Age of Empires turns into a type of F2P MMO with micro transactions and cartooney graphics. Still, it's what's left of Ensemble Studios but.. uh. Honestly, it looks like shit, why are they calling it AoE?
By: Jarno Kokko Aug 17, 2010 Age of Empires Online Announced
To kick off their Gamescom 2010 lineup, Microsoft Game Studios announced today Age of Empires Online, continuing the award-winning Age of Empires series. Official press bit has this to say:
With more than 20 million copies sold worldwide, the "Age of Empires" series redefined real-time strategy games for Windows-based PC players. Now, the timeless franchise once again invites players to experience its rich storyline in new ways. Developed by Robot Entertainment, "Age of Empires Online" will invite players to create a living, growing online world, shared with friends and friendly rivals around the globe. Begin the journey with your own Greek civilization, and watch as it progresses from a village to an empire. Embark on quests along the way, alone or with friends, and immerse yourself in epic tales, quirky characters, adventure, history and strategy. Together with the Games for Windows - LIVE service, "Age of Empires Online" delivers a rich, social experience that lets you play however you want - anywhere, anytime.
Marrying fresh features with iconic gameplay, "Age of Empires Online" offers something for long-time fans, newcomers and everyone in between. "Age of Empires Online" will feature:
* A persistent online capital city that lives and grows even when you're offline * Cooperative multiplayer quests, trading and a level-based system that lets you progress at your own pace * Fun, approachable style and storylines * Free-to-play experiences via Games for Windows - LIVE
Sounds interesting and looks okay, even if I'm a bit wary of two things - the apparent similarity to FarmVille graphics style, the fact that the beta signup specifically asks if you have played FarmVille before and the doubletalk line about "Free-to-play experiences" which I translate to "prepare to be nickel-and-dimed through microtransactions". Still, it seems that Microsoft Game Studios have suddenly realized that the PC market still exists. Impressive.
Kinda sad to see the decline of such a good game. AoE 1 and 2 was great and then nr. 3 turned crap and this looks like a f**king joke:/ makes me abit sad
Wtf? This looks horrible, what were they thinking? This honestly looks like one of those little bonus games that comes with a Disney DVD. Last I remember AoE, was kind of graphic.
Yeah, it looks a lot like the older games, but like way more dumbed down and cartoony. Not that totally matters, but I could only imagine what the game is like. =/
Haha, yeah I do feel sorry for the kids... I was like 8 when I played AoE2. I wonder how much more screwed up the next generation is going to be than I am?
Looks awesome to be honest. What has bothered me the most with past games in the series is that when in war with tons of units on the screen your PC would almost die. These simple graphics are surely capable of constant 60 FPS while still looking pretty. Graphics certainly don't impress like AoE3's did, but I prefer smooth gameplay.
Also, it looks like the core gameplay is still the same. Farmville? I don't know what you're talking about guys, go watch the video, I see the same things I've always seen. Actually there seems to be nothing new except for the graphics and the online thingies.
FarmVille from Microsoft. Why shouldn't they just milk the crap out of one of the best RTS and even strategy games ever. First and second became legends, and now this? MS lost almost all of my sympathy after they set their focus on console market. And with facebook like games, they aren't really helping it.
hmm i think this is like one of these MMO games online where its 24 / 7 and if you want to get 100 footman you have to wait for 36 hours. alot of those allready excist. only 1 i can recall is astro empires but that one didn´t have any graphics.
This pretty much looks like one of those browser RTS games... I don't have to pay for or use games for windows live. Also these are pretty much annoying because somebody will attack you at 4 AM.
What the hell happened to good ole' Age of kings 2? That had the best multiplayer ever outside of starcraft. This just flat shits on a wonderful series of RTS games.
Anyone played AoE III? you got experience via playing 1v1 and with that you could improve you Home city. Now you dont get experience with 1v1, instead, you get exp by playing some "quest" (campaign if you want to) to improve your Home City (called Capital in AoEO) but it doesnt affect the 1v1 gameplay.
With "quests" you can decorate your Capital, improve some stuff on it and other members can visit your Capital. That's social part of the game. But that Capitol stuff does not have anything related to the 1v1 mode.
Looks just like the Civilisation game that was released for consoles a couple years back.
Shame, Loved the whole AoE series, even AoM which was a bit of a sidestep. Can't count the hours logged into AoE and AoE2.. didn't play AoE3 as much as I should have really.
This looks like pretty much the same thing as league of legends
- Take a classic game (lol: dota) - Add social features - Give it clear graphics with low system reqs, bright colors, general appeal and no gore so as to make a T rating - Add matchmaking - Add 'persistent' elements (experience levels). Otherwise people who haven't spent any money don't feel invested. If you've reached a double digit level you pretty much have to convince yourself you want to keep playing, otherwise why did you spend all that time getting to where you are? - Spam the player with unlockable customization options all of which are incredibly tedious to grind (in lol, runes).
I loved AoE and this looks hideous. Hmm...since it's not an ensemble game it's clearly not AoE at all yet I still feel obligated to try the game. Fucking Microsoft.
I'm a bit curious what it'll turn out like. Sounds hard to make that game not appear like a mafia wars clone with fancy graphics. Also really curious what "unite for greater power" will mean in game.
But calling it Age of Empires is an insult to 1 and 2. Not because it's not good (hell, it might be the next WoW for all I know), but because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the series. It reminded me more of Civilization.
Anyone played AoE III? you got experience via playing 1v1 and with that you could improve you Home city. Now you dont get experience with 1v1, instead, you get exp by playing some "quest" (campaign if you want to) to improve your Home City (called Capital in AoEO) but it doesnt affect the 1v1 gameplay.
With "quests" you can decorate your Capital, improve some stuff on it and other members can visit your Capital. That's social part of the game. But that Capitol stuff does not have anything related to the 1v1 mode.
Umm leveling your city directly affected the cards/shipments access. So while there were some non-gameplay stuff, there was some gameplay stuff too with AoE3's level your home city system.
Unexpected visual style for sure. Settlers used to look a bit like this and it wasn't so bad, but still would've preferred a more serious approach. What's more promising is that looking at the official site this seems to be more like AoE2 (which remains my favorite "casual" rts to date) than AoE3. Of course all those rpg features might totally mess it up, it's hard to tell at this point.
Oh, and couldn't care less about Windows Live.
edit: Hmm, looking at it a bit more, this seems a bit too casual friendly. Not setting my expectations high.
Looks like farmville with an attack function. I can imagine it getting a lot of people if it's free for this reason. Isn't my cup of tea though. Don't like clobbering all my friends in a 1v100 at an rts answering for them how to make villagers :/
I was hoping robot would go back to the hardcore crowd but I think they've realized that's still dominated by starcraft. Are they canceling spartans?
@UniversalSnip, I'm just reading the descriptions online, and it sounds a lot like farmville. They're obviously targeting this crowd.
Oh motherfucker! This is Spartans! D'''''': They renamed it! Still, they'd have to dumb the game down a lot, even from Age 1, in order for it to attract a large portion of the farmville crowd. It'd have to be playable for short periods of time, so games could be saved, so people could play it at work, and then it'd probably be better if there were an option to let people play it when their friends weren't online.
Is it MMO style?
edit: Robot entertainment, for those who don't know, is the portion of microsoft's ensemble that banded together as a private game organization after microsoft canceled them. Microsoft entertainment no longer exists. Maybe Halo Wars just sucked too much?
Anyways Robot knows that it doesn't have the money or manpower to make new games, so they seem to just be tweaking some old ones. For instance, they're making Fable 3 and a new flight simulator as well as this.
The game AOE online is very simple. It's able to be played on the new microsoft 7 phones, and will in fact be bundled with them.
It doesn't seem to be an mmo, but the capitol does stay active and grow when you are offline, so I could be wrong.
double edit: It seems a lot like travian or evony, except with significantly better graphics. You get a city and you build it up, so the stronger player will be the one who's played longer, not the more skilled one.
There is some free to play to entice people to get to the pay to play stuff.
played the Age of Empires series ever since my dad bought the first computer we had, Gateway with windows 98. It came with a multitude of free games including Age of Empires 1. Lame.
Seeing this makes me sad, AoE 2 was my first rts and to see a once great franchise reduced to this is heartbreaking. Seriously this rush to facebookify and in general dumb down games is annoying... what would Arch_Koven think of this game, would he even recognize it?
On August 18 2010 15:18 ain wrote: This is an insult to the original game. Ensemble Studios is turning in its grave.
This is being developed by Robot Entertainment which is the company founded by the ES crew after they got disbanded by Microsoft. Nearly everyone who is working on this atrocity has worked on the age of empires series before.
On August 18 2010 15:18 ain wrote: This is an insult to the original game. Ensemble Studios is turning in its grave.
This is being developed by Robot Entertainment which is the company founded by the ES crew after they got disbanded by Microsoft. Nearly everyone who is working on this atrocity has worked on the age of empires series before.
Sad Bunny
Must be hard to have to make such a sell out game, especially if you've been used to make actual ones. But hey hopefully this kind of stuff can help support them in making better games and pushing the boundaries with this as a cushion.
Well can but hope.
This game is just raping the franchise, nothing else.
I disliked how they made multiple groups of units spawn at once in AOE3. Much preferred the queue up of AOE2. This game looks god awful, and the announcer from the trailer made it sound like a 10 year old's game.
On August 19 2010 07:27 vica wrote: I disliked how they made multiple groups of units spawn at once in AOE3. Much preferred the queue up of AOE2. This game looks god awful, and the announcer from the trailer made it sound like a 10 year old's game.
Yeah, that was definitely an afterthought because the russians were supposed to have a "block training advantage". It later turned into a disadvantage when they needed to pay all the cash up front to start training. The glitchy attack move and cannons made it seem like the game was rushed.
On August 19 2010 07:27 vica wrote: I disliked how they made multiple groups of units spawn at once in AOE3. Much preferred the queue up of AOE2. This game looks god awful, and the announcer from the trailer made it sound like a 10 year old's game.
Yeah, that was definitely an afterthought because the russians were supposed to have a "block training advantage". It later turned into a disadvantage when they needed to pay all the cash up front to start training. The glitchy attack move and cannons made it seem like the game was rushed.
Back ion the day, I use to play this game so much. But after seeing this, it looks like just any new ts game being released. This reminds me of some Kingdom rts game I played not to long ago, it was an rts with cartoony graphics as well.
I like the graphics. I think it looks good but it's so hard to tell from the previews. If the gameplay is decent this would be addicting to me. I get such happy feelings whenever I see the aoeII logo like in the trailer.
What... What the hell? It looks like the developers of Hello Kitty Island Adventure kidnapped the entire staff of Ensemble Studios and force-fed them rainbows and hugs until they pooped out a new game.
On August 27 2010 13:12 ithree wrote: Bunch of videos got put up on GT from GC 10, really doesn't seem that bad. Seems more like Quake Live than Farmvile (ie not sucking hardcore).
An interesting blog by the games lead designer. Looks like they really want to go back to their AoE / AOE 2 roots. I think that's a fantastic idea, but let's just hope they can really pull it off.
I think the scale of the original AoEs might be lost in this new game.
IDK. I love the AoE series, well up until AoM that is. Never liked AoE3. IMO the trailer doesn't really do it justice. I was like WTF after watching the trailer but then I saw some gameplay videos at gametrailers.com and it actually does look kind of interesting. Still not really a fan of the art style. Hopefully they change that before release.
I first played AoE when i was six, i now own aoe1, aoe2, aoe3 and aom. I was REALLY disappointed when i found Ensemble was shut down and I will defiantly be getting this although it looks really crap right now :S
I'm still not convinced. At the end of the third walkthrough vid he says that a lot of hardcore fans were concerned but that the game was still there with some "cool things on top".
Anyone played Shattered Galaxy before? It is basically the same thing but with Starcraft like units. Played that games religiously for a few summers... Amazing game but there was never much hype behind it...
I was really hoping Ensemble would revive the greatest RTS of all time, AoE II, in a new incarnation similar to how Blizzard put together SC2. SC2 didn't take too many risks, just took a beloved game and polished it and gave it a nice facelift with some new features. Instead we get this. Gah.
I would have KILLED for a remake of AoEII. I hope the 1v1 competitive scene still works and is unhindered by this MMO-style whatever-stuff.
I guess the only thing killing me is the art direction. I don't know enough about the gameplay, but the art direction is extremely disappointing.
On August 31 2010 10:51 iEchoic wrote: I was really hoping Ensemble would revive the greatest RTS of all time, AoE II, in a new incarnation similar to how Blizzard put together SC2. SC2 didn't take too many risks, just took a beloved game and polished it and gave it a nice facelift with some new features. Instead we get this. Gah.
I would have KILLED for a remake of AoEII. I hope the 1v1 competitive scene still works and is unhindered by this MMO-style whatever-stuff.
I guess the only thing killing me is the art direction. I don't know enough about the gameplay, but the art direction is extremely disappointing.
Yeah i really wish they'd just pull a SC2 with the AoE franchise. I have a feeling this game can't possibly have the depth or scale of AoE2.
The size of AOE was what i liked the most. I want the option to make a game with giant expanses of forests that take like 30 minutes to tunnel through, or just massive maps in general. I'm sure having to develop games in 3d greatly hinders that.
AoEO SEEMS to have potential. As long as it has a traditional AoE feel I'll be happy. Let's just hope the maps aren't too constrained and the unit variety is big enough.
Also, most importantly, i hope there is like a real balanced, equal PvP mode. I don't want to have to fight some dude who has better units just because he played hte game longer or bought some item, in true MMO fashion. They haven't really said anything in regards to multiplayer yet.
Ok, so I looked into it more and while I'm still disappointed with it I'm not going to knock it just yet. It does seem to have some potential (though the art.....).
My first impresion was : "Fuck u Robot Entertainment", I didnt like graphics. But then, I read some about gameplay, and it is not like a 24/7 game.
You will have the chance to do quests (campaigns). By quest you can earn some stuff like items and buildings that can improve your PvP duels, like cards in AoE III. But you will have to do solo-quest and multiplayer quest to obtain some items. At your Capital, everyone could visit it, and buy whatever you have (wood, gold, stone, items etc) so thats the 24/7 feature, but it is apart of PvP mode. Also and the most exciting feature, is that AoEO will have AoC (age of empires II: The Conquerors) gameplay core.
Microsoft has hired some AoE III proplayers for playtesters, to check balance of civs and units. I will give AoEO a chance.
On August 31 2010 11:26 thopol wrote: Ok, so I looked into it more and while I'm still disappointed with it I'm not going to knock it just yet. It does seem to have some potential (though the art.....).
There's still an age2 competitive scene?
Is the most active of AoE serie. check www.aoczone.net , the main community also you can play at www.voobly.com , with ELO ranking.
I'm gonna wait until this comes out officially, because I'm not willing to redownload builds gigabytes in size. Can't wait to play, it looks damn good.
Aoe 2 (AoC) GREATEST RTS EVER CONCIEVED.. (yep even better than bw) we ll have to see if SC2 can top aoc.. not doing it yet.. crappy BNET, to limited..
I don't really understand all the hate for it, it's still most of the ensemble studios guys making it. It's still the same type of resource collecting into army type game from what it looks like with quest and stuff for a home city mechanic like in aoe3. In my opinion the art style looks fine though i could understand why people wouldn't like it but look at tf2, a great game with cartoony graphics and people love it.
Aoc , has SOOO MUCH MORE MACRO (we call it eco) than bw.. and i think i bit more of micro.. ( a microed much more there, but maybe i havnt got the hang on sc2 micro yet) Still,SC needed wayy higher apm .. (concept doesnt even exist there)
On August 31 2010 11:26 thopol wrote: Ok, so I looked into it more and while I'm still disappointed with it I'm not going to knock it just yet. It does seem to have some potential (though the art.....).
There's still an age2 competitive scene?
Is the most active of AoE serie. check www.aoczone.net , the main community also you can play at www.voobly.com , with ELO ranking.
You sure? I'm pretty sure AoE3 has a higher population, what's the size in # of people online?
if they just improve the graphics of AoE2 with good online system matchmaking and balance out the races it would be one of the best rts mongols are so OP just get like 10 manudais and micro the crap outta em
On August 31 2010 11:26 thopol wrote: Ok, so I looked into it more and while I'm still disappointed with it I'm not going to knock it just yet. It does seem to have some potential (though the art.....).
There's still an age2 competitive scene?
Is the most active of AoE serie. check www.aoczone.net , the main community also you can play at www.voobly.com , with ELO ranking.
You sure? I'm pretty sure AoE3 has a higher population, what's the size in # of people online?
people online doesnt mean more active. For example, AoEIII can reach 1500 players online, AoC at voobly reach 1400 max (800 rm + 600 cs players) but talking about scene, AoE III is dead. Last AoE III tourney had a 500US prize pool , last Brain Champion Cup (AoC tourney) was 10,000 prize pool. And AoC has more clans, more leagues, much tourneys ( now, 5 tourneys are running). Also China has their own community, that is BIGGER than occident community, with their own tourneys, leagues, etc. (as Korea is for BW)
Aoe3's activity is reduced as of now (thanks to SC2) but it's not completely dead.
I also don't see how Aoe3 is a bad game. There are some flaws and some things that could be better but all in all it's a good RTS. :/
Edit, btw as for AoeO, they're totally taking the wrong direction imo. Look what Blizzard did. They did a remake of the successful BW. SC2 is an excellent RTS. Robot Entertainment's AoeO looks more like Farmville than AoC. ):
On October 30 2010 05:17 Incognoto wrote: Aoe3's activity is reduced as of now (thanks to SC2) but it's not completely dead.
I also don't see how Aoe3 is a bad game. There are some flaws and some things that could be better but all in all it's a good RTS. :/
Edit, btw as for AoeO, they're totally taking the wrong direction imo. Look what Blizzard did. They did a remake of the successful BW. SC2 is an excellent RTS. Robot Entertainment's AoeO looks more like Farmville than AoC. ):
According to them they are doing just like Blizzard did. Just because it has a different look doesn't mean it plays differently.
On October 30 2010 05:17 Incognoto wrote: Aoe3's activity is reduced as of now (thanks to SC2) but it's not completely dead.
I also don't see how Aoe3 is a bad game. There are some flaws and some things that could be better but all in all it's a good RTS. :/
Edit, btw as for AoeO, they're totally taking the wrong direction imo. Look what Blizzard did. They did a remake of the successful BW. SC2 is an excellent RTS. Robot Entertainment's AoeO looks more like Farmville than AoC. ):
According to them they are doing just like Blizzard did. Just because it has a different look doesn't mean it plays differently.
Similarly, just because RE says it will play like AoK doesn't mean it will. Here's the deal. Many old AoT and Aoe3 players have gotten into the closed Beta. A lot of them have lost interest very quickly. They aren't allowed to say why, but if old school "Age of" players are already quitting the game (I read something about there being difficulties finding a 1v1) then I think that it doesn't play a lot like AoK... either that or there's some other big issue with it. Doesn't sound like an AoK remake but some weird RTS/something hybrid. Not likin' the sound of it.
Sorry for the necro, but I have some news for fellow AoE fans, there's a beta promotion right now. If you want in, do Alienware's promotion here. They should be sending out codes from this promotion pretty soon:
I've been following AoE:O a bit more and after my initial anger at the cartoony graphics, I have to say the gameplay looks really good. Also I think the graphics may look a lot better on your own display where you can see the detail more. Head over to gametrailers.com and check out some of the newer graphics, the gameplay looks really interesting.
On November 19 2010 05:14 iEchoic wrote: Sorry for the necro, but I have some news for fellow AoE fans, there's a beta promotion right now. If you want in, do Alienware's promotion here. They should be sending out codes from this promotion pretty soon:
I've been following AoE:O a bit more and after my initial anger at the cartoony graphics, I have to say the gameplay looks really good. Also I think the graphics may look a lot better on your own display where you can see the detail more. Head over to gametrailers.com and check out some of the newer graphics, the gameplay looks really interesting.
Thanks!
I have a mild hope that this game will be good. I don't expect much but just having even a decently fun traditional RTS would be great. I just hope the MMO type stuff doesn't really get too important or involved.
On November 22 2010 09:30 iEchoic wrote: Heh, in other hilarious news, Microsoft mispriced AoE3 at 10 cents (or 10 microsoft points), so if anyone wants to download it and play online:
I played the beta for a while. It's simplistic RTS gameplay wrapped around a thick, convoluted layer of MMO bullshit. It's a sad, agonizing death for a once great franchise.
Amazing pile of fail. Can't believe companies sit in a board room eating danish' and think shit like this would actually be good. What a cash grab - As somebody already mentioned, Ensemble is Dead, AoE is forever gone.
I have no idea how this shit even got into closed beta, let alone open beta. It is crap, go play AoE2 instead. More fun and still with a (somewhat) active online community.
On January 26 2011 00:30 DannyJ wrote: At least AoE 2 has aged pretty well.
From what I've played of beta (admittedly not that much, and none spent in multiplayer) it seems like this is just AoE 2 with new graphics and less races. The MMO aspect just seemed like a non-essential extended tutorial of sorts.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I'm only a level 7 or so.
This was my childhood i play it when i was 7 and now they have ruined it. RUINED. At least i still have Starcraft II to play, otherwise i dont know what i would do...
On January 26 2011 00:30 DannyJ wrote: At least AoE 2 has aged pretty well.
From what I've played of beta (admittedly not that much, and none spent in multiplayer) it seems like this is just AoE 2 with new graphics and less races. The MMO aspect just seemed like a non-essential extended tutorial of sorts.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I'm only a level 7 or so.
This game is not at all AoE2 with newer graphics. I can't put my finger on it. It is kind of like ranting BW-SC2, except you will definetely be right when you rant about how much AoEO ruined everything. The charm is just gone from the game, I can still pick up an AoE2 game every once in a while but Online just disgusts me. Especially the whole levelling system. It is kind of like AoE3, except slow as fuck and this actually blocks you're tech tree. AoE3 was at least only upgrades and you could get the really essential ones pretty quickly.
On January 28 2011 04:45 faryn wrote: I would really like to play that but there are no friggin beta keys to get anywhere so sad ((
Don't bother. If you are here you probably already have either BW or SC2, go play those. Better games in every single way imaginable. And if you don't, then go check out the sports and games forum, there is a lot of better games out there for free.
I like how at the beginning of the preview they show clips of the past AOE games but in black and white, as if to make the cartoon graphics of the new game look more impressive or some other marketing BS trick.
On January 26 2011 00:30 DannyJ wrote: At least AoE 2 has aged pretty well.
From what I've played of beta (admittedly not that much, and none spent in multiplayer) it seems like this is just AoE 2 with new graphics and less races. The MMO aspect just seemed like a non-essential extended tutorial of sorts.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I'm only a level 7 or so.
This game is not at all AoE2 with newer graphics. I can't put my finger on it. It is kind of like ranting BW-SC2, except you will definetely be right when you rant about how much AoEO ruined everything. The charm is just gone from the game, I can still pick up an AoE2 game every once in a while but Online just disgusts me. Especially the whole levelling system. It is kind of like AoE3, except slow as fuck and this actually blocks you're tech tree. AoE3 was at least only upgrades and you could get the really essential ones pretty quickly.
I agree about the leveling system, but it seems like the core game of AoE2 is intact. Looking at the tech tree, all the same buildings are there and similar units.
I wasn't an avid AoE2 player so I don't know the intricate details of the game but it seems like people who like AoE should at least give this game a shot and not put it off as cartoony or dumbed down.
On January 28 2011 06:03 DreamScaR wrote: I'm jealous of those that managed to get a beta key. While you're all saying it's crap, it's still be nice to give it a sniff to know for sure.
i feel the same way. while all the critisicm might be legit, its still "only" a browser game that is supposed to be played casually! I joined at their site ages ago, but still dont have a beta key. I will probably have to wait until this is released
On January 28 2011 06:03 DreamScaR wrote: I'm jealous of those that managed to get a beta key. While you're all saying it's crap, it's still be nice to give it a sniff to know for sure.
i feel the same way. while all the critisicm might be legit, its still "only" a browser game that is supposed to be played casually! I joined at their site ages ago, but still dont have a beta key. I will probably have to wait until this is released
Yeah thats what i thought too. I didn't expect much, but thought it might be fun casually. Honestly though, it's just not enjoyable on any level at any time. I found nothing "casual" about the convoluted MMO crap it was drenched in, or the insanely boring and repetitive quests you had to do.
On January 28 2011 06:03 DreamScaR wrote: I'm jealous of those that managed to get a beta key. While you're all saying it's crap, it's still be nice to give it a sniff to know for sure.
I feel like this lol because it looked cool and I wanted to try it, so I'm jealous of all the people with beta who aren't using it cause they don't like it =(
On February 06 2011 21:22 heishe wrote: So does anybody in here have a beta account who doesn't use it and is willing to let others try? Would be awesome
I dont think its possible, the account is locked to a Windows Live Account + you had to sign up to unbelievably long NDA/EULA. And, I know you want to try it out for yourself, but as a long time Age2 player I only know a couple of people still giving AoEObeta the time of day. Its just bad.
I've been in for a few months, there's just nothing to talk about. Graphically I think it looks cool and all, and there's some ideas that are interesting but in general everything about it horribly implemented/executed
I've reinstalled AOE2:AoK and The Conquerors =) I've been playing through the campaign but I don't know where I can play this online =[ I know the msn is no longer support multiplayer.
Problem with AoE back when it was like 1,2 and 3 was that it was too complicated for online play imo. With all the different resources and upgrades, it was made to be a single player game. Sort of like Rise of Nations.
I've also been in the beta for a few months, it was quite disappointing. There's a lot of typical Age of Empires thingies, so if you're a fan of the genre there's quite a few things you'll love seeing again, the problem is that it's just a big string of extremely repetitive quests. The gameplay isn't very exciting at all.
Hm. Just found out about this game from this OP. Cool. I'll check out the beta, even though it seems fairly closed atm. It looks f*cking awful though, but what do I know. Feel free to PM me if you know how to get in somehow, or if you could lend me an account for a couple of days Just judging from the name 'aoe online' I get the picture that you're on a big ass maps with tonnes of other players, kind of like world of warcraft, but RTS.. kind of sounds ridiculous come to think of it. What's the gameplay like?
On April 17 2011 02:49 TickTockBoom wrote: Problem with AoE back when it was like 1,2 and 3 was that it was too complicated for online play imo. With all the different resources and upgrades, it was made to be a single player game. Sort of like Rise of Nations.
lol :S AoC is one of the most online rts game played. Now World Clan League is running with 7k dollars for prizes (www.aoczone.net for more info).
Also you can play at www,voobly.com 2500 people playing everyday.
On April 17 2011 05:09 Euronyme wrote: Hm. Just found out about this game from this OP. Cool. I'll check out the beta, even though it seems fairly closed atm. It looks f*cking awful though, but what do I know. Feel free to PM me if you know how to get in somehow, or if you could lend me an account for a couple of days Just judging from the name 'aoe online' I get the picture that you're on a big ass maps with tonnes of other players, kind of like world of warcraft, but RTS.. kind of sounds ridiculous come to think of it. What's the gameplay like?
I said it before in this thread, but I'm going to say it again: Don't bother, it's a waste of time.
This game might be called "Age of Empires", but it has nothing to do with the great games of the series. Gameplay amounts to dumbed down mechanics, tutorial missions and a STRONG sense of deja vu every time you open up a new mission. There is no real multiplayer for hours after you boot up the game and the multiplayer that does exist feels like they killed AoE2 and through evil magicks resurrected a hideous abomination from its carcass.
So, in short: This game is horrible, WILL tank horribly upon realease, and the only purpose it serves is to feed a bunch of incompetent game developers and their families.
On April 17 2011 01:30 Aukai wrote: I've reinstalled AOE2:AoK and The Conquerors =) I've been playing through the campaign but I don't know where I can play this online =[ I know the msn is no longer support multiplayer.
The part i thought i disliked most (the graphics) are actually the part i LIKE most. I'm not sure if that means the graphics grew on me or the game is just that bad... probably both.
i don't think the game is that bad... The actual game is almost exactly like AoE2. Though I guess you have to like PvE, and well this being teamliquid... yeah...
On April 17 2011 08:26 Zulban wrote: i don't think the game is that bad... The actual game is almost exactly like AoE2. Though I guess you have to like PvE, and well this being teamliquid... yeah...
It's not just the people at TL who dislike the game. :s
Not sure if I can voice my opinion on the game outside of the beta boards, but I guess they won't mind some positive attention for once. I actually quite like the way they're going, sure the farmville aspect is not for competitive gamers - but the pvp is actually quite good, and plays just like age of mythology and age of empires 2. It's just the gear, but that works just like WoW - you just need to farm the best gear before you can get competitive in arena. Tournaments will just have "standard" sets I suppose. Still, it's not the way the usual RTS works - but it's actually quite fun once you get into playing pvp. The graphics are kind of lame, but it's not a dealbreaker for most people and I'm sure many peopl like this style over a realistic style.
I'm in the beta too. A lot of people complain as if this were one of those silly little marketing gimmicks some publishers like to call "betas". This is a full fledged beta, and everything is subject to change.
That being said, I personally enjoyed it for a little while, but the simplification of the controls wore on me. Maybe I've been spoiled by Starcraft 2's fluid and precise unit movements, but the absence of important unit control buttons like stop and hold fire are very frustrating.
This is an insult to everyone that grew up with the original games, if I ever see someone playing this I'm going and finding my old copy of AoE 2 and Age of Mythology and forcing them to sit down and play through both campaigns then letting them decide for themselves to delete their accounts on this garbage.
On April 19 2011 18:12 Pax wrote: I'm in the beta too. A lot of people complain as if this were one of those silly little marketing gimmicks some publishers like to call "betas". This is a full fledged beta, and everything is subject to change.
That being said, I personally enjoyed it for a little while, but the simplification of the controls wore on me. Maybe I've been spoiled by Starcraft 2's fluid and precise unit movements, but the absence of important unit control buttons like stop and hold fire are very frustrating.
I had the same feeling too. Age of Empires died with AoE3 for me. I can't see AoEO becoming a succes. It's way too casual, even for casual gamers.
Curse invite only works if you have a paid curse account.
Still pumped about this game, I'm ignoring all the naysayers 'till I put some time into it myself. Funnily enough I really like the art style, which a lot of people seem to hate.
I am worried about how seriously they'll support competitive pvp, how 'grinding' and player level will influence pvp and the effect of the micro transaction model of the game.
On April 20 2011 08:44 AndyJay wrote: Curse invite only works if you have a paid curse account.
Still pumped about this game, I'm ignoring all the naysayers 'till I put some time into it myself. Funnily enough I really like the art style, which a lot of people seem to hate.
I am worried about how seriously they'll support competitive pvp, how 'grinding' and player level will influence pvp and the effect of the micro transaction model of the game.
Pretty sure competitive pvp is out the window. The beta has had very little focus on it. It was almost impossible to pvp for hte first 5 months even if you wanted to. Not to mention pvp will be 100% messed up by everyone having different levels and gear which you aquire through many hours of tedious pve drudgery.
On April 20 2011 08:44 AndyJay wrote: Curse invite only works if you have a paid curse account.
Still pumped about this game, I'm ignoring all the naysayers 'till I put some time into it myself. Funnily enough I really like the art style, which a lot of people seem to hate.
I am worried about how seriously they'll support competitive pvp, how 'grinding' and player level will influence pvp and the effect of the micro transaction model of the game.
tomorrow at 9AM PST theyre giving away all the rest of their beta keys to the public
Got the chance to play it during lunch break, got to level 5. First impressions are really good, looks very crisp and clean in animations and graphics. Plays like AoK, 4 resources and drop off points, unit queues/garrison/walls etc. There is an A-move button but not sure what the hotkey is. Everything seems to be hotkeyed but only some things tooltips show up what the hotkey is so it's a bit confusing.
Control groups work fine, there is auto formations and queued waypoints. It really is very close to AoK mechanic wise, with the notable exceptions hold fire and patrol. One annoying thing is you don't get specific unit information (that I could see) for hit points/dmg/armor although all upgrades through items/research is very specific which is good to see (eg. +13.5% attack vs infantry).
Basically all the 'persistant crap' which encompasses benefits gained from singleplayer seems to be just a way of specialising your 'civ'. For example, it's as if you're playing AoK but instead of choosing one of 14 races you custom build your own race with it's own features/drawbacks. This is done on a unit or unit type level of equipping items (which are unlocked through completing sinlgeplayer missions), an example being equipping boots of +2 armour to your archers, and also through a tech tree. The tech tree looks like a AoK tech tree with separate tabs for military/economy/utility and as you progress through the singleplayer you get more points to unlock more of the trees.
If it only takes 10-15 hours to unlock the full breadth of your tech tree and get a good set of items I can see this game working competitively, in a fashion similar to WoW pvp. That is, pvp is always available from the early stages but is going to be unbalanced, until everyone puts in enough time. Once you put in enough time and reach the 'cap', everyone has the same options and the playing field becomes level.
Of course WoW competitive pvp is a bit of a joke because instead of 10-15 hours to hit cap it's more like 200-300 (extremely repetitive) hours. The levelling in this however seems to be more of a different way of doing a normal single player campaign so it shouldn't fall into the same trap.
I still have no idea how the micro-transaction system works or how matchmaking is handled, but I'm going to put some serious time into this game over the easter break to see how far I get. Pretty sure Portal 2 won't get looked at till I've put a lot of time into this game... so yeah, I'm really enjoying it.
On April 20 2011 13:12 AndyJay wrote: Got the chance to play it during lunch break, got to level 5. First impressions are really good, looks very crisp and clean in animations and graphics. Plays like AoK, 4 resources and drop off points, unit queues/garrison/walls etc. There is an A-move button but not sure what the hotkey is. Everything seems to be hotkeyed but only some things tooltips show up what the hotkey is so it's a bit confusing.
Control groups work fine, there is auto formations and queued waypoints. It really is very close to AoK mechanic wise, with the notable exceptions hold fire and patrol. One annoying thing is you don't get specific unit information (that I could see) for hit points/dmg/armor although all upgrades through items/research is very specific which is good to see (eg. +13.5% attack vs infantry).
Basically all the 'persistant crap' which encompasses benefits gained from singleplayer seems to be just a way of specialising your 'civ'. For example, it's as if you're playing AoK but instead of choosing one of 14 races you custom build your own race with it's own features/drawbacks. This is done on a unit or unit type level of equipping items (which are unlocked through completing sinlgeplayer missions), an example being equipping boots of +2 armour to your archers, and also through a tech tree. The tech tree looks like a AoK tech tree with separate tabs for military/economy/utility and as you progress through the singleplayer you get more points to unlock more of the trees.
If it only takes 10-15 hours to unlock the full breadth of your tech tree and get a good set of items I can see this game working competitively, in a fashion similar to WoW pvp. That is, pvp is always available from the early stages but is going to be unbalanced, until everyone puts in enough time. Once you put in enough time and reach the 'cap', everyone has the same options and the playing field becomes level.
I still have no idea how the micro-transaction system works or how matchmaking is handled, but I'm going to put some serious time into this game over the easter break to see how far I get. Pretty sure Portal 2 won't get looked at till I've put a lot of time into this game... so yeah, I'm really enjoying it.
"z" instead of "a" for attack-move, dunno why they made it like that though lol
to get unit hp//damage though you gotta highlight the unit portrait when it is selected and it will bring up detailed info about it
some of those chieftains have like 3,000 hp lol they're like little bosses
On April 20 2011 13:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote: "z" instead of "a" for attack-move, dunno why they made it like that though lol
Ah sweet. Are the hidden hotkeys in options somewhere or did you blindly work them out? Really missed my create villager/idle villager hotkeys. Couldn't even remember what they were in other AoE games.
Played a few hours tonight, grinded up to Level 6 (which you need to PvP). Really not innovative at all. They grabbed a bunch of shit from other genres and thew it against the wall to see what would stick, basically. AOK gameplay, AOE3 home city cards, WoW talent trees + items, Evony style "capital city" + item shop.
Really repeating all the mistakes Bruce Shelly said AOE3 made. I haven't written it off completely, but I'm not optimistic.
On April 20 2011 13:12 AndyJay wrote: Got the chance to play it during lunch break, got to level 5. First impressions are really good, looks very crisp and clean in animations and graphics. Plays like AoK, 4 resources and drop off points, unit queues/garrison/walls etc. There is an A-move button but not sure what the hotkey is. Everything seems to be hotkeyed but only some things tooltips show up what the hotkey is so it's a bit confusing.
Control groups work fine, there is auto formations and queued waypoints. It really is very close to AoK mechanic wise, with the notable exceptions hold fire and patrol. One annoying thing is you don't get specific unit information (that I could see) for hit points/dmg/armor although all upgrades through items/research is very specific which is good to see (eg. +13.5% attack vs infantry).
Basically all the 'persistant crap' which encompasses benefits gained from singleplayer seems to be just a way of specialising your 'civ'. For example, it's as if you're playing AoK but instead of choosing one of 14 races you custom build your own race with it's own features/drawbacks. This is done on a unit or unit type level of equipping items (which are unlocked through completing sinlgeplayer missions), an example being equipping boots of +2 armour to your archers, and also through a tech tree. The tech tree looks like a AoK tech tree with separate tabs for military/economy/utility and as you progress through the singleplayer you get more points to unlock more of the trees.
If it only takes 10-15 hours to unlock the full breadth of your tech tree and get a good set of items I can see this game working competitively, in a fashion similar to WoW pvp. That is, pvp is always available from the early stages but is going to be unbalanced, until everyone puts in enough time. Once you put in enough time and reach the 'cap', everyone has the same options and the playing field becomes level.
Of course WoW competitive pvp is a bit of a joke because instead of 10-15 hours to hit cap it's more like 200-300 (extremely repetitive) hours. The levelling in this however seems to be more of a different way of doing a normal single player campaign so it shouldn't fall into the same trap.
I still have no idea how the micro-transaction system works or how matchmaking is handled, but I'm going to put some serious time into this game over the easter break to see how far I get. Pretty sure Portal 2 won't get looked at till I've put a lot of time into this game... so yeah, I'm really enjoying it.
Sorry but WoW PvP was much harder than you think it was, There are videos on Youtube of people getting 2k Arena rating with no clothing at all just using their skills. Also I was one of the people who challanged myself at that game. And yeah getting gear improved my win rate, but not my skill rate.
On April 20 2011 14:06 typedef struct wrote: Played a few hours tonight, grinded up to Level 6 (which you need to PvP). Really not innovative at all. They grabbed a bunch of shit from other genres and thew it against the wall to see what would stick, basically. AOK gameplay, AOE3 home city cards, WoW talent trees + items, Evony style "capital city" + item shop.
Really repeating all the mistakes Bruce Shelly said AOE3 made. I haven't written it off completely, but I'm not optimistic.
I loved AoE 1 2 and 3.. AoM not so much, didn't like the resource system for the races. Really not sure what to make of this, I'll maybe have a look when it's on general release, part of me was heartbroken when MS shut ensembles doors. AoE was my RTS series long before Starcraft entered my mind. Had no idea what I was doing but it was fun anyway.
In PvP, it seems matches are only made with players around your city level. So tech tree wise, I think its pretty balanced, except maybe for the top players, where different choices in tech tree could mean a lot.
My only concern is, there doesn't seem to be a replay system (did i miss it?), and end game stats are missing in pvp. I have a lot of hope for this game.
On April 20 2011 13:12 AndyJay wrote: Got the chance to play it during lunch break, got to level 5. First impressions are really good, looks very crisp and clean in animations and graphics. Plays like AoK, 4 resources and drop off points, unit queues/garrison/walls etc. There is an A-move button but not sure what the hotkey is. Everything seems to be hotkeyed but only some things tooltips show up what the hotkey is so it's a bit confusing.
Control groups work fine, there is auto formations and queued waypoints. It really is very close to AoK mechanic wise, with the notable exceptions hold fire and patrol. One annoying thing is you don't get specific unit information (that I could see) for hit points/dmg/armor although all upgrades through items/research is very specific which is good to see (eg. +13.5% attack vs infantry).
Basically all the 'persistant crap' which encompasses benefits gained from singleplayer seems to be just a way of specialising your 'civ'. For example, it's as if you're playing AoK but instead of choosing one of 14 races you custom build your own race with it's own features/drawbacks. This is done on a unit or unit type level of equipping items (which are unlocked through completing sinlgeplayer missions), an example being equipping boots of +2 armour to your archers, and also through a tech tree. The tech tree looks like a AoK tech tree with separate tabs for military/economy/utility and as you progress through the singleplayer you get more points to unlock more of the trees.
If it only takes 10-15 hours to unlock the full breadth of your tech tree and get a good set of items I can see this game working competitively, in a fashion similar to WoW pvp. That is, pvp is always available from the early stages but is going to be unbalanced, until everyone puts in enough time. Once you put in enough time and reach the 'cap', everyone has the same options and the playing field becomes level.
Of course WoW competitive pvp is a bit of a joke because instead of 10-15 hours to hit cap it's more like 200-300 (extremely repetitive) hours. The levelling in this however seems to be more of a different way of doing a normal single player campaign so it shouldn't fall into the same trap.
I still have no idea how the micro-transaction system works or how matchmaking is handled, but I'm going to put some serious time into this game over the easter break to see how far I get. Pretty sure Portal 2 won't get looked at till I've put a lot of time into this game... so yeah, I'm really enjoying it.
Sorry but WoW PvP was much harder than you think it was, There are videos on Youtube of people getting 2k Arena rating with no clothing at all just using their skills. Also I was one of the people who challanged myself at that game. And yeah getting gear improved my win rate, but not my skill rate.
i dunno man it is fairly simple compared to competition in RTS games
also, 2k is by no means the cap, I'm pretty sure 2k equates to gold league in SC2, maybe platinum, which makes it cool that someone could do that without any gear. getting #1 in your battlegroup with gear seems more impressive though, which you "did" need the hundreds of hours of grinding for gear to have a shot at
One of the early WoW arena seasons my druid partner wore nothing but greens and we get top 10 in the 2v2 bracket. It has NOTHING to do with skill, but rather major racial / class imbalances. Anyone who think WoW is a good test of "skill" is sadly mistaken, for obvious reasons, and it really isn't a good comparison to an rts games.
On April 20 2011 13:12 AndyJay wrote: Got the chance to play it during lunch break, got to level 5. First impressions are really good, looks very crisp and clean in animations and graphics. Plays like AoK, 4 resources and drop off points, unit queues/garrison/walls etc. There is an A-move button but not sure what the hotkey is. Everything seems to be hotkeyed but only some things tooltips show up what the hotkey is so it's a bit confusing.
Control groups work fine, there is auto formations and queued waypoints. It really is very close to AoK mechanic wise, with the notable exceptions hold fire and patrol. One annoying thing is you don't get specific unit information (that I could see) for hit points/dmg/armor although all upgrades through items/research is very specific which is good to see (eg. +13.5% attack vs infantry).
Basically all the 'persistant crap' which encompasses benefits gained from singleplayer seems to be just a way of specialising your 'civ'. For example, it's as if you're playing AoK but instead of choosing one of 14 races you custom build your own race with it's own features/drawbacks. This is done on a unit or unit type level of equipping items (which are unlocked through completing sinlgeplayer missions), an example being equipping boots of +2 armour to your archers, and also through a tech tree. The tech tree looks like a AoK tech tree with separate tabs for military/economy/utility and as you progress through the singleplayer you get more points to unlock more of the trees.
If it only takes 10-15 hours to unlock the full breadth of your tech tree and get a good set of items I can see this game working competitively, in a fashion similar to WoW pvp. That is, pvp is always available from the early stages but is going to be unbalanced, until everyone puts in enough time. Once you put in enough time and reach the 'cap', everyone has the same options and the playing field becomes level.
Of course WoW competitive pvp is a bit of a joke because instead of 10-15 hours to hit cap it's more like 200-300 (extremely repetitive) hours. The levelling in this however seems to be more of a different way of doing a normal single player campaign so it shouldn't fall into the same trap.
I still have no idea how the micro-transaction system works or how matchmaking is handled, but I'm going to put some serious time into this game over the easter break to see how far I get. Pretty sure Portal 2 won't get looked at till I've put a lot of time into this game... so yeah, I'm really enjoying it.
Sorry but WoW PvP was much harder than you think it was, There are videos on Youtube of people getting 2k Arena rating with no clothing at all just using their skills. Also I was one of the people who challanged myself at that game. And yeah getting gear improved my win rate, but not my skill rate.
i dunno man it is fairly simple compared to competition in RTS games
also, 2k is by no means the cap, I'm pretty sure 2k equates to gold league in SC2, maybe platinum, which makes it cool that someone could do that without any gear. getting #1 in your battlegroup with gear seems more impressive though, which you "did" need the hundreds of hours of grinding for gear to have a shot at
2k was high enough to get titles often enough. Seriously you underrate it, I'm not even a fan boy of the series, played WoW for 2 years compared to a lot of my friends who did for what? 6 years?+
I'm saying these people made 2k without any armor at all, at level 70 when 70 was the cap. It was the famous Mage/Priest combo. Grinding gear helped you get that 2.6krating+ but 2k rating is high considering the average rating on WoW back then was 1500(The starting point.) yeah people who pvp'd were often stuck on the starting point in the arena. Hardly would that be considered gold, it would be considered low grandmasters because of skill level alone.
In terms you may understand, it's like playing a macro game as Terran, and not buying any upgrades and beating a fully upgraded Toss army. 3/3/3 charge lots, etc...
Yeah it's possible, but I bet not even pros would want to take this challenge.
On the other hand I have been a huge AoE fan for a while. I was actually "GodOfWar" And also the 4 Seasons God of War on AoE as my handles, I was kinda known =/. That was long ago though.
On April 25 2011 11:49 DannyJ wrote: One of the early WoW arena seasons my druid partner wore nothing but greens and we get top 10 in the 2v2 bracket. It has NOTHING to do with skill, but rather major racial / class imbalances. Anyone who think WoW is a good test of "skill" is sadly mistaken, for obvious reasons, and it really isn't a good comparison to an rts games.
Here is the situation with that though, a lot of M/P. R/D's go Arena but never win more than 50% of their matches, why is that? Skill plays that role, you didn't suck is the point. You were better than others when you faced a mirror match too I bet. And it's a Real Time game so it's an okay comparison. Remember all the buttons on the screen? Almost 100+? Have to click/press the right ones at the right time? That doesn't take skill?
Everything can be made to sound simple.
I could say "Wow in SC2 you press this button it makes units then you kill the enemy, lolz no strat." But I'm smart enough to know when games require some knowledge.
Since I got into the beta, I played this a little bit over the past few days. Only did a couple of missions though since singleplayer is super boring (mainly because it's too easy).
When can I start playing against other players? Coop would be OK too, but I don't want to start a coop partnership with someone from here since I don't play this game very often, and ingame you never find someone who does a mission coop with you.
Other than that, I think this game is actually pretty good. It's probably not a good competetive RTS of course, but for simply "having fun" it's probably pretty awesome. Basic AOE gameplay with RPG-y elements. At least, it would be that way if I was able to start multiplayer games pretty soon.
this game looks really wierd atm, farms a tier 2 requirement amongst other factors make me think this game wont be as good as Age of empires Conquerors but im only lvl 3 and im sure they will make more than 2 races. or well I REALLY HOPE SO.
On April 27 2011 09:14 duk3 wrote: If you want to see gameplay (master league in SC2, good in previous AoE games) check out this stream: http://www.justin.tv/themista
mista is a friend and he is really really good at AoE.
im a masters league terran, im about 34-2 ( losses due to not having certain tech =/ )on the PVP. Its pretty fun.. just wish they fixed alot of things. Like the gold bug. archers are a little too powerful vs infantry. And stop the zoned PVP.. Pvp is based on a repeatable quest that only finds people using that quest hub for pvp... and there is like 3-4 of em... so it hurts que times
On April 25 2011 11:49 DannyJ wrote: One of the early WoW arena seasons my druid partner wore nothing but greens and we get top 10 in the 2v2 bracket. It has NOTHING to do with skill, but rather major racial / class imbalances. Anyone who think WoW is a good test of "skill" is sadly mistaken, for obvious reasons, and it really isn't a good comparison to an rts games.
Here is the situation with that though, a lot of M/P. R/D's go Arena but never win more than 50% of their matches, why is that? Skill plays that role, you didn't suck is the point. You were better than others when you faced a mirror match too I bet. And it's a Real Time game so it's an okay comparison. Remember all the buttons on the screen? Almost 100+? Have to click/press the right ones at the right time? That doesn't take skill?
Everything can be made to sound simple.
I could say "Wow in SC2 you press this button it makes units then you kill the enemy, lolz no strat." But I'm smart enough to know when games require some knowledge.
you can't micro stimmed marines to step fire perfectly while maintaining flawless macro, nor anything near that theres a minor amount of skill, but if you want real arena skill, go check out bloodline champions
On April 27 2011 09:14 duk3 wrote: If you want to see gameplay (master league in SC2, good in previous AoE games) check out this stream: http://www.justin.tv/themista
mista is a friend and he is really really good at AoE.
although the current active pl;ayer list is so shrinked....yes i assume he might be the best player in the world atm...but u cant be VERY good on both aoe and sc2...lets see what he ll choose..
On April 25 2011 11:49 DannyJ wrote: One of the early WoW arena seasons my druid partner wore nothing but greens and we get top 10 in the 2v2 bracket. It has NOTHING to do with skill, but rather major racial / class imbalances. Anyone who think WoW is a good test of "skill" is sadly mistaken, for obvious reasons, and it really isn't a good comparison to an rts games.
I agree but at the same time in late 2008 I was in the highest rated destruction warlock / elemental shaman 2v2 team in the world (according to arenajunkies). Was also in the top 5 highest rated team without a (spec'd) healer and without a rogue (there was a warrior/dk and a warrior/ret pally combo that was doing better lol).
Wasn't easy. But like I said I agree.
I'm pretty sure this is a thread about Age of Empires Online, not about World of Warcraft.
So many wierd MMO esque home city wierd stuff that i cant get my head around and questing against the computer is like doing dailies in wow. UGH, how infuriating.
How can they have taken the age of empires conquerors reboot idea and made it a free to play home city questing hub game is beyond me.
Leveling up in this game has so far been a load of suck. ;P
Wow I didn't realize how much i have missed the old age of empires rts formula. I haven't played a game like aoe in like 7 years and wow what i had missed it The game is fun. And to answer some questions in this thread.
When you reach lvl 7 you will get a arena building and the option from that building to play 1v1 which me and my rts anxiety is to scared to play. So yea to answer some more questions some people like the Ai option. I rather do questing against ai then go do some pvp.
I really loved that they powered up the archers since they are my favorite units in any game and it's been a while since archers where good remember WC3 thos where bad remember AoM Those where ugly But now they have nice longbows and wherry nice dmg.
And those people that thinks it's to cartony even without the grapicks remember the pieces of meat the villagers carries where even bigger in the original.
TL:DR I'm having a hard time finding bad things about this game. ^^ And if you miss the old AoE test this and nostalgia will fill you fully.
This game is a lot of fun. Definitely reminds of Age of Empires 2. It's an odd thing on what they intend to do with it, but I see nothing wrong with it. I'll agree that it's a bit stale at the moment, but that's why it's in beta and that it's meant to bring in the casual audience that they wanted.
I hope to see it become successful in the future. It's supposed to be fully released during the fall.
I wonder what the third civilization will be :S I kind of don't like playing as the only race available. Egypt would be fun.
I've played to around 13th lvl and it is defo fun, but where i am at the missions are very repetitive. The idea of collect X of something or protect this village gets old. If someone is further in i'd be curious if there are some epic long missions further on.
The cartoony style imo is really charming and the presentation is very well made. Also super quick loading times is always nice.
Tho only 3 civilizations seems not enough compared to the wide variety of of civilizations in the previous games (which were really good). Ouu and btw i've heard that the 3rd civilization woukd be the Norse. I think Romans would make more sense but we will see.
Nice way to kill an awesome game in my opinion. The awesome Stronghold series suffered the same fate when they created Stronghold Kingdoms. An online version of the game in the format simiar to Farmville.
On May 14 2011 17:39 Soier wrote: Where do i get a open beta key, cant find any
You don't need a key, just go on the website and follow the download instructions and you get in. At least this was true around a week ago when I signed up.
To everyone else that is bashing on this game before playing it, don't be so judgemental. The game is not "Farmville" (although I suppose I can't really comment seeing as I have never played farmville), the game is basically the same old AoE that we all knew and loved. The differences are how you play through "campaign missions", are now "quests" that you take on. They are exactly the same as single player missions in AoE 1 and 2 though.
The other main difference is, in previous versions of the game you could play online against other people and it would always be an even playing field as you would have the same units etc, in the same way as playing 1v1 in Starcraft. The difference now is that as you play through the missions, you unlock different parts of tech trees of your own choosing and can improve your in-game units through "gear" slots you can give them. This may put some people off, but it actually adds some depth to the single player stuff in my opinion.
PvP in the game unlocks at level 6 or 7 (which takes probably an hour or two worth of play time), and you are matched against people of around the same level as you, so don't worry about fighting Elephants when you don't have them, as it will not happen.
I am also a fan of the graphics, but that is totally subjective, some may like it, some may not, don't go saying they f*ed up the game because of the graphics. That is your opinion so don't state it as if it is a fact, especially when you haven't played the game.
All in all I think the game is looking Reasonably good. I can't help but compare the game to SC2 when I am playing it and I hate the inability to micro as much as you can in Starcraft as units don't feel as responsive somehow. There are plenty of positives however, and I still love having to manage 4 resources compared to the 2 in Starcraft.
I would just say to anyone the liked the AoE games, don't judge a book by its cover, go get in the open beta (provided you can still get in easily) and give it a try. I think you will be pleasantly suprised.
To everyone else that is bashing on this game before playing it, don't be so judgemental. The game is not "Farmville" (although I suppose I can't really comment seeing as I have never played farmville), the game is basically the same old AoE that we all knew and loved. The differences are how you play through "campaign missions", are now "quests" that you take on. They are exactly the same as single player missions in AoE 1 and 2 though.
and these quests are a waste of time with no inherent challenge nor difficulty in doing them. Its exactly like dailies in wow. why they even bothered adding these features to a perfectly acceptable game is beyond me.
Tho only 3 civilizations seems not enough compared to the wide variety of of civilizations in the previous games (which were really good). Ouu and btw i've heard that the 3rd civilization woukd be the Norse. I think Romans would make more sense but we will see
To everyone else that is bashing on this game before playing it, don't be so judgemental. The game is not "Farmville" (although I suppose I can't really comment seeing as I have never played farmville), the game is basically the same old AoE that we all knew and loved. The differences are how you play through "campaign missions", are now "quests" that you take on. They are exactly the same as single player missions in AoE 1 and 2 though.
and these quests are a waste of time with no inherent challenge nor difficulty in doing them. Its exactly like dailies in wow. why they even bothered adding these features to a perfectly acceptable game is beyond me.
What I have experienced so far, this is true. I was hoping that the game would get more difficult as you get further along(just as a campaign would), but I trust that you have played further into the game than myself. If this is the case I agree with you, the difficulty needs to be ramped up significantly.
On May 14 2011 17:39 Soier wrote: Where do i get a open beta key, cant find any
You don't need a key, just go on the website and follow the download instructions and you get in. At least this was true around a week ago when I signed up.
To everyone else that is bashing on this game before playing it, don't be so judgemental. The game is not "Farmville" (although I suppose I can't really comment seeing as I have never played farmville), the game is basically the same old AoE that we all knew and loved. The differences are how you play through "campaign missions", are now "quests" that you take on. They are exactly the same as single player missions in AoE 1 and 2 though.
The other main difference is, in previous versions of the game you could play online against other people and it would always be an even playing field as you would have the same units etc, in the same way as playing 1v1 in Starcraft. The difference now is that as you play through the missions, you unlock different parts of tech trees of your own choosing and can improve your in-game units through "gear" slots you can give them. This may put some people off, but it actually adds some depth to the single player stuff in my opinion.
PvP in the game unlocks at level 6 or 7 (which takes probably an hour or two worth of play time), and you are matched against people of around the same level as you, so don't worry about fighting Elephants when you don't have them, as it will not happen.
I am also a fan of the graphics, but that is totally subjective, some may like it, some may not, don't go saying they f*ed up the game because of the graphics. That is your opinion so don't state it as if it is a fact, especially when you haven't played the game.
All in all I think the game is looking Reasonably good. I can't help but compare the game to SC2 when I am playing it and I hate the inability to micro as much as you can in Starcraft as units don't feel as responsive somehow. There are plenty of positives however, and I still love having to manage 4 resources compared to the 2 in Starcraft.
I would just say to anyone the liked the AoE games, don't judge a book by its cover, go get in the open beta (provided you can still get in easily) and give it a try. I think you will be pleasantly suprised.
The only Downloadable content on their site is Wallpapers, atleast as far as I can see. Or am I blind?
You can't get in. They opened it up last weekend for anyone to join but now it is back to a closed beta. You'll have to keep an eye out and see if they let more keys out or anything.
Going into this game I was as worried as any other fan of AOE. I almost didn't even want to give it a chance, but I am sure glad that I did. I've been playing it non stop for the last 3 weeks. PVP feels like AOE2 with a little twist. The questing feels like a better version of a campaign, and the interaction with EVERYONE that is online is great. Does it have it's flaws? Of course, but it's only the beta and if many of us are having enough fun to play mirror matches (because there is only 1 race playable right now in beta) over and over again, along with the first AOEO tournament coming up soon at RTS-SANCTUARY, whats not to be happy or excited about?
My best advice to any people jumping to conclusions is to give it a try when it releases this fall. If you have ever liked an AOE game before, then chances are that this game will end up growing on you.
Bump in this thread because the last thread piqued my interest. If anyone is interested RTSS recently hosted an AoeO tournament, here's a link to the thread about the finals.
Well, the release date (August 16, 2011) is fast approaching. Given Gas Powered Games (the developer) recent releases I can only believe that disappointment lay in store for me. Their most recent RTS, Supreme Commander 2, was by no means a bad RTS but definitely not a one in line with Age of Empires.
This whole thing makes me want a reboot of Rise of Rome. It's encouraged me to reinstall AoE1 and 2. All I can say is, even with the now rudimentary gameplay and mechanics- Age of Empires will always trump anything that has been made after AoE 2.
Why? The atmosphere. People complain about the graphics and people flame back and forth that you shouldn't judge a game by the graphics. When it comes down to spending 85% of your budget for flashy scripted scenes that argument holds a lot of weight. When your RTS has been turned into a cartoon- then it bears a little more relevance. The original Age of Empires had this indescribable feeling of antiquity. Even the aged interface contributes.
What I'm seeing for Online is like Disney designed a ancient world theme park game. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. I would love to go back to the series that started my passion for RTS. However I'm just not that naive.
AOE:O is a fun little diversion that has little to no staying power if you are a fan of AOE. It's kinda fun to mess around in since it does have some of the AOE staple game play but it just seems like a simplistic iOS version of it. Like the poster above says, the timeless classic AoE's (1 and 2) was all about epic scale and historical depth / atmosphere, so making a simplistic cartoony version is quite simply a flawed idea imo. I guess their focus for the game was indeed a more social type game, so maybe it fits what they want, but i dunno i find it hard to swallow.
The best thing playing AOE:O did was make me reinstall AOE2 which made me realize just how amazing and ageless that game really is.
That's exactly what I've done Reinstal.. Okay I'm lying. I always keep Age of Empire 1 and 2 installed. I have 2 terabytes of internal storage. I can afford to keep nostalgia games installed. Especially when they're 600 megabytes
A blog compared Age of Empires to Brood War and I turned it back on. After a thrilling 2 hour shitfest between myself and 7 other easy AIs (Look I forgot how to play it's been a while and i've gotten really really lazy from SC2!) it made me google AoE:O.
And here I am, in complete agreement of what you posted. Hopefully someone out there likes the idea of AoE:O and shows up to support it.
I played in the beta. And AoEo felt like a copy of AoE2.
They have plans to continue to add races as the game continues so its not just Eyptians vs Greeks.
Also the cartoony graphics makes no difference, Remember your villagers carrying meat in AoE? They where bigger in that game then in this one. Yes im saying that watching villagers gather resources in this game is just as fun as in Rise of Rome.
Plus they buffed archers and monks My favorite units ^_^ So... The game is free, give it a chance.
... what a bunch of retards. What has a game to do with the graphics? People still play sc1 ffs. Most retarded graphics ever but game is awesome. + i think this style will last more because graphics trends come and go quickly. While thi style of graphics will still be playable after years. Lets hope gameplay is cool
On August 10 2011 15:56 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: I dunno, every time this thread gets bumped I die a little inside :/
I miss aoe2 to, played some on voobly a year ago... not many good ppl left.
what the hell are you talking about. Voobly is full of experts and are extremly active, currently World Clan League is running with 7.5k in prizes, More than 65 clans signed up to this tournament , 3 other clan leagues are active (RTS-League, AoC Liga, LMA-League), More than 2k people online in Voobly at the same time, AND LOTS OF FUN.
I played the closed beta for like 30 minutes and stopped because of the very counter-intuitive interface. Sad to see that it's hardly different at all.
On August 10 2011 15:13 MiB wrote: I played in the beta. And AoEo felt like a copy of AoE2.
They have plans to continue to add races as the game continues so its not just Eyptians vs Greeks.
Also the cartoony graphics makes no difference, Remember your villagers carrying meat in AoE? They where bigger in that game then in this one. Yes im saying that watching villagers gather resources in this game is just as fun as in Rise of Rome.
Plus they buffed archers and monks My favorite units ^_^ So... The game is free, give it a chance.
Like all games of this micro transaction style, this game is FAR from free if you want to play more than a small part of it.
not worth the title rts, way too much campain and mmorpg elements to make it a normal rts. cant even play 1v1s without the equipment you gained in the campain
I can't actually get it to work even. Impossible to actually get past the launcher. I wasn't all that excited about it in the first place, but like this I won't even bother.
On August 16 2011 19:31 Derez wrote: I can't actually get it to work even. Impossible to actually get past the launcher. I wasn't all that excited about it in the first place, but like this I won't even bother.
Same i hate working with windows live, asking for cd key and stuff that i dunno where to look for
...it makes you play single player until you are level 5...aprox 1 hour into the game... you probably SHOULD play single player for atleast an hour either way to understand what you are doing...Game is great all haters need to actually try it before judging..
GFWL is just god aweful, going to stay away from this game from what people are saying in this thread. I don't like the micro-transaction system very much.
Urgh - tried installing but I've already gone through like 10 steps without getting the game to work. It asks for a serial key and redirects me to the windows live marketplace, but the only option I get there is to download the game (again?).
And it's asking me for a billing address even though the game is free? What the hell.
On August 16 2011 20:47 MyThRiLL wrote: ...it makes you play single player until you are level 5...aprox 1 hour into the game... you probably SHOULD play single player for atleast an hour either way to understand what you are doing...Game is great all haters need to actually try it before judging..
...to play some lame 1v1 where you can only get to like tier 2 and use a couple units, all messed up by "gear" you get in single player.
Maybe someone can help me. Whenever I try to sign into the game it's asking me for a product key. I downloaded the game off their website "free to play" page. Where do I get a product key from?? O_o
I can't be positive about this; but if you have an account under them, make sure the product is on the email/account that you use so it doesn't ask you for a product key. Honestly, I'm not sure how that works, but I know this is the problem seeing as I have two accounts with them. Probably have to do it through Windows games live first.
Free: You will be able to use common and uncommon gear. (You’ll be able to pick up rare and epic gear, but you're unable to equip it—you will be able to sell or trade it, though.)
The key thing here is that people who buy our Premium Civilization Pack don’t get a free get-out-of-jail card. All players still have to level up, earn the gear, and so on. You don’t just automatically buy your way to the top. In fact, I am seeing better players, who are playing with only free stuff, kick my rear, even though I am loaded with gear. So, it’s pretty balanced and we’ll continue to refine that balance up to launch.
Nice contradiction there. They're justifying paying for access to the most powerful gear, by saying, it's possible to play without it, while conveniently omitting the fact that to get that power, you must as a first-step, pay for it. Absurd.
Confirmed: the game is pretty fun! I've not read anything about it but I just wasted 45 mins playing around. Worth a download if you're bored, no idea about depth.
I had no idea about this game until about 10 minutes ago so forgive me for any ignorance I display. I played AoE II a very long time ago and loved it very much - I was young so it was just skirmishes against the computer but it was a lot of fun. I can't speak for the rest of the games in the series but is AoE Online similar enough to AoE II that I might enjoy it? I don't particularly mind the graphics in the trailer (reminds me of civilization revolution which I thought was OK). Thanks for any help I can get from people who are playing this.
The graphics are awesome and the game is pretty fun. The F2P isn't completely bullshit because a one-time buy of $20 gives you all the tools you need to be competitive with one civ (you still have to grind out the single player to make use of these tools though, like the F2P players). Plus, F2P guys can't play against the paid guys anyway. I get the feeling this is not really aiming for the competitive RTS market.
It does suck that each civ requires a separate purchase though. The rest of the DLC is cosmetic nonsense and some alternate game modes.
What pisses me off more than the F2P though is the numerous really simple tutorial type missions you have to do along the way to building up your home city.
Yeah, some of the campaign missions are really monotonous. Funnily enough on the other hand the challenge missions can be really fun and hard, probably some of the hardest singleplayer RTS missions ever done.
Do the campaign missions get harder later on? (as in: challenging for a starcraft player). I played the game during beta and the mix of the old aoe feeling combined with diablo style loot hunt was decently fun, but eventually i stopped playing because the missions were way too easy(i played the game maybe 4 or 5 hours)
man i thought this was legitimately free but now i hear something about only getting 40 hours of free game time and then the game pretty much forces you to pay to continue......what a letdown.
On August 17 2011 08:14 heishe wrote: Do the campaign missions get harder later on? (as in: challenging for a starcraft player). I played the game during beta and the mix of the old aoe feeling combined with diablo style loot hunt was decently fun, but eventually i stopped playing because the missions were way too easy(i played the game maybe 4 or 5 hours)
I thought some of the challenge missions were harder than any of the SC2 challenge maps. That being said, the majority of it is very easy, especially if you're exploiting your civilisations tech tree/items properly.
On August 10 2011 15:56 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: I dunno, every time this thread gets bumped I die a little inside :/
I miss aoe2 to, played some on voobly a year ago... not many good ppl left.
what the hell are you talking about. Voobly is full of experts and are extremly active, currently World Clan League is running with 7.5k in prizes, More than 65 clans signed up to this tournament , 3 other clan leagues are active (RTS-League, AoC Liga, LMA-League), More than 2k people online in Voobly at the same time, AND LOTS OF FUN.
This game sure gets a lot of flak. It's forty hours of campaign. Two races you can play and more coming. When you buy premium it let's you use certain gear and other things as well as some other vanity things.
The graphics aren't bad it just had a light-hearted cartoon style that's refreshing.
It plays somewhat like age of empires 2 and no you don't have to pay to pvp. No you won't be at a big disadvantage in gear. Probably in levels since the game has barely been up for a day but the game really seems to be bashed just because it's a freemium and does not look like the original age of empires games.
The game makes you work towards things if you are playing for free. The only big complaint I have is the amount of rage people are puttin towards the game in and outside of it. Its ridiculous... By alleans it's not the greatest game but its certainly far from being terrible. Fermium games never really had the greatest crowd.
Well said Zhou. I think the graphics look great, especially the animations. So many people bashing because it's not as high fidelity as AoE3... I would play this any day of the week over AoE3.
So how free to play is this exactly? I could care less about being competitive really, because free campaign sounds fun to play through regardless. However, if half the game is missing I'd rather not waste my time as I have no interest in paying $20 to unlock a civilization ^_^
I wouldn't say half the game is missing. You'll really only be missing out vanities. They aren't trying very hard to break the game.
I would say the campaigns are probably very similar, but they play very differently, and you're still able to play against other people. The only thing it's missing is more civilizations, and games larger than 2v2s. Hence, it being freemium and meant to be built up over time dependent on its community.
I will say that if you're not new to RTS, the first couple of missions will probably be boring. But what campaign's aren't?
Calling this a f2p game is like calling sc2 a f2p game cus it has the starter edition. It's a scam. Rise of rome is what got me into rts and gaming in general so im very dissapoint.
I'd personally go as far as saying the game is unplayable without spending money.. it really isn't free to play at all. In the first few quests they throw items at you that you need to purchase extras to use. Then, is it even possible to PvP without being a member? Once you unlock the arena to place in your city it then pops up once more saying you must purchase this feature (or content).
I didn't have high expectations upon downloading the game, after playing it I believed I was totally wrong, it was a fun RTS (as good as it could be (so it seemed) with the difference to the original AOE games).
Then the content kicks in, and it just killed it for me. $20 per civ is just.. over the top. No one should pay that money, and with that in mind I don't think this game will last too long without becoming completely free to play. However, if it did go free to play.. I think it would be an awesome game to pass spare time.
Still waiting on another RTS to play for when I'm tilting on Starcraft
Basically it has a free limited mode, but you have to pay to access all of it. What this means is it's free mode sucks, but it's not that expensive to by the whole thing out right. By comparison the - the LoL model - you can slowly but surely unlock everything through grinding, but to buy everything outright costs a fortune. Personally I much prefer the AoEO model.
It's just depressing that they make an rts game where you cant just get on it and play pvp or a skirmish. Even if you pay you have to like, play tons of hours just to unlock the units in the game, and then you have to worry about bullshit gear and tech trees. Its an assault on the good name of RTS!! It's a shame because the game has a good base and classic rts fundamentals.
i a late generation age of empires fan I first got age of empires 3, never played 1 or 2, i was really excited for both expansions, still sayin its the best game ive ever played, above sc2 in terms of un with my friends lol and im really excited about age of empires online because i also like mmo games.
On August 17 2011 12:46 Luepert wrote: i a late generation age of empires fan I first got age of empires 3, never played 1 or 2, i was really excited for both expansions, still sayin its the best game ive ever played, above sc2 in terms of un with my friends lol and im really excited about age of empires online because i also like mmo games.
age of empires the conquerors expansion is the best AoE ever. ^^
So is anyone enjoying this game as free to play? or does it totally suck unless you spend $ as people are saying? I DLed it but am hesitant to play it since what people are saying..... T_T
as it seems they are targeting (or expanding or perhaps you could say "strengthening") their demographic towards younger audiences, it seems like it will turn out poorly as younger people (who don't have money and will have trouble getting their parents to pay for them) don't pay much in these kinds of games
miss the old art style, this one isn't too bad at least the graphics are fine but i prefer the other style (AoE/AoM, more realistic)
I liked the game but the beginning is super boooooooooooooooooooooring. It's way too easy, it feels like you're just waiting on a 10 minute timer until you have built everything/waited for your units to kill stuff.
It's technically free to play, but gear makes a gigantic difference and you can't use any of the good gear unless you pay money. You're limited to green (uncommon) gear with the free version, whereas playing players get blue (rare) and purple (epic) gear.
I played the beta, and the kind of stat difference between gear goes something like: Green - 50% extra health Blue - 60% extra health, 10% extra damage Purple - 70% extra health, 15% extra damage, 5% bonus critical rate
Now throw in that most units can use 2-4 pieces of gear. You simply can't be competitive at high levels if you don't pay money.
Hah this game is so gay, played a 2v2 am lvl 6 and my mate as well. Were matched up vs a lvl 6 and a lvl 16!!! That also had paid for the game, i have 2 ages and 3 kinds of military units slingshot, pikeman thingy and a worthless camel. Get to his base maxed after no time macroed like crazy and see units that are way ahead of any technology I can even have as lvl 6 only gives you just about nothing and a FORTRESS! How the FUCK am I gonna kill a fortress without even a siegeunit available?
Last time I play that game, outmacroed outmicroed outmanaged the opponent yet it is impossible to win. How fucking stupid is that!
Well, I have been playing this for 2 days and here is my thoughts. It is 70% free to play - you can complete a lengthy campaign and unlock all the core units and technologies. But every time you see something where you go "oh this is kinda cool" - the game pops up a window to tell you it is only for premium customers. I would be fine if it was only the high-level items that were premium, but there are also a ton of units that are not available in the free edition.
You can't really play any real PvP until you have put a lot of hours in single player. I tried 1 game when I was level 7 and a guy just destroyed me with horses, when I had not upgraded that tech. And after seeing this game's matchmaking system, you will get a new perspective on how awesome the Blizzard ladder is.
Basically you get to play almost all of the single player content, but it feels like it is a giant demo version.
I've played this game a bit and the old adage of "don't sell power" comes back here and bites players in the butt. Every time you go up against a paying player, and you will, you just feel like the game is unfair and stupid. So, yeah, if you want to have fun pay for it; free to play is just a mostly frustrating experience if you're even a bit competitive.
having to grind to unlock everything is the most annoying part. Between campaign unlocks and leveling up to unlock stuff (especially ages) this game becomes extremely repetitive.
If you want to play Age of Empires you should just play the second one it seems
On August 18 2011 04:11 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: having to grind to unlock everything is the most annoying part. Between campaign unlocks and leveling up to unlock stuff (especially ages) this game becomes extremely repetitive.
If you want to play Age of Empires you should just play the second one it seems
Nah man, if you want to play Age of Empires you should just play Galactic Battlegrounds :D
I thought it was pretty fun, although this is definitely not a game for super competitive players, especially if you want to keep it free-to-play.
The ability to co-op through missions is cool, tech trees and gear etc adds a fairly exciting, albeit grindy, feel to single player / co-op play, and the fact that missions can be 'sort of' challenging without being TOO demanding makes it a decent game to relax and pass time while chatting with your buddies on ts or whatever.
Interface isn't too great, especially for a hardcore RTS players, I don't think you can even save control groups? but the gameplay is pretty smooth and graphics are decent (think TeamFortress 2 - really similar style and feel).
My biggest gripe with the game was that playing it without paying does limit your options quite a bit, storage space can be a bit of an issue, you're going to miss out on some units and a lot of high-end upgrades, and overall it really kinda feels like a demo version rather than an free to play with optional pay to play bonuses. I would be ok with it, but the prices are RIDICULOUS - they charge you 20$ for unlocking one civilization, to unlock all of the 'season 1' content (currently available 2 civilizations, some extra melee game mode, and another upcoming civilization), it's 80$.
I may end up paying for one civ because I did enjoy the game, but I do hate their pricings and marketing model.
You can of course save control groups, in the same way as any other rts. I wish you could do things like stop and hold ground, which im not quite sure you can do.
On August 18 2011 04:11 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: having to grind to unlock everything is the most annoying part. Between campaign unlocks and leveling up to unlock stuff (especially ages) this game becomes extremely repetitive.
If you want to play Age of Empires you should just play the second one it seems
Nah man, if you want to play Age of Empires you should just play Galactic Battlegrounds :D
Oh man, galactic battlegrounds <3 But I'd say play Age of Mythology instead
I was about to bite, I won't lie. I came so very near to typing in the website and from there I would have bought up everything, grinded like a fiend and been the best uber noob on the server. That is, until I read the post above. In one brief instant my entire interest was driven away.
On August 18 2011 08:43 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote: the prices are RIDICULOUS - they charge you 20$ for unlocking one civilization, to unlock all of the 'season 1' content (currently available 2 civilizations, some extra melee game mode, and another upcoming civilization), it's 80$.
$40 reasonable. $50 okay I'll do it. $60 what the fuck is this an xbox game? $80 for ONE season of stuff? Get the fuck out.
I'd love to read a post by someone who paid for everything and told me its worth it. Even though there would be few ways it could persuade me to buy, I'm perversely interested in knowing why a game that costs 30 dollars over a regular RTS is an improvement on the ones I already own.
On August 17 2011 12:21 AndyJay wrote: Basically it has a free limited mode, but you have to pay to access all of it. What this means is it's free mode sucks, but it's not that expensive to by the whole thing out right. By comparison the - the LoL model - you can slowly but surely unlock everything through grinding, but to buy everything outright costs a fortune. Personally I much prefer the AoEO model.
were you do not stand a chance unless you pay everything?
in lol you can at least be even with the guys that have everything ( as far as i know)
pay if you want but if you don't pay you don't auto loose
imagine starting with this age over sic months how much money will it be to play a f2p game?
after seeing the prices i wont even try to get my windows working again and y i was planning on doing it for mostly this
On August 17 2011 12:21 AndyJay wrote: Basically it has a free limited mode, but you have to pay to access all of it. What this means is it's free mode sucks, but it's not that expensive to by the whole thing out right. By comparison the - the LoL model - you can slowly but surely unlock everything through grinding, but to buy everything outright costs a fortune. Personally I much prefer the AoEO model.
were you do not stand a chance unless you pay everything?
in lol you can at least be even with the guys that have everything ( as far as i know)
pay if you want but if you don't pay you don't auto loose
imagine starting with this age over sic months how much money will it be to play a f2p game?
after seeing the prices i wont even try to get my windows working again and y i was planning on doing it for mostly this
Not correct
The people who can pay a shit ton will buy all the best equipment (runes) for their champions. Even though if you compare the numbers, it's only a little higher, that amount in a game like LoL is very very huge.
it seem like, as they present new content (like defeating waves of enemies and earning points maps) the items presented with those content will be better too. even now items you can get with sparta points are a bit weaker then those of crete.
On August 17 2011 12:21 AndyJay wrote: Basically it has a free limited mode, but you have to pay to access all of it. What this means is it's free mode sucks, but it's not that expensive to by the whole thing out right. By comparison the - the LoL model - you can slowly but surely unlock everything through grinding, but to buy everything outright costs a fortune. Personally I much prefer the AoEO model.
were you do not stand a chance unless you pay everything?
in lol you can at least be even with the guys that have everything ( as far as i know)
pay if you want but if you don't pay you don't auto loose
imagine starting with this age over sic months how much money will it be to play a f2p game?
after seeing the prices i wont even try to get my windows working again and y i was planning on doing it for mostly this
Not correct
The people who can pay a shit ton will buy all the best equipment (runes) for their champions. Even though if you compare the numbers, it's only a little higher, that amount in a game like LoL is very very huge.
You can't even buy runes with Riot Points, and there's absolutely no advantage to paying for the game besides time saving. The tournament realm has everything unlocked as well so ^_^
Game is good and fun. But whitout premium civ , you CANT even play ranked PvP battles , only unranked , premium items are to good vs non premium etc So its free to play but pay to win .. simple..
Worst game i have ever played. Seriously horrible lag, took a full day to download had to re-install 3 times it was stuck on artbar patch. Then to have horrible horrible lag all day long. Disgusting. AOE2 and mythology were awesome. This is a fucking joke
It's as if the devs did not know about the existence of LoL and other f2p games that are doing it right... No free ranked PvP? What's the point in playing?
That being said, i'm just using this to waste time in single player for a while. Good for maybe 5 or 6 hours b4 you get bored.
well, I'm glad I read the last page... if it only gets worse after grinding out your units (which is the worst thing ever anyway) unless you pay, I'm done with this game.
On August 18 2011 16:05 Nazza wrote: It's as if the devs did not know about the existence of LoL and other f2p games that are doing it right... No free ranked PvP? What's the point in playing?
That being said, i'm just using this to waste time in single player for a while. Good for maybe 5 or 6 hours b4 you get bored.
Don't you have to play for like 3 months before you get Ranked PvP in LoL? They just need to implement a time commitment reward system like that. The F2P model is so simple to understand. You make everything essential to the game available to all players and have it easily available to buy with $$.
You cannot say like "Pay for X" unless X is aesthetic and doesn't give an advantage in gameplay. So charging for units, ranked PvP, etc, is just going to fail.
On August 18 2011 16:05 Nazza wrote: It's as if the devs did not know about the existence of LoL and other f2p games that are doing it right... No free ranked PvP? What's the point in playing?
That being said, i'm just using this to waste time in single player for a while. Good for maybe 5 or 6 hours b4 you get bored.
Don't you have to play for like 3 months before you get Ranked PvP in LoL? They just need to implement a time commitment reward system like that. The F2P model is so simple to understand. You make everything essential to the game available to all players and have it easily available to buy with $$.
You cannot say like "Pay for X" unless X is aesthetic and doesn't give an advantage in gameplay. So charging for units, ranked PvP, etc, is just going to fail.
You must reach level 30 to play ranked which is about 300 games at 30-40 min average. How long that takes you is more on the player than anything. A large portion of players don't even bother playing ranked anyways. All it does is track stats and give you a non-hidden elo rating. It's just another ladder at the end of the day that really doesn't matter.
I don't see why people are so caught up in not having "ranked" PvP in the first place. Since you can only do un-ranked PvP without paying for the game it's where everybody is going to be playing. Ranked is just a separate ladder with a fancy name that makes you want to play on it. It also provides a degree of separation between pay to win people and free to players assuming the people who paid for the game stay off the un-ranked ladder (which is doubtful).
On August 18 2011 16:05 Nazza wrote: It's as if the devs did not know about the existence of LoL and other f2p games that are doing it right... No free ranked PvP? What's the point in playing?
That being said, i'm just using this to waste time in single player for a while. Good for maybe 5 or 6 hours b4 you get bored.
Don't you have to play for like 3 months before you get Ranked PvP in LoL? They just need to implement a time commitment reward system like that. The F2P model is so simple to understand. You make everything essential to the game available to all players and have it easily available to buy with $$.
You cannot say like "Pay for X" unless X is aesthetic and doesn't give an advantage in gameplay. So charging for units, ranked PvP, etc, is just going to fail.
You must reach level 30 to play ranked which is about 300 games at 30-40 min average. How long that takes you is more on the player than anything. A large portion of players don't even bother playing ranked anyways. All it does is track stats and give you a non-hidden elo rating. It's just another ladder at the end of the day that really doesn't matter.
I don't see why people are so caught up in not having "ranked" PvP in the first place. Since you can only do un-ranked PvP without paying for the game it's where everybody is going to be playing. Ranked is just a separate ladder with a fancy name that makes you want to play on it. It also provides a degree of separation between pay to win people and free to players assuming the people who paid for the game stay off the un-ranked ladder (which is doubtful).
Well, I know SC2 would be pretty boring if Grandmaster players ended up playing against Bronze players even 1 out of 10 games. That's my only fear in playing in unranked matches is getting matched up against people of higher or lower ELO.
On August 18 2011 09:32 Derez wrote: This game isn't free to play at all. You get the tutorial for free, and after that you have to pay up or you're absolutely screwed.
There is not a single truthful word in that post you just made.
Looks awfully addictive... Age of Empires was the first game that I managed to *gasp* install by myself... (I was 5 years old at that time and knew what "continue" meant lol, thinking back, thats kinda awesome) Looks fun too, though I think that I will just play AoE 2 over gameranger if I want to play that kind of RTS..
On August 18 2011 09:32 Derez wrote: This game isn't free to play at all. You get the tutorial for free, and after that you have to pay up or you're absolutely screwed.
There is not a single truthful word in that post you just made.
Just tried this game today, got to level 6 so that I could play online. The single player up to that point was mostly just tutorial-type quests which were entertaining enough for me to keep playing. I queued up for a pvp match and I go against an opponent who has ends up at my base with about 30 units to my 10... It doesn't help that I could only build 3 fighting units either. I won't be playing this game anymore, not worth the time and definitely not worth the money to purchase imo.
So can you put into the first post what you actually get when you play for free and what you can buy?? I'm awfully confused about this premium content stuff, civilizations, arena, this special offer where you get bonus content but only for a limited time (??)...
On August 22 2011 23:52 AntiGrav1ty wrote: So can you put into the first post what you actually get when you play for free and what you can buy?? I'm awfully confused about this premium content stuff, civilizations, arena, this special offer where you get bonus content but only for a limited time (??)...
I'd like some clarification too.
I read at places you HAVE TO pay to get something decent, someone else says everything is available if you put enough time for free. Some says buying makes PvP unbalanced and shitty some say it doesn't this really is confusing Oo
On August 22 2011 23:52 AntiGrav1ty wrote: So can you put into the first post what you actually get when you play for free and what you can buy?? I'm awfully confused about this premium content stuff, civilizations, arena, this special offer where you get bonus content but only for a limited time (??)...
I'd like some clarification too.
I read at places you HAVE TO pay to get something decent, someone else says everything is available if you put enough time for free. Some says buying makes PvP unbalanced and shitty some say it doesn't this really is confusing Oo
Well, here are the things that you must purchase one premium civilization to have access to:
- Most items are common or uncommon (green). There are rare and I guess epic items (blue and purple). If you want to use the rare and epic items, which give your units substantial upgrades you need to purchase that premium civilization.
- There is also a producible unit called an adviser. The advisers can afford you unique units or very nice economic upgrades (ex. +10% worker gathering rate, +10% caravan speed, etc). This is only available to you if you purchase a premium civilization.
- Ranked PvP is only available if you purchase premium civilization.
- The highest tier technology upgrades are only available once you purchase premium civilizations.
- Several buildings for buying items are only available for the premium civilizations. I believe you cannot have more than two warehouses if you did not pay for the premium civilizations.
So if you want to just play for free you get:
- Green items (you can pick up blue and purple items, but you cannot use), unranked PvP, up until the last tier of technology, which includes all units (except the adviser units/unique units).
Additionally, you can buy:
- Booster packs that include extra maps for you to play multiplayer. I believe Skirmish Mode, a Firefight (defend base) like map, and another similar map.
- Fancy doodads for your town or whatever.
If you were to play against someone in PvP of equal level as a non-premium civilization and they have premium, you must outplay them pretty heavily to win the game. But, technically there is no tech advantage (just an item advantage giving most units +10% more health/damage/armor) until you get to the max levels.
That said, you do get to play through as many quests as you can I believe. Many of the quests will reward you with items you cannot use until you pay.
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.
As the USA representative to the first two WCG for Age of Empires The Conquerors, I am just glad to see that the game is alive in some shape or form these days . It brought back a lot of memories just seeing the name.
I've been playing this game a bit. It seems okay. It definitely feels like Age of Empires, but I just don't know if I like it enough to pay up. I do like the graphical style though. It looks fresh and the cartoony look is nice after seeing so many games going for realism these days.
What this has caused to do however, is go back and play AoE2 (I still have the giant box from the late 90s. My grandpa bought me the game because he thought it looked educational). Man that game is fun. It feels easy compared to SC but I find the variety of civilizations kinda refreshing. Plus the campaign is fun. La Hire is a badass.
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 $20 imo. If you just want to play through the campaign you could probably get away with not playing at all even.
My only complaint is the matchmaking where it just throws you versus the first person that wants to play. I've beaten every person I'm higher level than and lost to everybody I'm lower than and none of the games have been close (granted, I've only played 4 games in the arena). If you reach level 40 this becomes a non-issue, but it takes forever to grind all the way up there.
On August 25 2011 04:32 rezoacken wrote: Thank you and I finally tested it to get an idea. Felt the game was good but the system makes me really sad.
This kinda suck that they didn't use a system like LoL...
LoL economic system is genius in my opinion, the fact that the game is fun and free and everyone has its chances ensure them to have a ever growing customer base through word of mouth. They then add premium options for those that are interested and therefore ensure them to get a % of their customers to pay fees. The amount of money increases as the free customer base increases.
Here if paying creates imbalance I don't see why free user will be interested for a long time in the game and word of mouth of the game due to this is really meh if you look around. I'm no prophet but I THINK the game will not live to be something as big as LoL and quickly shrink to a dedicated paying player base.
Basicaly if you want the full game you pay, which I'm fine with it. I would have paid a premium pass 40$ 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.
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.
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."
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. :<
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
Comparison to LoL is relevant. They're clearly borrowing ideas from popular games like LoL, WoW, etc. And the grind to level 30 was pretty horrible. Mainly because its probably 10x longer than the grind to 40 in AoEO -- and unlike AoEO, you don't have the potential to roll random teammates who lose you the game and slow down your leveling.
It's really easy to say LoL can do anything it wants because it's a MOBA, but you're speaking from the perspective of now knowing LoL is massively popular after the MASSIVE, more RPG oriented directions it took from DotA. DotA didn't have any reason to have you level-up, spend skill points or buy upgrades for yourself either. I didn't get the chance to play LoL when it first came around. I'm sure DotA/HoN players bitched about having to level up and buy items for your acc to compete. Now LoL blows them both out of the water by appealing to a broader audience. AoEO took the same risk, threw a knife in the dark, and I guess it failed.
I really tried to play this. I really did. But I just can't.
I don't mean I don't like the game, I mean I can't get past the fucking firewall that is games for windows live. I've been wrestling with it for a half hour and I cannot make it fucking work, I give up. Uninstalled.
On April 12 2012 12:33 UniversalSnip wrote: I really tried to play this. I really did. But I just can't.
I don't mean I don't like the game, I mean I can't get past the fucking firewall that is games for windows live. I've been wrestling with it for a half hour and I cannot make it fucking work, I give up. Uninstalled.
Exactly the same experience. Tried to install it through steam because I assumed it would circumvent the need for windows live. Apparently it just makes it worse, stuck asking for a CD key that I dont have, and the GFWL doesn't have a download link for my game. And it fails to add the game or CD key or anything. Soooo terrible.
I've been playing this a little today and it's pretty fun, now that they fixed the stupid problems with actually logging in. I was like.. should I play some sc2 ladder??? No... too intense, I just want some casual easy stuff to play - so I browsed through my steam library and I saw it and wondered if they'd fixed the problems. They have and it's a simple easy fun game to play if anyone if you are looking for a casual game
Came here looking to start a chat about strategy with other TLers, looks like most people haven't even gotten past the CDkey aspect yet, or gave up way before even playing. Pity.
If anyone's playing this, You can add DeCiBleZerg. I'd really like to discuss openings and strategy.
Rolled Celts because i felt they'd be most-zerg-y, and i'm pretty happy, but i'm curious as to what i can do to just solidify my game. As it stands I'm making constant workers to around 15-20, have 10ish+ in food and the rest in wood. Build rax as I can afford them, houses and tech to tier 2 while making constant spearmen and suiciding them at my enemy to take out workers... worked suprisingly well last night...
once at tier 2 I just keep building up and trying to take the whole map while keeping pressure on my enemy... everything else is up in the air past that. Not sure how deep the strategy goes for this, but that's as far as I've gotten. Hopefully with some other SC2 minds in the mix, we can come up with some scary builds.
As it stands I'm making constant workers to around 15-20
You need about 80-120 villagers depending on map size.
The introduction of ranked play is nice, but this game scared off every single AoE player that I know because pre-ranked it was basically pay-to-win. I wouldn't expect too much real competition. Game is fun for shits and giggles, but not for serious strategy.
You should be getting tier 2 as fast as possible while being safe so that you can build more TCs to get a stronger economy, economic advantage in AoE snowballs a lot harder than it does in starcraft because of the lack of micro-dependant units until tier 3. Also, static defense is extremely strong, think BW zerg. Building towers in your villager lines and proper sim city will go a long way.
For villager placement, you should only have enough on food to support your current/immediate future production. Make sure you make good use of the early animals and and berries (animals are better).
really? I hear from the community that static D is garbage. Also, you can't build more TCs until tier 3 i thought...
i know that towers might be marginally strong, but the dps per cost is garbage, especially vs cheap throwaway units...
and yeah, i play it mainly as a low-key alternative to SC2. Not expecting SUUUPER deep strategy, but it would be nice to know i'm not doing anything horribly wrong.
how fast is fast tier 2? like... only cut workers to tier up after 20? or before?
@Bart 331 - ironically some would say the same about SC2... those who played the single player...
because the town center doesn't auto-kill everything in it's sight, and there's no such thing as a FE in this game, and how durable spearmen are early on, and how not-durable workers are, and how cheap spearmen are.... and the fact that they can only make workers as fast as you can.... get where i'm going with this? no? me either... But there's ways to get huge economic advantages early on, as well as punish greedy players... so.. it's safe to assume that if you look hard enough you can find the same essentials that SC2 has... the one big issue i have is the huge disproportionate cost to unit strength between tier 2 and 3. Makes me worry about tech rushes. Tier 3 units DEMOLISH tier 2, and cost about the same. SO.... yeah... the trouble again, is holding out until tier 3, much like it in in SC2, as a zerg i can't just rush to hive because someone will just come in and kill me.
about the needing CD key: you have to register with Windows games, and click "buy game" in the library where AoEO is. This will prompt a download and give you the CD key, if you already have the game installed, just skip the download and grab the CD key. It's stupid, but that's how i got it done.
going fast age3 is not viable at all, anyone slightly decent will just rush you if you try to go age3. Creating an advantage in this game is done by macroing more efficiently in combination with good scouting and using opportunities if you see them.
SOLUTION: “Missing a valid product key” / “Enter your Product Key” *4/16/12 UPDATE 2: We believe we have found a sollution for the issue mentioned in today's earlier update shown below. If you have had issue with missing a valid product key please attempt to downoad and sign into your game again. If this does not work please post to this thread so we can continue to troubleshoot the issue. Thank you. *4/16/12 UPDATE: there is currently an issue that is preventing new players from downloading and activating the game. We are aware of this issue and we are working on a solution now. We apologize for any inconvenience. If you are having the “Missing a valid product key” / “Enter your Product Key” or “Can’t Sign in because your product Key is not Valid. Please Enter a Valid Product Key” errors that look like this. We have a solution:
To find and enter the LIVE access code: Exit Age of Empires Online Go to start --> Programs --> Microsoft Games for Windows Marketplace Client and launch the GFWL Marketplace Client. Sign into the marketplace client with your LIVE username / pass (Same as you use to sign into the game). The sign in page will look like this.
Navigate to the Download Tab Select “Age of Empires Online” Click “View Game Keys” Write down the LIVE access code. This process will look like this. Launch Age of Empires Online and, when you receive the error simply press “Try Again” and enter the LIVE access code in the space required.
You need to go to the marathon server where all the activity is, then go to the sparta region and make sure to play champion mode. I know it sounds retarded
I finally got this to work by uninstalling everything and installing through steam, that seems to work like a charm. Champion PvP seems awesome but considering it's behind a convoluted paywall where I have to pay 4 times €10 to try all the races, and the UI is really childish (I don't want to travel to a town to play 1v1), I don't think I'll be playing it very much. It's a shame because I put a lot of time into Age of Empires 2 and Age of Mythology.
On May 06 2012 02:23 Silencioseu wrote: it was a whole pain in the ass to install this game and when i finally did i couldnt play any pvp cuz i dont know why
Because you must hit some cyvilization level to play PvP , you cant play PvP from begining.
On May 06 2012 02:23 Silencioseu wrote: it was a whole pain in the ass to install this game and when i finally did i couldnt play any pvp cuz i dont know why
you will have to do some missions against the computer. <,< The computer is so bad xD
On May 06 2012 02:23 Silencioseu wrote: it was a whole pain in the ass to install this game and when i finally did i couldnt play any pvp cuz i dont know why
you will have to do some missions against the computer. <,< The computer is so bad xD
You must pay for a dlc pack to be able to PvP anyone
On May 06 2012 02:23 Silencioseu wrote: it was a whole pain in the ass to install this game and when i finally did i couldnt play any pvp cuz i dont know why
you will have to do some missions against the computer. <,< The computer is so bad xD
You must pay for a dlc pack to be able to PvP anyone
what the hell? Since when? I remember playing this waaaaaay back but then you didn't need to pay for anything like that :s
All you need is $10... which is not a lot of money. You can try all the races for free, but you can only do unranked matches which apply the RPG buffs you earn in the single player... which means you can pay to win.
The real joy is champion mode where everything is unlocked, and the RPG elements are set-aside. You need to buy a civilization to do this, which (like I said) is only $10. So far my experiences have been pretty fun. Just make sure you TRY out a race before you buy it. I started with the greeks before moving to the celts, and I'm really glad i made the switch because I just couldn't get a good feel for the greeks.
When I tried the game through Steam I did not have any problems. I assume GFWL is still primarily being used, since you have to log in with a GFWL account, but someone else may have more insight. I played for a few hours, but wasn't sure how to feel about the game.
On May 11 2012 09:03 Panzamelano wrote: Does anyone know if the Steam version still requires games for windows live? or if atleast the steam version isnt as problematic as the default one?.
It still requires GFWL, I didn't have to reinstall GFWL but I doubt it's any different
On June 19 2012 14:04 HackBenjamin wrote: Can you not purchase a premium civilization with Empire Points now?
Hello, this is kedinik, a member of the AoE:O balance team. Several of us will be using this account to interact with you guys. We're often pretty busy with balance/design work, but we'll try to answer questions when possible. Primarily, we can provide insight into questions regarding game design and PvP.
Empire Points can be used to purchase civs, PvE gear and consumables, etc., but we have a (high-priority) bug where GFWL cannot be used to purchase Empire Points.
However, players can still purchase EP through the Steam store; any AoE:O player can install and launch the game through Steam, log in with the same GFWL account they have been using, buy EP on Steam, and use the EP to unlock whatever they like.
On June 19 2012 14:04 HackBenjamin wrote: Can you not purchase a premium civilization with Empire Points now?
Hello, this is kedinik, a member of the AoE:O balance team. Several of us will be using this account to interact with you guys. We're often pretty busy with balance/design work, but we'll try to answer questions when possible. Primarily, we can provide insight into questions regarding game design and PvP.
Empire Points can be used to purchase civs, PvE gear and consumables, etc., but we have a (high-priority) bug where GFWL cannot be used to purchase Empire Points.
However, players can still purchase EP through the Steam store; any AoE:O player can install and launch the game through Steam, log in with the same GFWL account they have been using, buy EP on Steam, and use the EP to unlock whatever they like.
That's really awesome that you've come to TL. Welcome! :D
I've got 511 EPs and am planning on saving up to purchase a premium civ with which to pvp.
However I suspect I'll bite the bullet and cough up some cash. I'm level 8 atm and the quests are all trivially easy to the point of tedium Not saying it's a bad thing, but anyone with a bit of RTS experience will find them a walk in the park.
This game evolved quite a bit from stupid imbalanced gear pvp and basically pay to win to "true" lol Style free-to play and the dev's dooing a insane amount of communication with the players and heard the feedback so we got well balanced PvP and recently observer Mode! It's improving at a insane speed by now ! Tons of new content in the one Year since its release: alliance wars, 3 new civilisations, very many quests, skirmish the above pvp features and very many comfort features !
On August 22 2012 03:07 Flyingcookie wrote: This game evolved quite a bit from stupid imbalanced gear pvp and basically pay to win to "true" lol Style free-to play and the dev's dooing a insane amount of communication with the players and heard the feedback so we got well balanced PvP and recently observer Mode! It's improving at a insane speed by now
Is there a reason why I should ever play this over age of empires 2?
On August 22 2012 03:07 Flyingcookie wrote: This game evolved quite a bit from stupid imbalanced gear pvp and basically pay to win to "true" lol Style free-to play and the dev's dooing a insane amount of communication with the players and heard the feedback so we got well balanced PvP and recently observer Mode! It's improving at a insane speed by now
Is there a reason why I should ever play this over age of empires 2?
why would you play starcraft 2 over broodwar? or lol/hon /dota2 over dota ? ect.. ect... hmmm.. these are just endless senseless arguments
On August 22 2012 03:07 Flyingcookie wrote: This game evolved quite a bit from stupid imbalanced gear pvp and basically pay to win to "true" lol Style free-to play and the dev's dooing a insane amount of communication with the players and heard the feedback so we got well balanced PvP and recently observer Mode! It's improving at a insane speed by now
Is there a reason why I should ever play this over age of empires 2?
why would you play starcraft 2 over broodwar? or lol/hon /dota2 over dota ? ect.. ect... hmmm.. these are just endless senseless arguments
No its not senseless. In aoe2, all you have to do to get started is download Garena or something and play. In this version, you have to go through all of this F2P bullshit. I mean when I played this I was getting matched against people higher level then me, so they had an item advantages. Also I heard it was poorly balanced and that the pathing was made somehow worse.
So once again, why should I play this over age of empires 2?
On August 22 2012 03:07 Flyingcookie wrote: This game evolved quite a bit from stupid imbalanced gear pvp and basically pay to win to "true" lol Style free-to play and the dev's dooing a insane amount of communication with the players and heard the feedback so we got well balanced PvP and recently observer Mode! It's improving at a insane speed by now
Is there a reason why I should ever play this over age of empires 2?
why would you play starcraft 2 over broodwar? or lol/hon /dota2 over dota ? ect.. ect... hmmm.. these are just endless senseless arguments
No its not senseless. In aoe2, all you have to do to get started is download Garena or something and play. In this version, you have to go through all of this F2P bullshit. I mean when I played this I was getting matched against people higher level then me, so they had an item advantages. Also I heard it was poorly balanced and that the pathing was made somehow worse.
So once again, why should I play this over age of empires 2?
If you actually pay for a race you can play the real PvP. You probably shouldn't though since you're comparing it to stealing AoE2 though. Why bother paying for anything when you can just play AoE2 on garena for free!
I believe that Age of Empires Online has what it takes to become an eSport. It's just that PvP issues have to be addressed because reaching level 40 & getting rare, epic and legendary gear for units and buildings are really tough things to do.
I'm not surprised with the rants here, despite having Alliance Wars feature to enable players to earn Empire points in a daily, weekly, & monthly basis without paying (you need to reach level 40 for that). Although I believe it will be a competitive game on a major league scale. But like all video games seeking to be added in the eSports scene, it requires more time, development, and community support to make it happen, even after the game celebrated the 1-year anniversary of its launch.
On August 31 2012 08:49 DarthDronus wrote: I believe that Age of Empires Online has what it takes to become an eSport. It's just that PvP issues have to be addressed because reaching level 40 & getting rare, epic and legendary gear for units and buildings are really tough things to do.
I'm not surprised with the rants here, despite having Alliance Wars feature to enable players to earn Empire points in a daily, weekly, & monthly basis without paying (you need to reach level 40 for that). Although I believe it will be a competitive game on a major league scale. But like all video games seeking to be added in the eSports scene, it requires more time, development, and community support to make it happen, even after the game celebrated the 1-year anniversary of its launch.
Your post sounds so well worded, but everything in it is wrong. PvP doesn't have items enabled, the researches, or the adviser cards. You have zero disadvantage if you're playing it before level 40 as long as you own a civ so you can actually play the real PvP. Some gripes involving civilization balance may be warranted, but you're complaining about the wrong things. They are actively patching though so balance shifts similar to starcraft are constant and "normal."
It's pretty amazing how the game has been out for over a year now and people still think the PvP is grind to win. This is the reason the game will never be an esport. Ignorance. Plain and simple.
It's pretty amazing how the game has been out for over a year now and people still think the PvP is grind to win. This is the reason the game will never be an esport. Ignorance. Plain and simple.
Very true. & it's disappointing that gear and advisor features don't count on the PvP mode.
Oh well, I've had my hopes up seeing those patches improve it and the whole game itself for a year. Nevertheless, I still play the game because it suits within my RTS gaming tastes & I've been able to buy civs & boosters with empire points earned out of Alliance Wars.
It's so sad that Ensemble Studios is already gone because Age of Empires 2 was the best Age of Empires game to be added as an eSport thanks to its great multiplayer features. Don't know if there's any hope that PvP problems will be solved on Age of Empires Online, though I doubt they'll be fixed enough to convince most competitive gamers to play.
There is a PvP mode that has gear and adviser card features if that is your thing (plus it's even free to play, just have to grind to level 5; not that you'll win prior to 40 with gear and even then you're at a disadvantage being unable to use rares/epics). It isn't competitive at all though. Everybody worth their salt plays the real PvP.
Anyone playing this? Im giving it another chance, and I must say im enjoying this. PvP is competitive on Champion mode (Gear does not affect on this mode), so Im playing this a lot. I even bought yesterday a Pro Civ (Norse), and then l logged into Steam, and there is a pack for 3 civs for $15.00. The game is absolutly fun now. Fresh "normal" RTS game.
Add me on steam if you want to train some games: ImFuzer
Champion mode sounds interesting, does that mean I don't have to grind for ages to get the entire tech tree to play a proper pvp game as well?
Wondering because when I first tried pvp when it was still in beta the problem was essentially that there wasn't an even playing field. Pretty sure gear affected the mode to.
If you want to jump right into PvP ranked mode then you need to pay $10 for a premium civ. You can get a taste for PvP in arena mode (need to unlock it). I believe in the latest patch they made this available for non-premium civs so you can play champ mode and see what the game is like.
So basically to unlock all civs @$10 ea you'll need to spend something like $50/60 (however many civs*10)... which is pretty much what a game normally costs. Just compare this to something like league of legends whereby $10 is going to get you 1 and a half new champs. It's a pretty good system imo.
This game could take off if people get interested in it again. It is improving quickly and has a fair amount of support by Robot Entertainment.
On November 02 2012 10:49 cpc wrote: Champion mode sounds interesting, does that mean I don't have to grind for ages to get the entire tech tree to play a proper pvp game as well?
Wondering because when I first tried pvp when it was still in beta the problem was essentially that there wasn't an even playing field. Pretty sure gear affected the mode to.
Just like you say. You dont have to grind any quest to get gear, becouse it does not affect in Champion mode. Also, tech tree is full unlocked on this mode.
On November 02 2012 11:01 TBone- wrote: how much money would i have to pay to be on an optimal level in pvp immedietely?
Let me explain you something:
Free Civs: Greeks, Celts, Egyptians.
Pro Civ: Babylonian, Norse, Persian (each one costs $9.99, but now on steam until 8 november, you can get them all for $15.00)
Pro Civs have champion mode when you buy them (also you city starts at lvl 20, so you can play quest for lvl 20 and below)
Free civs DOES NOT HAVE CHAMPION MODE UNTIL YOU UPGRADE EACH ONE FOR $9.99 to PREMIUM CIV. Steam has also a pack for $15.00 to upgrade all your Free civs to Premium Civs
SO, you can play Champion mode with all civs for $30, access to all quests, and epic gear if you want to PvE, that is actually fun to play Co-op quests with your friends.
What I reccomend:
-Add me to steam, -Try the game with any of the free civ and we can play Skirmish Mode ( Human vs AI mode, we can play 2v2, 3v3, 4v4) - If you like the game there are 3 quests to try the 3 Pro Civs (Norse, Babylon, Persians) or you can upgrade a free civ to Premium Civ, and enjoy most features of the game like Champion Mode with that civ. -I extremely recommend to use the steam discount, and buy the 3 pro civs for $15.00.
The game is fun, fresh, and with the RTS feel that I'm missing on the latest RTS games. Try it!
I made a youtube video about this game - it's a long, in depth video that goes over all of the details of the game. (30 minutes)
That video features information on the overall game and a pvp match. I then made another video because there were many things I didn't cover in the first video, this one is over an hour and features a quest and the gameplay mechanics of the greek civ
Not sure anyone's going to watch a video that long but it's there if you want to get a good overview of this game. And I'm planning on throwing another one up today.
Anyway I've been playing this game a lot lately and I feel like it's a lot more like Bw than SC2 and really starting to get good (it's up to 6 civs now)
On November 11 2012 22:29 TaShadan wrote: did they fix the problem with units beeing deselected when you spam a move?
No, but this is some kind of compatibility thing and not something that is easily fixed, there have been several long threads on official forums about it.
Just wanted to inform you guys tgat AOEO has come to an end: no more new updates, civs, anything. The game is in pure support mode now, no more new content. The game's business model was no longer sustainable-
Maybe that means aoe4 might come someday. I tried 2v2 on aoeo and It took me over an hour for me and my friend to get a game and that was on the PvP server marathon.
I think this is the best thread to ask this question, but recently for nostalgia I started playing AOE II again single player just for fun. I was wondering, was there ever a scene for it? I wanted to see what the best builds and etc are, out of curiosity sake. I googled age of empires 2, but found mostly just generic info. There seem to be some vods available, but was wondering what the best/biggest tournaments for AOE were back in the day?
Hey everyone, some awesome community developers revived AoEO on private servers. And the best news is, it is entirely free to play!!! Come check it out at their discord (https://discord.gg/GcCwhvU).
So it seems it's in closed beta and you have to wait for a key giveaway in their discord. It looks like keys might be given almost daily but there's lots of people looking. Not sure how long I'm gonna have to wait.
EPT
- As somebody already mentioned, Ensemble is Dead, AoE is forever gone. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jttmu.png)
