|
On August 25 2011 04:32 rezoacken wrote:
Thank you and I finally tested it to get an idea. Felt the game was good but the system makes me really sad.
This kinda suck that they didn't use a system like LoL...
LoL economic system is genius in my opinion, the fact that the game is fun and free and everyone has its chances ensure them to have a ever growing customer base through word of mouth. They then add premium options for those that are interested and therefore ensure them to get a % of their customers to pay fees. The amount of money increases as the free customer base increases.
Here if paying creates imbalance I don't see why free user will be interested for a long time in the game and word of mouth of the game due to this is really meh if you look around. I'm no prophet but I THINK the game will not live to be something as big as LoL and quickly shrink to a dedicated paying player base.
Basicaly if you want the full game you pay, which I'm fine with it. I would have paid a premium pass 40$ or such and be done with it. BUT 20$/civ, then 10$/booster is a RIDICULOUS amount of money to play FEATURES of a game. These are no cosmetics, these are part of a game.
In the end if you think about it it is very similar to a MMORPG system, 40$ retail + 60$/6 months is close to the season 1 pass AoEO at 100$ that they propose. Then a new faction here and there that you buy (the same as a patch in a MMO) and its close to the 12$/month of a subscription fee you need to have access to the full game.
And..... unlocking units etc has a lot to do with RPG (quests, level, items...).
And its not like the servers are WoW like... I made a PvP game, and it lagged so much it was stupid -.-
I feel someone in this company was a bit to greedy.
It's $80 for a six month season pass which unlocks everything they're going to release for six months. If you bought the collectors edition of starcraft 2 you paid more for that than AoEO and eventually you're gonna have to buy the expansion packs (or another season). I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. Compared to free absolutely, but the retail price for the game is barely more than other games on the market ($60 for a new game versus $80 for this). I'm having no problems playing with just a premium civ unlock which is a steal for $20 imo. If you just want to play through the campaign you could probably get away with not playing at all even.
My only complaint is the matchmaking where it just throws you versus the first person that wants to play. I've beaten every person I'm higher level than and lost to everybody I'm lower than and none of the games have been close (granted, I've only played 4 games in the arena). If you reach level 40 this becomes a non-issue, but it takes forever to grind all the way up there.
|
On August 25 2011 13:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 04:32 rezoacken wrote:
Thank you and I finally tested it to get an idea. Felt the game was good but the system makes me really sad.
This kinda suck that they didn't use a system like LoL...
LoL economic system is genius in my opinion, the fact that the game is fun and free and everyone has its chances ensure them to have a ever growing customer base through word of mouth. They then add premium options for those that are interested and therefore ensure them to get a % of their customers to pay fees. The amount of money increases as the free customer base increases.
Here if paying creates imbalance I don't see why free user will be interested for a long time in the game and word of mouth of the game due to this is really meh if you look around. I'm no prophet but I THINK the game will not live to be something as big as LoL and quickly shrink to a dedicated paying player base.
Basicaly if you want the full game you pay, which I'm fine with it. I would have paid a premium pass 40$ or such and be done with it. BUT 20$/civ, then 10$/booster is a RIDICULOUS amount of money to play FEATURES of a game. These are no cosmetics, these are part of a game.
In the end if you think about it it is very similar to a MMORPG system, 40$ retail + 60$/6 months is close to the season 1 pass AoEO at 100$ that they propose. Then a new faction here and there that you buy (the same as a patch in a MMO) and its close to the 12$/month of a subscription fee you need to have access to the full game.
And..... unlocking units etc has a lot to do with RPG (quests, level, items...).
And its not like the servers are WoW like... I made a PvP game, and it lagged so much it was stupid -.-
I feel someone in this company was a bit to greedy. It's $80 for a six month season pass which unlocks everything they're going to release for six months. If you bought the collectors edition of starcraft 2 you paid more for that than AoEO and eventually you're gonna have to buy the expansion packs (or another season). I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. Compared to free absolutely, but the retail price for the game is barely more than other games on the market ($60 for a new game versus $80 for this). I'm having no problems playing with just a premium civ unlock which is a steal for $20 imo. If you just want to play through the campaign you could probably get away with not playing at all even. My only complaint is the matchmaking where it just throws you versus the first person that wants to play. I've beaten every person I'm higher level than and lost to everybody I'm lower than and none of the games have been close (granted, I've only played 4 games in the arena). If you reach level 40 this becomes a non-issue, but it takes forever to grind all the way up there.
The issue is, a retail game that is 80$ for only two civs and one more every six month, a poor matchmaking system and every 2 player game is a lag fest. Add to that a poor customer service and the disgusting thing that is winLive for games. And seriously the solo is just an outdated grindfest... compare it to starcraft 2 if you want. Then you have the multiplayer that relies a lot more on how much time you put in the solo than anything else.
80$ would be too much for such a game.
If I compare it to Starcraft 2 (I didnt buy the collector, which actually come with real additions) I'm far better with it.
Really I feel they just were too greedy with this.
|
Im having a hard time understanding exactly who they are trying to appeal to. Most RTS players would be disgusted at the fact that you have to grind in single player just to pvp, and that units have balance altering gear. I'd also think most people into more "social" type games would find a macro based RTS boring or complicated. All of this is compounded by everything being absurdly expensive...
|
The thing is you don't need to spend the $80 dollars to actually play the single-player content of the game. I'll agree that it's poorly made for it to be pay-to-win to a very large extent at level 40, but everyone calling it a demo confuses me.
There is still 40 hours of campaign that people can play, and that doesn't include the repeatable ones that are pretty similar to any other repeatable quests in some MMO (much like WoW's I would say, seeing that's the more popular one.)
Here's the thing I see from most people. They look at the price and think its outrageous when I will argue the premium doesn't add anything much until your at least level 20. The blue items and green items barely make a difference below that level. The only thing I find annoying is the limited amount of things you can produce and own in your inventory. People also complain about the pvp in the game, which is something that is unlocked after a little bit of play. What they didn't realize is that a lot of the people probably playing this game probably know how to decently play an AOE typed game.
I think what just bothers me is that people are making a big deal out of adding all the content that you can possibly 'own' and add it together when you don't need all of it. You absolutely don't need the vanity empire items. You do not need the defense of crete booster unless you really like that type of thing. And you don't need to own both civilizations if you intend to only play one you prefer (Egypt or Greece).
You can spend $20 on a civilization you prefer to play and play it that way. But honestly, If you aren't past level 20, there is no point in getting it yet, because there isn't anything efficient after that point.
I will argue that them selling such power at a price really harms an RTS scene, and that they can't directly take a MMORPG infrastructure to this game, and expect it to recieve well in words, as an MMORTS is already pretty different and new. Just seeing how people react to is overwhelming and I somewhat feel for gas-powered games. I don't think it's over-priced. I don't think it's for people who want to play PvP in Age of Empires and don't want to cough up money. And I don't think its right that it's being sold as power.
I really think if your looking for something to casually enjoy and you don't feel like playing SC2 or want to just have a really long time in an RTS. Play it. But I don't think it's proper to argue that the game is overpriced, when most of the content outside of comfortable PvP is there for free. Calling it a demo just seems disrespectful for the people who made a 40 hour campaign.
I do think however, Microsoft poorly worded their descriptions for the games content and hence created a hellstorm that is in no way helping anybody, but I can leave that for another post.
As for people being matched up first things first in PvP, I would imagine so since people played before it was released and had a chance to get to 40. The game barely older than a week is still developing its players, so unless someone has some nice evidence to say that their match making is crappy otherwise, I'll only blame the age of the game and a not so strong community of people.
|
On August 25 2011 14:32 Zhou wrote:
I will argue that them selling such power at a price really harms an RTS scene, and that they can't directly take a MMORPG infrastructure to this game, and expect it to recieve well in words, as an MMORTS is already pretty different and new. Just seeing how people react to is overwhelming and I somewhat feel for gas-powered games. I don't think it's over-priced. I don't think it's for people who want to play PvP in Age of Empires and don't want to cough up money. And I don't think its right that it's being sold as power.
Well said. The game is not "overpriced." What they are selling, marketing, whatever is the problem. They want to be seen as Free so they get more people to play it. But, these games have a bad habit of thinking that people must be forced to buy things in order to play or they won't make money. I believe if the game is good, they can make everything free and charge for the appropriate things (like skins, adviser types, maps, etc) and they will make even more money and the game would have super positive reviews. They can cycle things. I think that MMORTS can work beautifully, but it must be done right. This isn't close to the right idea.
|
On August 25 2011 14:32 Zhou wrote:
The thing is you don't need to spend the $80 dollars to actually play the single-player content of the game. I'll agree that it's poorly made for it to be pay-to-win to a very large extent at level 40, but everyone calling it a demo confuses me.
There is still 40 hours of campaign that people can play, and that doesn't include the repeatable ones that are pretty similar to any other repeatable quests in some MMO (much like WoW's I would say, seeing that's the more popular one.)
Here's the thing I see from most people. They look at the price and think its outrageous when I will argue the premium doesn't add anything much until your at least level 20. The blue items and green items barely make a difference below that level. The only thing I find annoying is the limited amount of things you can produce and own in your inventory. People also complain about the pvp in the game, which is something that is unlocked after a little bit of play. What they didn't realize is that a lot of the people probably playing this game probably know how to decently play an AOE typed game.
I think what just bothers me is that people are making a big deal out of adding all the content that you can possibly 'own' and add it together when you don't need all of it. You absolutely don't need the vanity empire items. You do not need the defense of crete booster unless you really like that type of thing. And you don't need to own both civilizations if you intend to only play one you prefer (Egypt or Greece).
You can spend $20 on a civilization you prefer to play and play it that way. But honestly, If you aren't past level 20, there is no point in getting it yet, because there isn't anything efficient after that point.
I will argue that them selling such power at a price really harms an RTS scene, and that they can't directly take a MMORPG infrastructure to this game, and expect it to recieve well in words, as an MMORTS is already pretty different and new. Just seeing how people react to is overwhelming and I somewhat feel for gas-powered games. I don't think it's over-priced. I don't think it's for people who want to play PvP in Age of Empires and don't want to cough up money. And I don't think its right that it's being sold as power.
I really think if your looking for something to casually enjoy and you don't feel like playing SC2 or want to just have a really long time in an RTS. Play it. But I don't think it's proper to argue that the game is overpriced, when most of the content outside of comfortable PvP is there for free. Calling it a demo just seems disrespectful for the people who made a 40 hour campaign.
I do think however, Microsoft poorly worded their descriptions for the games content and hence created a hellstorm that is in no way helping anybody, but I can leave that for another post.
As for people being matched up first things first in PvP, I would imagine so since people played before it was released and had a chance to get to 40. The game barely older than a week is still developing its players, so unless someone has some nice evidence to say that their match making is crappy otherwise, I'll only blame the age of the game and a not so strong community of people.
The poster above me raises the right issue, there are better economic model. Though even if I agree on the solo part being long and free, I still feel the premium parts are overpriced individually.
As for the PvP matchmaking, there is nothing to argue it IS crap. There is absolutly no mmr or things and there is not even a level check of different players. It just give you an opponent that is looking for pvp at the same time NO MATTER WHO he is.
So you are level 10 and get to play level 39 or 40. You have absolutly no chance to win unless the guy is a total retard (and at level 40 there is a high chance he plays decent enough...)
His peasants are probably stronger than your military units anyway.
And if you requeue you wiill probably face the same guy again...
It doesn't even wait I have spend couple hours facing people that are like level 6 crushing them then I face a level 40 3 times in a row and then level 5 again...
If this is not crap I don't know what it is, they have to look into this issue.
|
So anyone plays this? Got to 40, got some gear and looking for someone to grind some 1v1s with 
|
I've been playing it for a few days now... I like it in some ways, but in others I think it's really sloppy. The whole free-to-play-but-not-really thing is annoying, and the UI and hotkeys and stuff have some major issues. And then some of the missions are really dumb. One will be super easy and the next will be next to impossible. Or you'l have a mission where you start without a town center and five enemy units will run in once you have it built and kill all your vils... it annoying. And the computer AI targets vils over everything else but the user AI doesn't. It's weird... but some of it is pretty fun.
|
is it worth it for me to download this and play it?
|
I've been playing this a little bit when I'm bored, and I've just found some great information/news for anyone out there that also plays.
"The big PvP change we’re making is trying to get Equalized PvP in by November. We call it Champion mode. In this model, Gear still looks cool on you, but for Ranked competition, Gear stats are removed, and all players have the same starting tech tree and units."
source
So some "balanced" pvp, and finally some custom game creation mode coming, which is a huge improvement.
Also I find the game to be a little bit too grindy, and it sucks you have to buy a civilization to get a lot of the cool features, however i don't think it's overpriced(though I feel there should be a buy this game option for 60.. just like all other f2p models), I've found that even though it's a different graphic style, the game still has the age of empires feel and I like it a lot more than Age of Empires 3, and to be honest, some of the customization/mmo features are cool and my girlfriend even does co op with me since she can play this "RTS" without the whole competitive side to it, it's an rpg(not really an MMO..) for her, where I can go PvP later after were done co-op. Pretty cool how it works, even though I hated on it so much at first.
|
Anyone still play? I just started getting into it. Seen the limited deal for all the civs and said fuck it and bought it. Checked TL for a thread and was hoping everyone would have picked a server for TL to hang out on. :<
|
Considering picking this up on steam (sale), is this game still alive? 
|
Pretty sure it was dead on arrival.
|
We'll there's certainly still something going on in the game... But after playing it for like 3 hours or so I asked myself why I was playing it instead of Starcraft.
It just makes no sense.
|
On April 10 2012 08:08 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure it was dead on arrival.
The sad thing is that everyone I know who actually liked AOE2 or AOE3 does not want to play AOEO. I definitely have zero interest in it. It was already a pain to level a new accounts home cities in AOE3, but at least you could farm the XP on a new account in like a few hours and have it be usable.
Here, you have to grind a ton to make the account worth anything for PvP. On top of that, its horribly balanced and a royal mess if you actually want to play an RTS even semi-competitively. SC2 has its problems for me, but I honestly enjoy it a whole lot more than AOEO, and the community isn't dead.
|
uhm, ranked pvp is exactly even for everyone, no items count, all techs unlocked.
The PvP is between AoM and AoC gameplay wise.
Go to the server marathon for pvp, 2k people online there at the same time, most of them pvp focused. The whole game seems to peak at 10k on non weekends.
This game is no starcraft or age of empires 2, but you can have fun with it. Gameplay is good enough to have fun against other players (and its quite well balanced, not perfect though), but not enough to be a real competetive game.
Its not as bad as some people say, but i disagree with the whole "mmo" pve stuff that isnt even mmo because you can play with one other person maximum. Should have just focused on PvP like League of Legends and make money with skins.
|
Wait, why is the game so animated? It feels so much more different from the original game.
|
On April 10 2012 09:32 _PI wrote:The sad thing is that everyone I know who actually liked AOE2 or AOE3 does not want to play AOEO. I definitely have zero interest in it. It was already a pain to level a new accounts home cities in AOE3, but at least you could farm the XP on a new account in like a few hours and have it be usable. Here, you have to grind a ton to make the account worth anything for PvP. On top of that, its horribly balanced and a royal mess if you actually want to play an RTS even semi-competitively. SC2 has its problems for me, but I honestly enjoy it a whole lot more than AOEO, and the community isn't dead.
What grind? The grind in LoL is much worse if you don't buy XP boosts. Everyone keeps comparing it to AoE2/SC2/RTS when AoEO is gunning for something new. If you don't walk into it expecting AoE2 it can be enjoyable.
|
On April 11 2012 12:20 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 09:32 _PI wrote:On April 10 2012 08:08 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure it was dead on arrival. The sad thing is that everyone I know who actually liked AOE2 or AOE3 does not want to play AOEO. I definitely have zero interest in it. It was already a pain to level a new accounts home cities in AOE3, but at least you could farm the XP on a new account in like a few hours and have it be usable. Here, you have to grind a ton to make the account worth anything for PvP. On top of that, its horribly balanced and a royal mess if you actually want to play an RTS even semi-competitively. SC2 has its problems for me, but I honestly enjoy it a whole lot more than AOEO, and the community isn't dead. What grind? The grind in LoL is much worse if you don't buy XP boosts. Everyone keeps comparing it to AoE2/SC2/RTS when AoEO is gunning for something new. If you don't walk into it expecting AoE2 it can be enjoyable.
If an Age of Empires game can't appeal to Age of Empires fans, then what is it's reason for existing? It isn't going to draw a huge new audience and if it pisses off fans of the previous games then it's awful. Also, some of what I said regarding PvP and such may be out of date because I haven't played in an eternity because it pissed me off so much.
Also, comparing AOE to LoL is like comparing Apples and Oranges. AOE is an RTS at heart, and any attempts to MMOize it have to keep in mind that the fans of the series want an RTS first and an MMO second. LoL has the advantage of not being an RTS, which lets it create whatever rules it wants. In addition, the grinding to level 30 doesn't feel as bad as it does in AOEO because it's versus other people and its more of a social game that you can play with friends.
|
I got to the launcher but when i click play, nothing happen? Any Suggestion ??? I tried some google ways such as run with admin mode but still its not fix ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
