discussion

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.25 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires III Discussion » One thing I'm a little concerned about
Bottom
Topic Subject:One thing I'm a little concerned about
Mokon
Squire
posted 12-30-04 10:19 PM CT (US)         
Well AOE3 is looking great from what ive seen but anyways one thing that i am concerned about is that supposibly there arnt drop point. If you ask me that is one of the fundementals of RTS's that shouldnt be changed.... i just didnt like RON that much and that was one reason... I mean it looks great but im concerned bout making it do the work for u..

Thanx, Mokon

PS Mod anyway u could fix that spellig mistake in the title

Fixed. - Aro


Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • [This message has been edited by Aro (edited 12-31-2004 @ 00:06 AM).]

    AuthorReplies:
    zyxomma100
    Squire
    posted 12-30-04 11:12 PM CT (US)     1 / 25       

    Quote:

    PS Mod anyway u could fix that spellig mistake in the title


    Only if you fix the spelling mistakes in your post.

    But I agree. IMO droppoints are almost necessary. RoN was an ok game (based on the trial), but I also hated the whole resource point system or whatever it was called.


    zyxomma100- Age of Kings Heaven forumer
    Proudly thwarting Dark_Aro's evil plans since 2002
    "There is nothing more sad than watching a teutonic knight chasing a petard."
    ajaxthegreater
    Squire
    posted 12-31-04 00:19 AM CT (US)     2 / 25       
    Yeah, no drop off points would be like a stone in the desert of strife.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore. In the middle of a room stands a suicide. Magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullam corper suscipit lobortis. Eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum delenit au duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi. I began at awareness.
    Mokon
    Squire
    posted 12-31-04 09:07 AM CT (US)     3 / 25       
    hehe i guess u like my spelling

    any yeah i dunno its just part of any good RTS game.... Economy is central to it and when u take away sucha key point it just spoils it... In AOM for example were u placed yourres point made a huge difference, and while os may argue that that is just pointless it really is what makes RTS's so fun... you have ot think to play them.

    Thanx, Mokon


    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • Wijitmaker
    Squire
    posted 12-31-04 12:36 PM CT (US)     4 / 25       
    Devils advocate here

    Just out of curiousity... what is it about villagers shuttling resources back and forth from a source and destonation that you find so important? Is it solely for the purposes of raiding? Or must you have the extra animations and pathfinding calculations for realism? In your oppinion, what are the negatives and the positives about the Atlantian villager in AOM:TT?

    Enlighten me!

    ajaxthegreater
    Squire
    posted 12-31-04 01:43 PM CT (US)     5 / 25       
    I like drop off points because it is more realistic. I did not like the Atlantean (citizens?) because of the lack of storage buildings, exspensive, and they took up too much population.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore. In the middle of a room stands a suicide. Magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullam corper suscipit lobortis. Eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum delenit au duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi. I began at awareness.
    Guzzardo32
    Squire
    posted 12-31-04 02:01 PM CT (US)     6 / 25       
    I haven't got TT, what can the Atlantean villagers do?
    Mokon
    Squire
    posted 01-01-05 00:58 AM CT (US)     7 / 25       
    But widtmaker raiding is one of the best parts of RTS games.... it is a whole set of strategies... when u eleimate such things as that you take away what makes the genre so great and yeah relisism is also nice.... this isnt a TBS so dont make it that way....

    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • SeaBass
    Squire
    posted 01-01-05 07:54 AM CT (US)     8 / 25       
    ^^ I wonder if AoE3 will allow you to delete water maps so you can inflate your rating and claim dominance over the legions of noobs destined to inhabit the inevitable aod.heavengames.com

    Breepee
    Squire
    posted 01-01-05 08:03 AM CT (US)     9 / 25       
    I like the way it's handled in RoN. Although how all is calculated is unclear to me so I just build enough. I hope that trees/wood/goldmines don't run out like RoN.
    Mokon
    Squire
    posted 01-01-05 08:28 AM CT (US)     10 / 25       
    hehe sea base....

    oh yeah and one thing i wouldnt mind... make it so its an option... so u can turn it on and of if u want... that wouldnt be so bad.... as long as rated play had the drop of points.

    Thanx Mokon


    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • Mechstra
    Banned
    posted 01-01-05 12:20 PM CT (US)     11 / 25       

    Quote:

    i just didnt like RON that much and that was one reason...


    But in RoN, citizens didn't go back and forth at all anyway - they stayed at the resources constantly. You didn't need drop-off points because nothing was dropped off.
    Wijitmaker
    Squire
    posted 01-01-05 10:53 PM CT (US)     12 / 25       

    Quote:

    when u eleimate such things as that you take away what makes the genre so great and yeah relisism is also nice....

    Well, I can't say for certain, but I imagine that they are eliminating some of the micro-management that has been done in previous games in order to spend your time doing new things that are more fun than ordering little workers around. But, I don't know this for certain. Its just a guess.

    So from your other comments I gather that

  • realism
  • raiding
    are important features in an RTS game. Any other reasons for keeping drop points like AoK?

    [This message has been edited by Wijitmaker (edited 01-01-2005 @ 10:54 PM).]

  • Mokon
    Squire
    posted 01-01-05 11:09 PM CT (US)     13 / 25       
    Im going to be making a little post on this subject soon... that will explain it in more detail. but yeah thats basicly y i feel it is so important..... thoses are what really make RTS's fun... new stuff is fine but it can turn into feature creep very easily.... which can be very bad for the game.

    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • Lord Draganta
    Squire
    (id: GiantTalos)
    posted 01-02-05 12:39 PM CT (US)     14 / 25       
    Like eliminating stone wasnt bad enough, now also took away drop off points :S. Soon the game will be so automated that all we have to do is creating villagers and sit back, they will do the rest.

    LordDraganta: Admin of Age Of Empires Village
    Wijitmaker
    Squire
    posted 01-02-05 04:12 PM CT (US)     15 / 25       

    Quote:

    Im going to be making a little post on this subject soon...

    Alright cool, please post a link to the discussion so I can follow it. I'm very interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.

    Mokon
    Squire
    posted 01-02-05 10:34 PM CT (US)     16 / 25       
    Well I did this in essay form because i plan to use it on my clan site, and i probaly have forgotten some things but here it is. I typed it up on my new PDA

    There is one controversy that keeps on coming up no matter what new RTS is coming out, that is the controversy over the drift of modern RTS's to a more "Newb-Centric" style. I would like to share with you my personal thoughts on the matter.

    First, if you do not know me on the scale from hardcore to casual gamer I would say I am pretty far to the hardcore side. So take that in mind. This drift began back in AOK, and probably even further back, but in AOK, some people were upset by some new attributes to the game such as villagers automatically going to work once a drop of point was constructed or the fact that they added the ability to queue up farms. This trend continued in the next game made by Ensemble Studios, AOM. With the expansion pack, one could now queue up villagers to be built once the person had the necessary resources. Furthermore, the expansion pack also introduced a civilization that did not require a drop of point. This is not all that has changed however, for concepts such as the idle villager button have also been introduced. The point is though that each of these takes away the control and thought from the human and gives it to the computer. I think that some of theses have improved the genre such as villagers going to work after constructing a drop of point, yet other ideas such as the addition of queuing villagers to be built once enough resources have been gained goes a little to far. I do not mind if some of the aspects are automated to take out the parts of the game that really do not add anything, but they should not go to close to the core game play.

    With that established I would like to do a little comparison between this problem and Shakespeare, so bare with me, it will not make you cry, to much. Shakespeare had a long career of writing plays, a career that spanned though a period in which the ways plays were performed changed drastically. In his early plays, he used very little music, if any, but by the time, he wrote his last play he had to include music in order to be competitive with the other playwrights. One can compare this with video games, for in modern video games one "must" include the modern technology to be competitive in the marketplace. The modern video game industry should take not of how Shakespeare integrated his "new technology". Shakespeare was among the many successful playwrights of his time, yet if you were a publishing company, which would, you rather own the publishing rights too, Shakespeare or one of the other ex-successful playwrights that we now do not even know what their names were? I think I know the answer. So what is it that made Shakespeare so much more successful than the others? It was the fact that he had a philosophical theme to his plays that appealed to the aristocrats. Like in Shakespeare's time, wherein there were the aristocrats and the groundlings, in video games, like aforementioned, there are the hardcore gamers and the Casual gamers, which match with the classes of Shakespeare time respectively. It was the flashy new technology of Shakespeare's period that sold the plays to the groundlings, like how the new technology and the more Newb-centric concepts drive the modern immediate sales. However, it was the philosophical themes that have made Shakespeare's plays timeless.

    So one might ask why should the studios do anything differently, for is not the purpose of the game to make money for the company. It most certainly is, and while it would be nice if they just did what would make the best game, and to add the wants of the hardcore gamers they truly have to fulfill their own needs by doing what the casual gamers want. But truly they are doing their investors a disservice by not going for the heart and sole of the game, like the hardcore gamers would prefer, for as aforementioned while Shakespeare included the new technology he still kept the philosophical themes. These themes are what made the plays timeless and sell well just like the games would sell well if the studios made it their priority to cater to the hardcore gamers.

    Theory is nice of course but it must be backed up by solid evidence. A great example of this is with the game of Starcraft. Any designer would love to be credited with this on their resume because it has arguably been the most successful RTS's ever. This game still sells in stores at prices that match or beat games that are much younger than it, not to mention the other commercial revenues. So why was this game so successful? It was because it was a game that the hardcore gamers could enjoy. Its graphics were ok but they were anything but groundbreaking. It used new concepts and ideas, so which people might say made it more Newb-centric, but they were careful in the way that they implemented it to preserve the aspects, which draw the hardcore gamers.

    The people who make the games are required to also make them so that they sell. They therefore try to cater to the newbs who make them the immediate money, and fail to cater to the experts who will in the long run make them the money. The hardcore gamers lead, and the casual gamers follow, reluctantly but they still follow. Look at RON it was an interesting concept that when way to far for the casual gamer, and while it had pretty good sales in the beginning it now has a pretty small community since many experts have decided to leave it. Than there is RON, it was a great game for newbs that do not mind balance that much, but since most experts did not give, the reviews for it failed.

    As the next game is about to be announced for Ensemble Studios were once again here the sounds of this controversy. While in the end I bet AOEIII will be an awesome game I am just trying to warn the Studios to be careful. Aspects such as the removal of drop of points, while they may attract casual gamers they will repel the hardcore gamers. Please the hardcore gamers, by preserving the basic components of RTS's. People beg for innovation, so give them it, but preserve the basics, which make this great genre.

    Thanx, Mokon


    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • [This message has been edited by Mokon (edited 01-02-2005 @ 10:35 PM).]

    namekian
    Squire
    posted 01-03-05 12:27 PM CT (US)     17 / 25       
    I would warrent that the game will be pretty much the same as the first two, mainly because of SP2. Resources such as Gold/Wood/Food, need to be able to run out. Not only does it give more to think about and think about, it speeds up the already very long matchs.

    I liked the way that RON did their gathering and such, but there was something else that I liked more in RON that I would like to see brought over, and that is battle strategy. You could do more damage in RON if you outflanked your enemy, that would be nice to see.

    achilleas
    Squire
    posted 01-03-05 02:05 PM CT (US)     18 / 25       
    great job mokon. i' m glad to see that there are people who care so much about gameplay, coz i care too.
    What i pray about aoe3, is multiplayer. As u say gamers are divided into casual and hardcorse (i would say serious gamers). Some people think that being a serious player is not fun. However serious gaming (or pro gaming) if u handle it correctly can give u great times of fun!
    Thats because of Competitiveness(i made a mistake here?)
    There isn;t more satisfaction than beating an opponent because of a strategy u actually though.

    Another thing is that most casual gamers care only about the single player and campaign. Unlike those, the last multiplayer campaign i finished was the one of Conquerors 4 years ago.
    From that time i go straight to multiplayer.

    Also in warcraft, a casual gamer can click the Battle.net button on the main screen and start playing multiplayer games. And due to the REPETITIVE gameplay of warcraft even someone with 50 IQ can become an average player. The things that IMO make warcraft not so interesting (its fun and exciting game ok) are the fixed maps and the totaly different races. I hate it when someone tells me "AM an Orc player, i dont know anything about elves" or "I only play 1v1 on The Two Rivers map"
    When i played AoC i remember everyone taking random civ.
    So in Wc3 if somone has 50 IQ and because the games take around 10 minutes and the matchmaking is fast he can play 50 games a day and become "pro" ! And the pro gamers of warcraft have to play 10 hours /day in order to "keep fit".!

    I remember an interview of a pro gamer who said to his manager who told him to play elves at a game" Ok i will play elves but i have one week to play with them and i will play bad"
    omg wtf.
    And i also remember i AoC players friends of mine who played like 2 games per WEEK and still were PROS and beat evreyone.

    damn i want to sa more but no time
    To be continued..

    Wijitmaker
    Squire
    posted 01-03-05 08:51 PM CT (US)     19 / 25       
    Good posts

    I should clarify my reasons for asking such questions. In the game development project I am a part of, this issue has come up several times. It seems to be a struggle between:

  • Tradition and Innovation
  • Experienced and the ‘Newbs’
  • Sticking with what Works and Exploring the Genre
  • Economics, City Building, Military

    The odd thing about this is to find a balance. The game designers are in the sticky position of making innovations that are fun and enjoyable, but at the same time they must keep their fan base content. The trends you mention (queuing up farms, villagers, drop off points) can been seen as unwelcome changes to you and other nostalgic AoK players, but they could be marvelous blessings for players who get sick of doing the same thing over and over and over that they do every game, and that every player will do after playing the game for an hour once they purchase it.

    Every action in the game takes a split second to recognize, make a decision, and react. You are constantly doing this in the games you play. It can be a plethora of tasks… build a farm, cut down a tree, build your barracks, hunt that boar, research the town watch, explore… etc. In AoK, whoever does these tasks the fastest in the correct order wins the game – and practicing this knowledge is what makes you experienced and somebody else a newb. More on the newbs later I believe what ES is doing is… they have taken a hard look at what players spend a lot of time doing in the game. They then weigh that and say… is it fun, or is it not fun. If its not fun to do, they toss it. I mean seriously… who plays AoK and says “Man, my favorite part of the game is when the farms dry up and disappear, and then I get to go back and replant them. That ROCKS!” Nobody I know Typically players want to do something more fun, like building and army and attacking the enemy, kick starting their economy, scouting the enemy, making defenses, setting up decoys, tactical uses of their heroes, ambushes, raiding, etc..

    Unfortunately for the ‘hardcore’ players, like yourself, you’ll never see an AoK clone on the market. The reason is that clones never do well on the market. There is a very small group of players that just love a certain RTS game. Like Bruce Shelly says “Differentiate and innovate, but don’t imitate“. If you make a game and the only thing you change are the graphics, sounds, civs, and units… you might as well just make a mod.

    [rant] Back to the newb topic. When you develop a brand *new* game. Theoretically, everybody should be a ‘newb’. New games bring new strategies to learn and explore. That’s what makes buying a new game so fun. Its humorous to me that veteran players of prior games in a game series have the need to retain their ‘non-newb’ status when they first buy a game. They lord it over other players they deem as newbs just because they didn’t know the tricks of the prior games. [/rant]

    But! I do agree with your basic premise. If you allow the computer to do everything, there is nothing left for the player to do. I don’t think ES is doing that though. I think they are diverting your attention from old mundane RTS tasks too new and fun interaction with the game.

    I guess my point in posting this is just that I see drop points as adding little strategy to the game. And therefore have little value. The Atlantian villager can be killed just like the Greek villager, so you can still raid. The only difference (I can see) is that you can walk your villager off to the dingles to collect resources. True he is stealthy, but he is also very vulnerable. Drop off points also force you to move your collection sites as the resources near them become scarce. For me, its just as annoying to go back to your home base in the middle of an attack to check on the villagers proximity to the collection point as it is to queue up farms.

    Realism is good, but what is realism in a computer game? By its very nature of being a simulation and the time constraints in any given game, realism often takes a back seat to the primary driver of the game… fun.

  • Mokon
    Squire
    posted 01-03-05 09:57 PM CT (US)     20 / 25       
    Yeah I guess that was why u were interested

    Well persoanlly i think the best way to deal with this is to have an option that allows u to turn it on and of.... it pleases both parties, however i also think that in rated it should be the expert way.... most newbs dont do that much rated any ways so....

    And also i would disagree with you when you say that it adds little strategy.... the way that you have your villagers is one of the most important things in the game... without drop of points newbs have theirs "Optimized" just as much as experts.... I feel that this is a "tradition" of RTS's that makes them so fun... I mean i have pages and pages of testing that i did in AOM under different circumstances to see which way was the best, the more the computer does, the less u think... and thats why i love RTS's so much. FPS's are nice but its a lot less thinking, RTS's allow u to analysis them for hours and hours. Its sorta like a chess game , and that is what makes it so fun. I want to have to Work when im playing, intellecual develpment (hehe funny that im talking about a game) is enjoyable with RTS's, and while in games such as RON you still have to think i feel that its a lot less.

    Thanx, Mokon


    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • achilleas
    Squire
    posted 01-04-05 04:34 AM CT (US)     21 / 25       
    About the issue of "automating" tasks like qeueing up farms is the best add-on of The Conquerors expansion!! It is so annoying while doing a battle returning to your base 5 minutes later and viewing all farms exhausted and a bunch of idle villagers. ;P
    And the issue Mokon is telling about arranging your villagers and drop of points in a special way to be optimized is what distinguishes a pro and a noob. Yes I definitely agree with this but i would prefer "the pro-noob" differences to be in other parts of the game, (biulding, attacking, dont know sth new ) because yes it isn;t so exciting biulding drop-off points and ordering villagers!
    Mokon
    Squire
    posted 01-04-05 06:41 AM CT (US)     22 / 25       
    well i owuld agree with u i am pro the auto queing... that was annoying ... but it dont find it annoying to command ur villagers.... the queueing of farms didnt take mcuh thought at all... villagers with drop of points do, thats why it should still be theree

    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • Mokon
    Squire
    posted 01-07-05 01:28 AM CT (US)     23 / 25       
    Widjet I reda though ur posts some more and i thought of some more things to say to clarify it.

    First you are saying to differentiate the market but i think you are missing a big point.

    Look at this

    Game ONE 15% of the market is hardcore 85% Causual
    Game Two 7% of the Casual Market turns to hardcore but the 15% orignal Hardcore dont like the new game style cause it to newbie like
    Game Three 3% more casual become hardcore but the other 23% dont like the new newbie style
    game four no more casual turn hardcore cuase no more than 25% of people will devote such time to game, not every one has the personlity or time to be a hardcore thus there is a limit.

    Also the orginal 15% they sway lets say 50% of the market
    the next 7% sway 40%
    the next 3% sway 30%

    That means, game one sells to 65% of the market
    game two to 47% of the market
    game three to 33% of the market

    Notice the first game is what wins... and you may ask why does the first game get so many more hardcore ppl than the next few, well as i said not everyone is able to become a hardcore gamer thus the first chuch is the biggest and than those ppl dont want to change casue of loyalty. And also some ppl are only destined to become hardcore for one genre, but they will buy the game if hardcore players tell them how cool the game was......

    Ok, well i hope u understand that.. might of been a little hard to follow, but basicly my point is if u cater to the experts you get more profits.

    I like innovation, like the home city idea, but there are some things that shouldnt be changed.... they are what make the RTS game. Change is good, but not so much that it takes from the heart of the RTS Genre, and above all my view has proof, RON, a game the catered to the newbs is now selling for 20 dollars, while Starcraft, a Expert game above all others still goes for twenty dollars. An Age of Kings does as well.... That tells me something, Stick with your old basic gameplay, an inovate in areas that dont repel the experts There are many areas within which this can be done, the great game designer must now just find them.

    Thanx Mokon

    PS, dont mind me its 2 here and im tired so i dont know if you will understand all of this.



    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • DonK_UK
    Squire
    posted 01-07-05 01:55 PM CT (US)     24 / 25       
    Damn just read through all the replies and forgot all that I had to say lol.

    By saying I really enjoy when my farms dry out, well i think your right in a way. If ES or whoever were to take out all the mundane multi tasking out of the game there would'nt be much left and it would'nt take that much skill to produce an army and get that "balance right" generally making it a bit to easy. AoM springs to mind. Im pretty sure that was targeted more at younger or lesser skilled gamers.

    I think there has to be a certain "balance" between time spent multitasking and fighting. After all boom and destroy is pretty much the key to RTS's. Like when they came out with auto que farming, in my opinion a god send as that really was annoying, going back to a mill to dump wood in is far less repitition but still a minor multi tasking job that can seperate the good from the bad players. But in AoM everlasting fishing hmm bit crap in my books I'm suprised you have to set point each fish spot per boat actually AoK you didnt did you. Werid.

    King Yngvar
    Squire
    posted 01-11-05 11:19 PM CT (US)     25 / 25       
    I hated RoN as well, but not because of the economy aspects of it, I loved all that. I just did not like the military very well, you still had to micro too much on the economy constantly so there was no time to micromanage what is really fun to micromanage - the fighting. Plus there is not really much tactics in RTS. You send in your troops and go back to the economy. In some rare cases you may fall to ambush, and sometimes you send forward different troop types. Let us say you send your cavalry, the enemy counters with spears, you counter with swordsmen, etc. There is no real tactics, no flanking advantage, rear advantage, etc. The cavalry doesn't even charge. Nothing that hurts the morale, because there is no morale factor.
    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register

    Hop to:    

    Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames