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.68 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires III Discussion » AoK pop system vrs AoM.
Bottom
Topic Subject:AoK pop system vrs AoM.
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
Lord_Cyrus
Squire
posted 01-22-05 11:01 PM CT (US)         
Which one do you guys think AoE III should use? I don't see how the AoK system has any advantages over AoM. In AoM units can counter two ways instead of one. This makes the game much deeper in that regard. Some people argue that this makes the armies to small but that can easily be fixed by making the overall pop cap higher.

Lord Cyrus

[This message has been edited by Lord_Cyrus (edited 01-22-2005 @ 11:03 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
Chino
Squire
(id: hairic)
posted 01-26-05 10:16 PM CT (US)     51 / 68       
I don't think many people are going to buy a new computer just so they can play a computer game. I also don't think any company would make a game just so they can sell it to a small minority of people. That will not get them the most amount of money.
Roir
Squire
posted 01-26-05 10:24 PM CT (US)     52 / 68       
http://aok.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/aokcgi/display.cgi?action=st&fn=21&tn=33529&f=21,33529,90,0&st=60

Post 61.

Quote:

I'd also prefer getting rid of the settlements thing. I hate booming in AoT because your TCs are never by any res.

(I agree)But there are civ bonuses that kinda get around having to build a dropsite closer, you need to worry about walking distance of primary econ units from those settlements. But It's just the way the game is, I actually didn't notice that much until you said something. But it is fair, IMO they might have done it on purpose to emphasize things that affect villager travel speed, to bad it didn't work to well...(I think there's a relic, theres something for aphrodite(greek minor godess), I think, there's gaia's special bonus thingy ect.)

EDIT:(I am TOAO yenvouile, I dunno if I've been banned or anything for inavtivity, but I don't plan on being active with any age games for a long time, and I can't access the forums ATM... *starts crying*

[This message has been edited by roir (edited 01-26-2005 @ 10:26 PM).]

Chino
Squire
(id: hairic)
posted 01-26-05 11:32 PM CT (US)     53 / 68       
[begin spam]
Wow, didn't know that was you. http://forum.toaoclan.net/index.php or just go to http://www.toaoclan.net and click on forum (don't worry about the mouseover, just click on forum... it's a link)
[/end spam]

Edit: BTW, the site was down about an hour ago.

[This message has been edited by hairic (edited 01-26-2005 @ 11:32 PM).]

Lord_Cyrus
Squire
posted 01-27-05 04:23 AM CT (US)     54 / 68       

Quote:

I don't think many people are going to buy a new computer just so they can play a computer game. I also don't think any company would make a game just so they can sell it to a small minority of people. That will not get them the most amount of money.

Well ES did say the pop limit would be higher and with good programing and lots of options to turn down they can get it to run good on medium comps. just look at Doom 3 and Half Life 2 for a good example. Everyone thought you would need a beast of a machine to play them put they actually run good on halfway decent comps.


Lord Cyrus
Cataphract887
Squire
posted 01-27-05 12:04 PM CT (US)     55 / 68       

Quote:

yes, basic economics, liquid assets are bad, you want to invest your assests in units and techs where they can do you some good, not have them sitting around where they are worthless.

Quoted from The Ethics of Greed, Alpha Centauri:

resources exist to be consumed...

you got smac?thats the awesomeest game evar! too bad smac2 isnt being worked on as far as i know

MatthewII
Squire
posted 01-27-05 04:45 PM CT (US)     56 / 68       
I figure things would be good if the total max population was about 2,400, but devided equally amongst the players (maybe 10-12). I have worked out a good multiple-of-ten system for each level. 1 player 2400, 2 players 1200 each, 3 players 800 each, four players 600 each, 5 players 480 each, 6 players 400 each, 7 players 340 each, 8 players 300 each, 9 players 260 each, 10 players 240 each, 11 players 220 each, 12 players 200 each. I also think that siege weapons should take 2 population spaces and ships should take 4, though be a heck of a lot more powerful.
Roir
Squire
posted 01-27-05 11:03 PM CT (US)     57 / 68       
That sounds like a pretty sophisticated idea, but would the 2400 change for different map sizes? And if it would change, would it be chosen or be automatic?
WhoAskedU
Squire
posted 01-28-05 07:26 AM CT (US)     58 / 68       

Quote:

maybe 10-12

They've already said the maximum players allowed in a game was going to stay at 8. I had this idea a long time ago when Age of Mythology was in production, but no one really liked it.


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.
Cataphract887
Squire
posted 01-28-05 09:54 AM CT (US)     59 / 68       
as long as the map is living and filled,like it is indicated to be,im fine with even 4 player limit.AFAIK civ4 is gonna have a more alive map,but i havnt looked at that in awile
Gamer man
Squire
posted 01-28-05 10:49 PM CT (US)     60 / 68       
AoK pop system allows cost to be based on the other things (gold cost, Villager seconds, and build time), while in AoM all you see people talking about is if a unit is pop effective or not, thus AoK is better system since price should be more important than pop limit

Moooers are remembered, chirpers never die, splashers are invincable

Lord_Cyrus
Squire
posted 01-29-05 01:58 AM CT (US)     61 / 68       
Price is just as important as pop limit. Im AoM units are balenced by both factors making it much more deep and interesting.

Lord Cyrus
Gordon
HG Alumnus
(id: Gordon B)
posted 01-29-05 02:37 AM CT (US)     62 / 68       
Yet AoT is about spamming AQed (n00b AQ >_< ) units...

I hate the settlement/10 houses thing. It's hard to claim settlements early if you're fighting hard in Classical (n00b Classical TCs >_< ). Even if you can get like 2 more, you're still at a fairly low overall pop. Add in that most units cost a lot of pop (ie, more than 1), it's really annoying to be stuck at pop and not quite have enough units to win (leading to AQ spam which takes very little skill imho aside from moving rally points and occasionally switching to the right counters (which you don't even need to do if you're spamming a good combo of units)).

btw, AoT=AoM+The Titans expansion thingy.

Never played straight AoM, though. I should look into doing that.

[This message has been edited by Gordon (edited 01-29-2005 @ 02:38 AM).]

Chino
Squire
(id: hairic)
posted 01-29-05 02:21 PM CT (US)     63 / 68       
Price is NOT just as important as pop limit in making a counter system. Price is a constant before bonuses are thrown in and therefore can be balanced, while the value of pop can't always be measured because pop space is free other than houses/settlements (ie when is the unit being used - in early game it doesn't matter, but late game the unit will disappear from this "deep" counter system because you've got too many vills to mass enough to counter armies well).
Roir
Squire
posted 01-30-05 11:05 PM CT (US)     64 / 68       
Castle blood is an example of the poor pop system in AoC. Look at it, it's pitiful, inf. resources and then the biggest unit generally wins. Which should weigh more in a pop system and elepant or a militia? While cost is important, resources are infinate, but there is no quantity barrier except for, 200 of any unit.

I can't dream of why someone would want it this traditional way, I think that it should be balenced. The reason that elephantes cost more, is just to get you to use less of them.

To be honest, the cost system would work perfectly, if the units were finely balenced. but there are units that are never used. they are that way for a reason, and a decent pop/cost system could fix that, instead both AoC and AoM have flawed systems.

If I havent already said so, AoM's system IS better because it is a rush game, as they all are, that encourages booming with the housing system. AoM also has many other details that make it unfair to that, no, not that unit, it costs to much, or, it's too unpop effective. The same goes for AoK/AoC, but to a far lesser degree.

Gamer man
Squire
posted 01-30-05 11:51 PM CT (US)     65 / 68       
well then can you explain why set's animals were only good or not good based on how many pop slots they took up. or why people complain everytime that raider cavalry lose to everything in pop cap. meanwhile age of kings, the most used unit in imperial is, not the paladin, not a UU, but teh cheap little champion.

Moooers are remembered, chirpers never die, splashers are invincable

Chino
Squire
(id: hairic)
posted 01-31-05 01:01 AM CT (US)     66 / 68       
No. AoM's method is not better with pop and cost because all units cost gold. What they could have done is given you some (not necessarily the one I'm presenting) type of incentive/advantage to make 2 pop units by making them cost no/low gold and more food/wood and 1 pop units be cheapish but cost more gold. Because right now, it's basically like 1 pop units beat 2 pop units, the end. So that makes what they have as a counter system now unfun and unbalanced.

It's just too bad that new RTS will be using multiple pop units just so they can keep max pop down so the games can run well.

And of course, RTS games are judged by how their version of Castle Blood games play. ^_^

Lord_Cyrus
Squire
posted 01-31-05 09:07 PM CT (US)     67 / 68       
Your wrong haric 1 pop units do not always beat 2 pop units(in fact every military unit costs 2 or more pop)Also cost can be just as important as pop. Think of this, what if a 2 pop costs more than a 1 pop unit but 2 of the 1 pop units combined cost more. If the 2 pop unit beats 2 of the 1 pop units than it counters it cost wise not pop wise.

I don't think it was implemented perfectly in AoM but IMO the general idea of having units cost different amounts of pop is better than having everything the same.


Lord Cyrus

[This message has been edited by Lord_Cyrus (edited 01-31-2005 @ 10:00 PM).]

Roir
Squire
posted 01-31-05 09:36 PM CT (US)     68 / 68       
Yes, It is unbalenced.

And if you count set's animals as military units some are 1 pop slots.

AoM also offers units flying through the air, which is kind of a breath of fresh air after a long time with AoC, IMO.

But since they are making a new game, AoM doesn't really matter, only the system, and I think saying, "AoM uses this pop system, and it sucks, so every game that uses this will suck." is a waste of time. While we are talking about a new game, they probably wont drasticly change anything from AoE3's predecesors. apart frum teh uuberlicious grafix They will probably change one thing and it all be unbalenced...

« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames