Doesn't feel finished

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Doesn't feel finished

This topic contains 32 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by  Jerm 8 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #74681

    Oakshand
    Member

    Does anyone else feel like the game isn’t quite finished yet?

    I think because of how quickly these games go compared to the old AOWs it just feels unfinished. Personally theres almost no early and mid game. I feel like nothing really matters until you start hitting 5+ cities and T4 Units. The AI will leave you alone for the most part until it gets T4 then it will bumrush you. All you have to do is build up large amounts of counter units then wait until the come at you. You easily beat them since its the same damn strat over and over again then walk through their cities and take their whole empire in 3 turns.

    Honestly the only times i felt this game was remotely strategy based was when I would force the AI to attack or instead of building counter units i would try mixed armies. The AI is also absurdly stupid. I had one enemy that left his city every time I went away. He would try to rush the one empty city i have on the opposite side of the map then I would just walk over take his city and obliterate his army piece by piece. This happened a city a turn until i won. There wasn’t a challenge it was just walk away, take city, kill army, rinse and repeat until victory.

    Combat is also so very unbalanced. I have 5 archers against a single Shadow Stalker and I might win. My archers are doing 15 damage a turn all together. 2nd turn hes in my face one or two shotting my stacks. I end up losing 3 or 4 stacks IF I WIN. Thats not a victory at all.

    TL;DR
    Game isn’t done needs to be polished and balanced hardcore. I didn’t even touch on a lot of issues i have simply because its already a big post lol.

    #74693

    The first thing I’ll say is that it sounds like you haven’t patched the game — the ‘no early and mid game’ was a symptom of an issue with research points that has now been mostly resolved.

    The ‘T4 spam’ issue is acknowledged by the devs and on their to-do list. As, I believe, are strategic AI improvements.

    The last paragraph sounds to me like exactly what should happen with the armies you described, IMHO. I’m confident that we’ll be able to mod the game to make T4s more zerg-able– in fact such a tool, ‘Mad Statter,’ is already available on these very forums. You could mod the game to your personal preference this very sedcond!

    Does it need some patching? Yes. So by that definition, I guess I’d consider it unfinished too. But issues like these always reveal themselves once a game leaves beta, and AoW is already fun and on track to be excellent.

    #74701

    azman
    Member

    Combat is also so very unbalanced. I have 5 archers against a single Shadow Stalker and I might win. My archers are doing 15 damage a turn all together. 2nd turn hes in my face one or two shotting my stacks. I end up losing 3 or 4 stacks IF I WIN. Thats not a victory at all.

    Shadow stalkers have very high melee and ranged defense so archers are a poor counter to them, using a magic attacks would work much better.

    That’s isn’t really a balance problem, it like using paper to counter scissors, lol. Not the best idea.

    #75616

    Oakshand
    Member

    One thing I should mention is that I still love the game i’m not trying to just bash it.

    When I reference the archer shadow stalker fight the archers are defending a city. With pass wall and the massive defense/attack he has he can kill off almost a whole army by himself. I understand hes T4 and he is the scissors to my archer paper but still 4 or 5 archers defending a city against a single unit should probably win…

    I understand that bugs come out of the woodwork but it kinda seems like something A LOT of people are complaining about and having problems about. Isn’t that why we have a beta? So the really big and potentially game breaking bugs are non existent?

    Not to be a whiny b*tch but I shouldn’t need to patch/mod my game to make it remotely balanced. I understand that its a huge part of the community and a lot of people love doing it but it should be totally up to me if i want to do that.

    Also I was just building a quick army to have something in a city way in the back of my empire. Then a shadow stalker just pops up and decimates my archers. I have to send an army all the way back to take a city from a single half health shadow stalker.

    #75638

    @ Oakshand, it wasn’t a bug though was it?

    Shadowstalkers also get physical protection. They are purpose built to take cities, and someone using them to raid you like that is pure genius.

    Some Draconian Flamers would have made it much harder.

    #75716

    Rymdkejsaren
    Member

    I agree, I think there is a solid base for an awesome game but a lot of mechanics seem to have been put in without much consideration on how they would work individually or as a group. The more input we give here from our experiences, the more the devs can keep working on making the game more interesting, balanced and giving it more tactical depth.

    #75840

    No game is ever finished. Ask any dev on any game, and they’ll tell you that there were a million features that got cut. Not even on the cutting room floor, but when they were 75% done, because they unexpectedly ran out of time or money or whatever. Game development is an odd business like that.

    #75910

    Oakshand
    Member

    im not saying its a bug i just feel like no matter what a single unit shouldn’t be able to take a decently defended city. Especially if the defenders are archers!

    Dont get me wrong it was a pretty smart tactic but i just don’t feel like its very realistic. One shadow stalker comes up kills a few guys and then an entire city says okie dokie sure thing! I feel like there should be leveling defenses with cities. When its a tiny village sure i can understand a shadow stalker taking it but come on. In a city with a few hundred if not thousands of people you think every person will just lie down and let it happen? There has to be a few guys willing to grab a sword and kill for their city.

    Cities need to be more realistic. Instead of being an actual city they just feel like forts. You upgrade them and fight in and over them. Leveling defenses would be so much better. Maybe when their a village give them a happiness bonus since everyone knows each other. Then when they hit town give them some guard towers and maybe militia. Then when you hit city give em better towers, a trained (but not crazy strong) militia and maybe a resident magic user. This way you can combat any threat but if someone is actually determined to take your city the units won’t do much. Maybe make em tier 0 not as strong as regular archers, infantry and magic users but when used in city defense they get buffs. Idk just random top of my head ideas.

    The only reason i think its a big deal is because the AI likes to bumrush cities really hard and spam T4 units. So you leave a token defense so they can’t just take your city without a fight and yet its basically worthless.

    On the note of archers being a crap counter to shadow stalkers. I get that i really really do and honestly i should have made a priest and an infantry with two archers. But come on, four archer groups on a city wall should be able to defend it against any single enemy except like a landship since ya know metal plates win against arrows.

    #75916

    b0rsuk
    Member

    Archers are not a decent defense against Shadow Stalkers. It’s more like Shadow Stalkers are the perfect counter to archers. You’re trying to counter a fist with your face. And shadows even have the Pass Wall ability !

    High Elves and Draconians would be better off using irregulars against Shadow Stalkers. They deal elemental damage to which Stalkers are not resistant. Other races have support units.

    No plan survives contact with the enemy.

    — Helmuth von Moltke

    You need to adapt. If you don’t see the Shadow Stalker coming, you need to scout better.

    #75917

    Karion
    Member

    You are taking reality too much seriously in a fantasy game

    #75954

    darvon
    Member

    The first thing I’ll say is that it sounds like you haven’t patched the game — the ‘no early and mid game’ was a symptom of an issue with research points that has now been mostly resolved.

    The patch did almost nothing in that regard. It doubled 1500 candles to 3000 for t4 units, meaning you get T4 in the mid thirties, rather than late 20s. The amount of candles you get grows exponentially, by turn 30 you should be easily putting out ~250 a turn.

    #76005

    lol

    That is all.

    #76009

    Jerm
    Member

    Dear OP,

    You mentioned doesn’t feel finished when you compare it to AOW 2: Shadow Magic? Were you play with unofficial patch 1.4? And we are at AOW 3 (no expansion/dlc) patch 1.09.

    Really…not even a fair comparison.

    #76113

    Rymdkejsaren
    Member

    Of course a lot of games end up having to release before they are done, that is the industry. But we still paid for a game that is very far from being solid. Graphics and scope are awesome in this game but the game mechanics need a lot of work before they could be considered finished.

    And there is nothing wrong with people coming in here posting about that. They like the game and want it to be better, so they give their opinions. Most people are civil about it. Some are a little angry and I cannot blame them. They bought a game and did not get a finished product. The good news is with a few months of dedicated work from the developers I am sure this game will be in a much better place.

    #76150

    Oakshand, moving away from the shadowstalker issue, I am intrigued by what you say about it being ‘unrealistic’ that he can capture a city, and the citizens do nothing.

    You can ninja cap enemy cities with fast scouts, even a lowly wisp, so I am not sure where you draw the line between realistic and not, within the bounds of the game.

    If you are proposing free defence for cities, dependent on size, that’s another topic altogether, and if you did that then one would have to make new settlers cost like 1,000 gold or something, because right now the major weakness of city ‘spam’ is that you can’t defend them all.

    #76287

    Of course a lot of games end up having to release before they are done, that is the industry. But we still paid for a game that is very far from being solid. Graphics and scope are awesome in this game but the game mechanics need a lot of work before they could be considered finished.

    And there is nothing wrong with people coming in here posting about that. They like the game and want it to be better, so they give their opinions. Most people are civil about it. Some are a little angry and I cannot blame them. They bought a game and did not get a finished product. The good news is with a few months of dedicated work from the developers I am sure this game will be in a much better place.

    The game IS finished. It’s out, so it is. The developers have no obligation to do anything for the game anymore. They offered a product for a price and you bought it for that price. End of the deal.

    That the devs continue working on it is solely because they care about the game, because they are in no way obligated to do that.

    #76462

    I’m sure that the devs would love to work on the game forever because they love it, but that’s not the reason they’re allowed to. Devs need to be paid so that they can put food on the table, and they’re not going to get paid unless there’s money somewhere. By patching the game and making it more enjoyable, they increase its longevity, and people will be more likely to buy it years after its initial release, plus people will be more likely to buy DLC. Of course they’re not obligated work on patches, but if they don’t, they pay an opportunity cost.

    #76814

    Oakshand
    Member

    @b0rsuk
    Im not saying that i expect archers to win against shadow stalkers. I get that they are the counter to archers, that is totally understood. I screwed up in my defense and lost the battle. What I don’t get is how a single unit can ninja a city. It just doesn’t make any sense.

    @karion
    Im not asking for perfect realism in the game. Nowhere near that. I just think its silly that a huge city that is firmly entrenched in my empire would just capitulate to a single unit.

    @bloodybattlebrain
    To the city spam would then be super op thing thats why i mentioned having only the upper tiers of cities get rewarded with extra defenses and the lower tiers with happiness bonuses. Cities being ninjad just doesn’t make any sense at all. Hell even if its only the sick, the young and the old they could just all jump on the single shadow stalker and win. Maybe if the city is happy it can only be taken by a minimum number of troops? IDK. These are just random ideas to fix it that i’m pulling out here. Not saying they are the best but i think it should be looked at and addressed.

    @jerm
    If you notice I compared the pace of the AOW 3 to the older AOW titles. Not how polished it is. I dont expect a freshly released game to be as balanced and polished as a game that has been out for over a decade. But I do think that the level of balance is not really where it should be. Yes its “finished” and no I dont expect devs to work on it til its absolutely perfect but it feels like a beta to me. I didn’t participate in the beta so I don’t know how that was but I have played other betas and this feels like one. Like the one guy said before everything works beautifully on its own but once you started combining things it gets odd…

    #76818

    Oakshand
    Member

    Also not something i mentioned yet but i have noticed that certain parts of the campaign have coding instead of whatever its supposed to be. The first fort you find in the elven campaign mission when you go to the islands was designated as firststructure or something like that. When I use sprint and i look at the buff on the unit card it doesn’t give the movement bonus instead it gives the formula used by the engine. This is the kind of stuff that makes me think beta. It shouldn’t be in a finished released game. I would be embarrassed if my game came out with those bugs.

    #76830

    Fenraellis
    Member

    Thinking about it, the only ones of the T4 class units that would even potentially lose in that situation would be the Eldritch Horror(depending on how good it’s Breath attack went off, and entirely discounting the potential for magic), and the Manticore Rider. The Shadow Stalker is designed to win against the setup, with 60% Physical Protection, Projectile Resistance and Pass Wall.

    A Horned God could, while cheesy, just stand back and Call Lightning them all to death. A Juggernaut could just Mortar at long range, and is Reinforced for 19 Defense vs ranged unranked anyway. Similar for the Shrine of Smiting.

    #76844

    @ Oakshand, then what you are proposing really doesn’t have anything to do with Shadow Stalkers. A wisp can take, and burn down, an undefended city.

    It’s a game feature and tbh, I don’t see how it can be addressed. Warlock has your cities have an attack against units in their domain, but again, once the city is gone, it’s gone.

    #76851

    Star Paladin
    Member

    I have to agree. My friend, who played AoW2 up to last year even, was really excited about this game. We both get it; both start playing MP, and every time we cast a spell, it was dispelled the next turn; Trebuchets quickly replaced all our ranged units; we were forced to use 90% T4 to defend against all the T4; We have manna and gold coming out our ears; and I have to literally get a book to read (100% serious) when my friend goes into battles because it puts the entire game on hold for everyone.

    I have not been able to get him to play again since that first game.

    All of the above, and more, should have been caught in early beta. Easily. And we have every right to complain about it. Every right. And you have to be a special kind of corporate toady brown-noser to tell others “Just shut up, don’t complain, and be glad for what you got”. Righhhhht.

    #77596

    Oakshand
    Member

    @bloodybattlebrain
    I dont want to sound mean here. My intention is not to be hurtful or to attack you.
    im not sure what you don’t quite get. I have tried to explain that the problem is not the shadow stalker. I have repeatedly explained that i understand archers lose against a shadow stalker. I have changed my tactics and now when i make a defense force i use infantry archers and a magic user.

    I UNDERSTAND SHADOW STALKERS WILL WIN AGAINST ARCHERS.

    OK now that i’ve said that yet again. My problem is the fact that a wisp can do that in the first place. It shouldn’t be a game feature. Honestly that sounds like BS whipped up by either an excuse making dev or a depressingly loyal fanboy. Im not saying the game is bad. Far from it. Its an amazing game. It just needs a lot of polish before I and I assume quite a few people would consider it done. All im saying is that a fully upgraded city/metropolis of somewhere near 20K people shouldn’t be taken by one unit. Ever.
    I could understand if the shadow stalker killed the guards. Thats fine with me. He could straight murder my archers and walk away (or ya know float lol) to go murder more archers. That sounds like a great use of a shadow stalker. Actually that sounds like how they should be used. But there is zero reason they should be able to take a city. An outpost or a village? Fine I can understand people being afraid of the giant shadow demon thing that just murdered 20 guys. Not a problem. Getting into cities and metropolis’? Yeah not making any sense anymore. This problem of course gets worse when as you say a wisp does it. They are literally fairies made of mana. Not intimidating. Shouldn’t be able to take a city.

    #77599

    Oakshand
    Member

    Also how can you think it can’t be addressed. I literally came up with 5 ideas off the top of my head while writing these posts. An official game dev should be able to quickly and easily figure something out. Cities being jacked is understandable ten years ago. In this era of gaming with the demanded realism from the devs and the mass amount of features expected? Not so much. Again not expecting perfect realism. Honestly im totally okay with most other realism based arguments. Just this one annoys the hell out of me.

    Again not trying to be mean or attack you but I think you need to step back a bit and look at the game with less of a bias opinion.

    #77607

    TL:DR:Strictly speaking, yes it’s unrealistic, but to say that the game is unpolished and incomplete because of that, is not a fair assessment.

    I get you perfectly, but what I am saying is that what you are talking about is essentially an unsolveable issue.

    In summary, you stated that the game is unfinished because:

    -t4s come out too easily and quickly for you

    counter: it’s been patched and will continue to be addressed.

    – you didn’t grasp how a Shadowstalker works

    counter: now you do

    it is unrealistic for a single unit to take over any city because the population should rebel and fight the invader.

    counter: Realism is not a useful argument here (as outlined below), and also, the same population may well view the new troops as liberators. We could dance around in circles forever here. Wouldn’t serve any purpose.

    Again, not to sound argumentative here, but that’s what you don’t seem to understand. The game is finished, but ofcourse, like anything, will benefit from tweaking (even movies get Director’s cuts).

    How many units would be required to actually subdue a city then? A full stack minimum? 6 full stacks?

    That’s why I am saying that whilst it might seem bizarre for a single unit to take a city ever, within the designs of a game, any game, it works, and to implement the correct (whatever it might be) level of realism to simulate this would be, imho, absurd.

    To change the rule here, would also be pretty pointless imho, let’s say you now need to have 2 wisps to take over a city. Still strange. How about 6? Still strange. How about 36? Still strange, surely a city of several thousand, which grows by a few hundred every turn (day) would be more or less immune to anything like this?

    How much of an army would be needed to take over and subdue a country in real life? How many millions did the Allies need to subdue Germany in World war 2?

    And you started the thread by pointing out certain things, for example that combat was unbalanced because a Shadow stalker took out your Archers, but now you are saying that that is fine. In your OP you didn’t mention anything about the unrealism of cities being taken over by units.

    #77629

    Oakshand
    Member

    As with any discussion i have changed my viewpoints on certain things throughout and i have noticed other flaws to discuss.
    The T4 spam I already let go of I understand that it is being addressed so thats done.
    Yes I understand that I now understand how shadow stalkers work lol thanks for pointing it out?
    I’m not saying these few issues make the game unfinished and unpolished. Im saying these in combination with many of the other issues the game currently has makes it unfinished and unpolished. These are just my own personal peeves.

    On the cities thinking they are liberators. Thats why i mentioned having a happiness modifier for cities. Unhappy cities are taken easier. Happy cities won’t give up without a fight. This helps the whole happiness is pointless debate and it makes cities more realistic. Both good things.

    The pop number for a city is largely cosmetic. It doesn’t actually mean anything to us. At certain values it turns into a larger city. Which gives the bonuses larger cities entail. Honestly its absurd that out of a city of tens of thousands only like 20 are trained to fight. Especially in this age or this world.

    We could go the route of civ and have the cities be under rebellion for a time. We could have a mass slaughter option for the evil players or a city wide debate (idk lol) for the good players. There are many different ways to address it. To me its just lazy that they went with eh let em take the cities. I think its a system that sounds totally feasible and can be implemented. Brings so much more depth to cities and helps with some of the “cheap” tactics.

    Again pointing out that my opinions changed as the discussion went on. As they should. Yours however have not and you still refuse to budge from your THE GAME IS PERFECT, SHUT UP stance. You’ve so far just shot down my ideas or called them absurd in their own right. I’m not asking for perfect city realism that is way too much for me even. All i ask is that a decently defended city that has been in my empire for most of the game and is extremely happy with my rule doesn’t just roll over and accept that they now belong to the other team.

    #77640

    Reefpirate
    Member

    I don’t understand this argument at all… You’ve set up your own standards for what a ‘finished game’ is, left it up to us to figure out what you mean by ‘finished’, any time someone addresses an issue you move on to the next vague thing that ‘isn’t finished’. I imagine you’ll just keep doing this until we’re at 50 posts or something.

    It seems to me people love to think what the ideal, 100% perfect PC game of all time might look like, go buy any random good looking game, immediately note something that felt ‘funny’, or looked a bit ‘off’… Sign up for a new account on the forums and announce to the world that you found something not quite perfect about a game that no one ever claimed was perfect.

    Seriously, some people just need to go out and try and make their own game some time. It really will inform your opinions about games, and what is ‘finished’ or what is ‘broken’ and what is actually an honest to goodness really good attempt at an exceptional gaming experience. For all of the things that could have possibly gone wrong with this game (anyone played Elemental day one?) Triumph really has managed to minimize a LOT of potential issues.

    And no, a game design decision like allowing any sized army to capture an undefended city has nothing to do with whether a game is ‘finished’ or not.

    #77649

    grizzz
    Member

    I can’t believe I’m seeing this post about (IMO) one of the most polished and complete PC releases I’ve personally bought in years?

    Really can’t understand what you’re on about.

    #77659

    CrazyElf
    Member

    It’s not a perfect game by any stretch of imagination, but as far as 4X games go, this is one of the most polished that has been released in recent memory.

    #77688

    Again pointing out that my opinions changed as the discussion went on. As they should. Yours however have not and you still refuse to budge from your THE GAME IS PERFECT, SHUT UP stance. You’ve so far just shot down my ideas or called them absurd in their own right. I’m not asking for perfect city realism that is way too much for me even. All i ask is that a decently defended city that has been in my empire for most of the game and is extremely happy with my rule doesn’t just roll over and accept that they now belong to the other team.

    And I am pointing out, and you are agreeing here, that what you said, was not quite right.

    You’ve acknowledged that what we started with has been resolved, and now we are onto other things, both of us, namely the issue of ‘realism’.

    And I don’t think I ever said to you that “the game is perfect, now shutup,” so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth!

    Also, the city doesn’t just “roll over” either-that’s the function of the absorb mechanic. Note that if you take a large, established enemy city with alignment different to yours, or who has been at war with you for a while, the time taken to absorb it is markedly different than if the enemy, for example, tries to raze their own city, thus pissing off the inhabitants, who thus see you as their liberator (down to one turn I believe).

    So, now your argument for why the game is unfinished is because of cities not being realistic? Understand, that my essential point, which I shall put in bold so you don’t misunderstand me, and don’t go around accusing me of saying things I didn’t is thus:

    No it’s not realistic, it never has been, and never can be, and to say that the game is unfinished because of that is not a valid argument.

    Fair enough to debate the whys and wherefores of whether or not t4 ‘spam’ is an issue, and if it is an issue, how to resolve it, or whether the balance needs work, or whether wisp spam is a cheesy strategy, but my issue with this thread is that you are saying things that to me, and evidently to others, just don’t make any sense, and once an issue is addressed and explained, e.g. and I quote your opening post,

    Combat is also so very unbalanced. I have 5 archers against a single Shadow Stalker and I might win. My archers are doing 15 damage a turn all together. 2nd turn hes in my face one or two shotting my stacks.

    you then move on to say that the game is still ‘unfinished’ but now for something else, seemingly arbitrary.

    I guess, fundamentally, what for you constitutes ‘not finished’ is different to what I consider ‘not finished.’ Rome 2: Total War, at release, that was unfinished. I didn’t play Civ5, but apparently at release that was not the best.

    Elemental, at release, definitely unfinished.

    On that note, I honestly believe this thread is indeed going to go on forever, and we will end up repeating ourselves, because you’ll find something else not perfect about this game (how come food isn’t a resource? We have farms but they just boost population growth. How rubbish is that?) and the circle will go on.

    Apologies if that came across aggressive, but on the internet it’s hard to convey tone of voice etc, I just think you and I are looking at this game with very different criteria and we probably will never agree, so let’s leave it at that.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 33 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.