Age of Empires IV

[Ramsés]

On 3/10/2022 at 16:25, Lion.Kanzen said:

Sinceramente es un juego al nivel de Empires Apart.

Y Empires Apart se equivocó por el lado conservador.

Tiene cosas buenas, lo de los sitios sagrados lo hace intenso.

El último juego se vuelve aburrido, se nota que es un StarCraft orientado a ser multijugador y medieval.

La parte histórica demuestra que les importa poco. No hay herejías, ni guerras santas, todo es familiar. Y políticamente correcto por eso no logra ser como un juego con identidad.

It would be great if monks and religion were not only healers and also influenced the game and the performance of the game, such as the motivation of the servants and things like that.

[Genava55]

 

[Genava55]

The Order of the Dragon

Edited October 24, 2023 by Genava55

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Not sure these new civs fit into the theme of Age of Empires.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

admittedly i only watched the last one but the civ design/balance decisions seem very questionable.

Edited October 26, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

admittedly i only watched the last one but the civ design/balance decisions seem very questionable.

Age of Empires always seemed to have cultures, rather than dynasties or factions. So, these new civs don't seem to fit at all, in my mind.

[alre]

bizantine acqueduct mechanic is interesting. even if acqueducts don't make a lot of sense for it, that kind of math could be more reasonably applied to trade network, and I'm curious to know which turn out to be the strategy implications.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Sometimes people complain about aoe2 expansions adding civs that are OP. Of course the standard for gameplay quality is 10-20x higher in aoe2, but aside from that there are some really troubling things evident in the aoe4 new civs. There's not much new art, the new civs are basically just buffed versions of old civs. Its not that they tried to make new bonuses that create new gameplay styles and learning opportunities, and they encountered balance changes. It seems to me both pay-to-win and also low effort content.

you can tell some things about the developer when you see that they have walking zones around buildings that prevent you from making walls out of buildings.

Edited October 26, 2023 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[alre]

8 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

you can tell some things about the developer when you see that they have walking zones around buildings that prevent you from making walls out of buildings.

what?

[zozio32]

On 13/10/2023 at 9:13 PM, Ramsés said:

It would be great if monks and religion were not only healers and also influenced the game and the performance of the game, such as the motivation of the servants and things like that.

yep, bring in a moral score for the civ!

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

8 hours ago, alre said:

what?

yea so the buildings are placed on a tile system like in aoe2, but the physical building has a 1/2 tile perimeter where units can still walk through. So you can't make house walls like in 0ad or aoe2.

Another thing about aoe4 is that all civ bonuses and mechanics are these basic inert bonuses that you either decide to use or not, there is no skill-based execution component for the player to master. While the learning curve is tough for aoe2, its obvious that the depth of learnable skills and strategies are what has kept the game alive for so long. people argue about civs being the same in aoe2 and that aoe4 has improvements here, but the civs in aoe4 just look different. Every civ in aoe4 has to have some kind of gold generation trickle, it just appears in gimmicky new ways. Also many of the units for each civ are unique units, which makes unique units... not feel unique.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

lol I love to hate aoe4. I think its a great source of things to avoid implementing for 0ad. Aoe4 was intended to have a fewer number of more differentiated civs. However they designed each civ with a unique way of being equal in every category, be it archers, cavalry, late-game gold eco, siege, you name it. For example with a late game gold generation/trickle, every civ has some way to generate gold, whereas in aoe2 the 3-4 civs out of 45 that can do this are truly special. The only truly unique features of the civs are then boiled down to shockingly gimmicky features like the japanese unique unit that hides as a villager in your enemy's eco and then can attack and go invisible.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

43 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The only truly unique features of the civs are then boiled down to shockingly gimmicky features like the japanese unique unit that hides as a villager in your enemy's eco and then can attack and go invisible.

 I like this for a spy unit for 0 A.D.  But it would be a standard unit though.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

4 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 I like this for a spy unit for 0 A.D.  But it would be a standard unit though.

well most of the problems of aoe4 come down to implementation, so I'm sure there's a good way to make a more balanced spy unit. I think the only concern for it in 0ad is how easy it is to see much of what happens on the map. Once all players in a tg have made their first moves after a relatively boomy game then its very easy to predict the flow of the match from then on.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

well most of the problems of aoe4 come down to implementation, so I'm sure there's a good way to make a more balanced spy unit. I think the only concern for it in 0ad is how easy it is to see much of what happens on the map. Once all players in a tg have made their first moves after a relatively boomy game then its very easy to predict the flow of the match from then on.

Yeah, that's kind of a problem of huge vision ranges, IMHO. DE is better in this regard.  

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

4 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yeah, that's kind of a problem of huge vision ranges, IMHO. DE is better in this regard.  

I know a lot of players like medium map size and normal map size. I'd kinda like a size between large and medium. I think the issue with shorter vision ranges is that ranged units need to see as far as they can shoot.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I know a lot of players like medium map size and normal map size. I'd kinda like a size between large and medium. I think the issue with shorter vision ranges is that ranged units need to see as far as they can shoot.

Well, indeed. The very large range of ranged units is part of their OP. 

[Genava55]

Close up preview of the units

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

It's so odd that the bow strings of archer units self-illuminate. They also don't seem to animate either. 

 

Another absolute oddity is the glowing ghost people setting up Trebuchets. 

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's so odd that the bow strings of archer units self-illuminate.

Yeah, the design of the game is a bit cartoney, very colorful and very bright features everywhere

[Genava55]

 

[Genava55]

Giving shields to the Samurai cavalry is a bit ugly

[Genava55]

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 03/11/2023 at 10:19 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yeah, that's kind of a problem of huge vision ranges, IMHO. DE is better in this regard.  

You have to open that topic.

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 10/11/2023 at 2:19 PM, Genava55 said:

Yeah, the design of the game is a bit cartoney, very colorful and very bright features everywhere

It is a purely asymmetric approach.

 

It is so trying to make a fairly asymmetrical game between factions.