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.19 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires III Discussion » I know why there are no drop off points!
Bottom
Topic Subject:I know why there are no drop off points!
javajeff
Squire
posted 01-10-05 11:21 AM CT (US)         
I do not think that Ensemble is doing this for any strategic reason. They are likely trying to reduce lag by removing extra pathfinding calculations. I am in favor of more units fighting over villagers carry food to a granary anyways. You can still raid since the villagers will be in the same locations as if they were moving back and forward. I do not think the game will be affected at all, and it should improve game performance.

Regards,

javajeff

AuthorReplies:
SeaBass
Squire
posted 01-10-05 01:33 PM CT (US)     1 / 19       
That was one of the things I figured with Atlanteans, no drop off points and 1/3 the number of villagers = less cpu needed to play.

We'll see, but one of the things that seperated inters from grooks was the ability to maximize economic potential with multiple dropsites and to keep rebuilding them.

It would appear, at first glance, as that distinction is no more.

putdownpete
Banned
posted 01-10-05 09:43 PM CT (US)     2 / 19       

I suspect that this reasoning by javajeff is correct. Maintaining a separate economic subsystem that plays only a marginal role in gameplay would seem unproductive.

Why bother when the vast majority of players only want to get to the fighting, anyhow.

Ikki
Squire
posted 01-10-05 10:23 PM CT (US)     3 / 19       
Hey!

I love building cities
But, yeah, no dropoffs means i can better design my city on one try.. rather than having to delete old dropoffs..

Anyway, looks like a good modification.

-Ikki-


Liberals are destroying the world!
LOL AIDS LOL
javajeff
Squire
posted 01-11-05 08:06 AM CT (US)     4 / 19       
I think you will still have to manage villagers and more than one resource, so it is still going to have a more complex economy game over other new releases. I think it is more of a tradeoff to benefit other aspects of the game. The dropoffs are not needed, and I respect the decision. There will be the RTS whiners that complain that the game was noobified.
dnwq
Squire
posted 01-11-05 10:41 AM CT (US)     5 / 19       
If they were really concerned about lag, I think they'd tone down other things. Like the physics engine, or graphics engine, or such.

I think the decision is more because of the realisation that economic management should comprise finding and holding economic resources rather than being able to manage more lumber camps.

WhoAskedU
Squire
posted 01-11-05 11:04 AM CT (US)     6 / 19       

Quote:

If they were really concerned about lag, I think they'd tone down other things. Like the physics engine, or graphics engine, or such.

Tell me, which would be more FUN? Watching a unit fly through the air realistically and then bounce off of the rocks on a cliff and then splash to his death in the water and then finally float out to sea? Or would watching a villager walk 20 feet because you forgot to build another drop-off site?

I think the decision is quite apparent...They replaced the processing that was being done by the extra path finding by a sweet Physics engine... You'd be dumb to think you would rather want drop-off sites than a realistic physics engine...


At my signal unleash HELL.
God Bless America, Land of the Free!!!
•••winner of "2002 AoM Forum's Coolest Name Award"•••
•••••••Another Fabulous Post by WhoAskedU!!•••••••
People just complain about other people's Signatures because
they aren't smart enough to make their own.
Scholar
Squire
posted 01-11-05 01:14 PM CT (US)     7 / 19       
I like drop off points, I think it adds to the game..however, I think that the big picture will tell the story....when we see how many new economic features and how big a tech tree has been added, then maybe we'll see why they didn't add drop off points.....one thing that has concerned me though is that ensemble goes RON on us regarding the forests. I love cutting into the trees. The trees are very strategic when building multiplayer maps and scenarios..I hope they don't mess with the trees....signed tree hugger
Genghiz_Khan
Squire
posted 01-11-05 03:55 PM CT (US)     8 / 19       
I agree, having the forest actually disappear is one of the (many) better things that I've found when comparing AOK: TC to any other games in this genre.

To tread the sharp edge of a sword
To run on smooth-frozen ice,
One needs no footsteps to follow.
Walk over the cliffs with hands free.
Aro
AoKH Dictator
posted 01-11-05 05:29 PM CT (US)     9 / 19       
Well, if you're correct, then I don't think I mind the change as much. I'd trade drop-off points for less lag any day.

» Your attractive master.
» "Because I before E is a LIE!!!"
javajeff
Squire
posted 01-11-05 07:40 PM CT (US)     10 / 19       
The new physics engine is likely one reason why they chose to reduce the pathfinding for the villagers. They are likley making other cuts elsewhere to allow the game to run well online. We will see how it turns out.
Monk
Squire
(id: scheming_monk)
posted 01-11-05 08:54 PM CT (US)     11 / 19       
I read that the priority was to get the best graphics, so I expect a noobified game. I would have prefered
to place focus on better game play, but I think the majority wants graphics...
The point is that graphics is timebound; it's just a matter of time before another game overtakes Ao3.
The same isn't true of gameplay though...
Of course, I hope that I'm wrong but I just don't want to get my hope up too much...

(\___/)
(='.'=)
("}_("}
"How does monk do it?" -Darkmaster
Vote MONK in the 2012 AoKH Election
King Yngvar
Squire
posted 01-11-05 10:50 PM CT (US)     12 / 19       

Quote:

We'll see, but one of the things that seperated inters from grooks was the ability to maximize economic potential with multiple dropsites and to keep rebuilding them.

Maybe what will seperate the different "skill classes" now is not how fast you click on the villagers but how good strategies you use in battle. Hopefully...

javajeff
Squire
posted 01-12-05 08:09 AM CT (US)     13 / 19       
King Yngvar: unfortunately, players are using the classic games that have tediuos game design as a means to divide skill. I agree with you that peon pushing was never about skill. "Learned" build orders and massive tedious clicking remove strategy from these games. I applaud game designers for trying to put the strategy back in with the new game design options.
Chino
Squire
(id: hairic)
posted 01-12-05 02:57 PM CT (US)     14 / 19       

Quote:

Maybe what will seperate the different "skill classes" now is not how fast you click on the villagers but how good strategies you use in battle. Hopefully...

It's just a game, the amount of strategies you can employ "on the battlefield" is limited by the variables in the game. Learn the variables, and then you can beat everyone if you click faster than them. So yeah, you're forced back to turn-based strategy for those type of games, and even those are limited by variables as well (but more strategy).

BTW, there has always been strategy in pretty much any Age game. If you have choices to make, and you do, it's called strategy. You never just click your way to a win, sorry (unless the game isn't balanced well). I would suggest you actually learn to play the games before you post idiocy like that. You just need a certain level of skill to be able to employ all of it. IMO, it's better that way.

Removing drop-off points just removes choices you should have to make in regards to how/if/when you defend your town/villagers - therefore making it less of a strategy game. Though, I'm pretty sure some of the posters here would turtle just because it worked well in history and call that strategy, regardless of how the game plays.

PTM
Squire
posted 01-12-05 06:21 PM CT (US)     15 / 19       

Quote:

one thing that has concerned me though is that ensemble goes RON on us regarding the forests. I love cutting into the trees. The trees are very strategic when building multiplayer maps and scenarios..I hope they don't mess with the trees....signed tree hugger

Removing drop-off points does not necessarily entail infinite resources. Simply, it means that villager A does not have to travel from tree A to lumber camp A after he has collected 10 units of wood. Instead, each unit of wood he gathers is instantly added to your treasury. Depletable resources are still a very real possibility and their existence should not be discounted based on the knowledge that graneries and lumber camps won't be back in their traditional faculty (although they may exist for research purposes or something similar).

Scholar
Squire
posted 01-13-05 02:57 AM CT (US)     16 / 19       
no dude, what I meant was I can live without drop off points (though I like them) but I hope they don't mess with the trees.EG some newer rts games allow you to travel through trees like the forests are not even there.. thus armies can b -line right into your town area through trees.....and some like Rise of nations don't have dense forests and the villagers stay in one spot for days cutting trees...I DON"T WANT EITHER ONE OF THESE THINGS HAPPENING IN AGE III..I'm hoping that the way the forests are in conquerors will be how they are in AOE III
..thats what I was saying....peace.

[This message has been edited by Scholar (edited 01-13-2005 @ 03:00 AM).]

Gordon
HG Alumnus
(id: Gordon B)
posted 01-13-05 03:30 AM CT (US)     17 / 19       

Quote:

You'd be dumb to think you would rather want drop-off sites than a realistic physics engine...


Graphics=/=gameplay. Pretty but boring games get old fast. Games that uberlag=horribly annoying. I would prefer this to be AoC's engine so I wouldn't have to worry about lag even in like 2v2s... AoT doesn't seem to even HAVE 4v4s really, which is likely because it's too complicated. Can you imagine how badly a game with the greatest graphics for a PC game ever will lag? Not everyone can afford a 3+gHz 1028 RAM with a 512 graphics card... I imagine the sys requirements alone will keep me from playing the game for a while.

Quote:

"Learned" build orders and massive tedious clicking remove strategy from these games.


...
k, what's more complicated strategically:
A) You ignore the economic side and just make lots of the units you think are omgz rox.
B) You have to tailor your economy so as to work best with the strat you're using.

Builds are very very strategic. At like even the stupid rook level you have people who can do a basic Flush, Grush, and FC build in their sleep. The strategy is knowing WHAT builds to use.

Everyone can technically get out the same number of vils in the same amount of time (depends on the civ for the specifics, of course), so you've got the same amount of villager seconds at your disposal. How are you going to use them to A) keep you econ strong and B) pwn your opponent? When I started being able to think "I need this res in a few mins to switch to these units", I realized I'd finally gotten some of the basic strategic aspects of the game down. Want to land and go champs on Islands after you Imp? You're gonna need more farms and you've gonna need to drop a rax and possibly an extra blacksmith to research the techs as fast as possible. Knowing the general amount of time each tech takes allows you to do this. Knowing how each build works in terms of generally how much res it gives you helps you do this. Knowing how many vils on each res you need helps you do this.

And if you can click decently, it's not really "massive" or "tedious" to keep up your econ. Idle vil key (whatever yours is) b f click there your vil built a farm. (Almost all other situations your TC should just be tasked to a res anyway (gold, wood, stone).) If that takes more than 2 seconds, you might want to look into learning a computer a bit better. Granted, you do it every 25 seconds or so, but it's really no big deal.

I'm still a stupid rook, but I certainly don't find the econ side too bad. And it really doesn't detract too much from my military side unless I'm not paying attention enough. I've played AoT as well and I found myself almost completely ignoring the econ side and just microing army... it was fun, but I felt something was missing...

[This message has been edited by Gordon (edited 01-13-2005 @ 03:35 AM).]

javajeff
Squire
posted 01-13-05 07:39 PM CT (US)     18 / 19       
Deep economy games do not bother me since I have been playing RON since the beta. I guess "build orders" can be interpreted the same as in chess where there are many textbook opening moves. What bothers me about build orders in RTS games is that some kids learn one and do it over and over again if it is successful. I would prefer that there be a counter to every strategy. Hopefully, the game design will give players the freedom to employ many strategies that can win.

Regards,

javajeff

four hundred babies
Squire
(id: Lord_Fadawah)
posted 01-14-05 04:27 AM CT (US)     19 / 19       

Quote:

bothers me about build orders in RTS games is that some kids learn one and do it over and over again if it is successful

It depends on the map, I guess. Anyway, I don't think of the flush and the FC as strategies, I think of them as ways of playing the game that have strategies entailed in them. When flushing, you can counter any of the moves your opponant pulls at you. I think that it is the same thing you're talking about.

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

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames