Proposal: More realistic city defense

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 Proposal: More realistic city defense

This topic contains 100 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by  Hatmage 6 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 101 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #217314

    Nerdfish
    Member

    You can check how many percent of players have multiplayer victory achievement on steam. 😀
    only 8.5 percent people ever STARTED an online game.
    only 4.3 percent won ONE SINGLE online game.
    91.5 % is vast majority by any stretch of definition.
    http://steamcommunity.com/stats/226840/achievements

    This might be news to you, but multiplayer, as a whole, doesn’t matter.

    #217318

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You forget that you made a big (and silly) assumption YOURSELF, that MP players somehow would – what exactly? But that’s nonsense, because I, for example – don’t have the game at steam.

    #217324

    Nerdfish
    Member

    Are you somehow arguing that people with the game on steam is somehow not a sufficiently large and representative sample ?

    Nobody is arguing this feature takes away from single player games, because you CAN’T scout cap the AI. Only the AI can scout cap you and I am sure we all want the AI to have tons of fun. 🙂

    #217336

    Wallthing
    Member

    Nobody is arguing this feature takes away from single player games, because you CAN’T scout cap the AI. Only the AI can scout cap you and I am sure we all want the AI to have tons of fun.

    I am, buddy. You most definitely can bypass the AI’s front lines and capture or raze his central cities. The AI, being merely nonsentient – not moronic – doesn’t leave them completely undefended but his second line cities can be captured with a significantly smaller force than his front. I play single player exclusively and I do not want this “feature.”

    #217339

    SaintTodd
    Member

    I like most of the ideas offered by the community here, but not this one.

    #217343

    Nerdfish
    Member

    I am, buddy. You most definitely can bypass the AI’s front lines and capture or raze his central cities. The AI, being merely nonsentient – not moronic – doesn’t leave them completely undefended but his second line cities can be captured with a significantly smaller force than his front. I play single player exclusively and I do not want this “feature.”

    It makes no difference in that case, If you have enough of an army to overwhelm poorly defended cities, you can overwhelm automatic defenses as well.
    Automatic defense make job easier for both the players and AI programmer. In the latter case, the AI doesn’t even need to be programmed to place token defense in every city in the rear.

    #217344

    NINJEW
    Member

    You can check how many percent of players have multiplayer victory achievement on steam. 😀
    only 8.5 percent people ever STARTED an online game.
    only 4.3 percent won ONE SINGLE online game.
    91.5 % is vast majority by any stretch of definition.
    http://steamcommunity.com/stats/226840/achievements

    This might be news to you, but multiplayer, as a whole, doesn’t matter.

    number of players who won a unifier victory: .3%
    number of players who have compelted an empire quest: 10.1%

    did you know that most people who own games tend to play a game for like 5 hours and then never touch it again?

    My point is you are grasping at straws to justify intentional omission of a feature that would make game much less of a headache for vast majority of players so a few GSL trolls can have an advantage in multiplayer.

    what does gsl even mean?

    we’re talking about a game design decision and i am pointing to amtters of game design: the central focus of the game, what kind of actions does the game want to encourage and discourage, what should player thought be focused towards.

    removing having to worry about basic city defense encourages players to not think about their army positioning and not actively seek out threats, because only the big threats matter.

    “multiplayer doesn’t matter” is definitely grasping at straws though, like you can’t argue your position so you resort to trying to discredit your opponent’s position

    #217345

    NINJEW
    Member

    i mean seriously only 38.2% of players have even recruited 3 heroes no fucking shit multiplayer is only 8% dude

    #217347

    NINJEW
    Member

    like the jump from “owns the game” to “has won a tactical battle” is 13% lol

    that’s how many people own the game and never even launched it

    “clear an exploration site” drops down to 50%. only 50% of players have cleared an ancient ruins.

    only 50% have embarked a unit.

    only 44% have made a custom leader.

    what a meaningless metric of what does and does not matter

    #217350

    Wallthing
    Member

    It makes no difference in that case, If you have enough of an army to overwhelm poorly defended cities, you can overwhelm automatic defenses as well.
    Automatic defense make job easier for both the players and AI programmer. In the latter case, the AI doesn’t even need to be programmed to place token defense in every city in the rear.

    If the automatic defenses are so poor (you don’t seem to be referring to anything like the OP’s suggestion) that it doesn’t change the requirements for capturing poorly defended cities, what’s the point? If they are strong enough to change the requirements your statement is a non sequitur. If I have a stack roaming around in the hinterlands looking for soft cities it is likely because I do not want or cannot afford to take on that opponent head-on.

    #217352

    NINJEW
    Member

    In the latter case, the AI doesn’t even need to be programmed to place token defense in every city in the rear.

    you say that like “remember to put token defenders int he back” is the most pressing AI issue, and not things like threat assessment

    #217355

    Nerdfish
    Member

    did you know that most people who own games tend to play a game for like 5 hours and then never touch it again?

    Because they get annoyed when their cities are captured by a bird ?
    People don’t have to play this game, if something annoys them, they go play other stuff. This is why anti-frustration features exist. Even if automatic defense get a 20% of those 5 hour players to stay after 5 hours, it matters more than all of multiplayer.

    what a meaningless metric of what does and does not matter

    Like it or not this reflect what people actually do. If it doesn’t match your expectations, to bad for your expectations.

    If the automatic defenses are so poor (you don’t seem to be referring to anything like the OP’s suggestion) that it doesn’t change the requirements for capturing poorly defended cities, what’s the point?

    The point is you need a stack, as opposed to one scout.
    If you have 10 stacks, you are likely able to take on the enemy head on anyway. if you have 10 scouts, it hardly put a dent in your pocket.
    Any features that remove a player or AI’s ability to be annoying is a good feature.

    #217359

    NINJEW
    Member

    Because they get annoyed when their cities are captured by a bird ?
    People don’t have to play this game, if something annoys them, they go play other stuff. This is why anti-frustration features exist. Even if automatic defense get a 20% of those 5 hour players to stay after 5 hours, it matters more than all of multiplayer.

    yes because 13% of players get a city sniped by a bird before they win their first battle

    dude steam games are cheap so people buy games without any intention of devoting any amount of real time to them. are you totally unaware of this phenomena or something? have you never heard of someone going through their “steam backlog?”

    achievement numbers are totally distorted by the sheer number of buyers who act in this fanshion, and for whom the quality fot he game doesn’t amtter.

    so not only is “multiplayer doesn’t matter” a stupid point, but the factual evidence you are presenting is in no way representative of, well, pretty much anything. all those numbers are distorted by people who stopped playing the game at various (usually very early) points, for reasons largely outside of the game’s control.

    #217377

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Are you somehow arguing that people with the game on steam is somehow not a sufficiently large and representative sample ?

    Nobody is arguing this feature takes away from single player games, because you CAN’T scout cap the AI. Only the AI can scout cap you and I am sure we all want the AI to have tons of fun. :)

    I’m arguing that you make up the whole thing about MP players wouldn’t want this feature. but everyone else would.
    YOU want that feature, but no one else wants it – that’s more to the truth.

    #217389

    Realism is a slippery term when applied to the game.

    I think Op would have a stronger case if he pushed for more fun /balance.

    There was at least one.big discussion on Steam about siege mechanics, and I myself could see revamped city fights and possibly larger battle maps.

    #217400

    Lykus
    Member

    I play mostly SP (DN) and I don’t want this feature. Simply because the automatic defenders would probably be racial Units (at least that has been suggested on the first page of this thread). This would mean T1/T2 which are just cannonfodder for my flametanks, cannons and juggs. You would basically just get free XP. Even if you could turn it off, it would still require lots of work to implement ist and Balance it. I would rather see this work go an additional Expansion (hopeful glance at the devs).

    #217646

    Nerdfish
    Member

    dude steam games are cheap so people buy games without any intention of devoting any amount of real time to them. are you totally unaware of this phenomena or something? have you never heard of someone going through their “steam backlog?”

    87 percent of people won a tactical battle, which means they actually install the game and play it. The game must justify people to spend time on it. They probably had the intention to devote to the game until 5 hours in. Then they find something better to play.

    Keeping casual players interested have much higher priority then satisfying those 5 guys who play multiplayer.

    Even if you compare the 40% of people who won as rogue (presumably the first scenario) vs 10 % people who play MP, there is still 30% people who do not play MP vs 10% who does.

    #217647

    Nerdfish
    Member

    This would mean T1/T2 which are just cannonfodder for my flametanks, cannons and juggs.

    Pretty much any defenders are free EXP for cannons.

    YOU want that feature, but no one else wants it – that’s more to the truth.

    There are no less than three threads, started by other people, asking for this feature, explain that.

    #217652

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You switched accounts.

    #217671

    NINJEW
    Member

    You switched accounts.

    lol

    #217672

    NINJEW
    Member

    There are no less than three threads, started by other people, asking for this feature, explain that.

    could you link these threads? i’d be interested in seeing if there was more than the OP each thread who was in favor of the idea

    #217674

    NINJEW
    Member

    seriously though may i direct your attention once again to:

    i mean seriously only 38.2% of players have even recruited 3 heroes no fucking shit multiplayer is only 8% dude

    no one got their city sniped by a crow before their third hero and just threw their arms up in the air and exclaimed “wow what is this fucking bullshit? fuck this game i’m going back to sim city

    once again, they launched the game for 5 hours, tried it out, put it down, then forgot to come back to it. not much to be done about that, and it distorts the figures a lot

    you’re really fucking reaching here man. pulling out the steam achievement percentages? really? and you’re still sticking by that? lol.

    #217712

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    I think, but it only occured to me once, that cities can still rebel if the occupying force is too weak compared to city size, or if you start to demolish a city and leave it be. Like in AoW2.

    But I’d like to get the ability to demolish structures back, agreed. Good way to cripple enemy towns. But the AI should be using Builders more for this to be balanced.

    #217714

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    Also, there is that warlord spell that instantly raises militia in a city – basically the same magically summoned defender that the original poster wanted.

    #218122

    Nerdfish
    Member

    once again, they launched the game for 5 hours, tried it out, put it down, then forgot to come back to it. not much to be done about that, and it distorts the figures a lot

    you’re really fucking reaching here man. pulling out the steam achievement percentages? really? and you’re still sticking by that? lol.

    There is a reason they put it down and forgot to come back to it.
    And your reason is that people are somehow less important if they don’t play as much as you do. They paid as much as you did.

    Like it or not evidence is better than pulling stuff out of your back end. It’s irrational and self centered to demand the devs must cater to people who play the game all day, rather than most people who play it for a couple hours.

    #218126

    NINJEW
    Member

    “steam achievement percentages” qualifies as evidence in the loosest sense possible, in that they are numbers that are somewhat related to the game (but very heavily distorted in ways that makes drawing any conclusion out of them very difficult)

    and yeah, there is a reason they didn’t come back:

    no one got their city sniped by a crow before their third hero and just threw their arms up in the air and exclaimed “wow what is this fucking bullshit? fuck this game i’m going back to sim city

    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
    —-> once again, they launched the game for 5 hours, tried it out, put it down, then forgot to come back to it. not much to be done about that, and it distorts the figures a lot <—-
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    there is literally nothing about the game that could be changed to fix that, and the problem may or may not have something to do with getting sniped by crows (can you provide any evidence of a significant number of people not playing because of city sniping? that’s a pretty strong assumption you’ve made there without anything to back it up besides “some threads were made by a maximum of like, 3 people”)

    you’re pulling assumptions about other people out of your ass based on being displeased with one part of the game that very few other people have spoken up to agree with you on. you are then using numbers that are very unreliable and making assumptions about the reasons behind those unreliable numbers without anything to prove that the numbers are being cause by what you think.

    what if all those people are leaving because they don’t like the artstyle? what if they’re leaving because they really wanted to play as frostlings, didn’t know that you need the expansion for that, then decided that they don’t want to spend more money just for frostlings and left it? what if they wanted to play the game for the story, then discovered that they didn’t like the story very much? what if they bought it just to play with their friends, then discovered that their friends prefer first person shooters? what if they don’t like the idea of filthy orcs being presented a race that can be good, and just lost all interest? what if they played for a bit, found that the tactical combat wasn’t to their liking, and just set it back down? what if they were hoping the game would have more civ-style city management options and then discovered that it didn’t?

    how the fuck do you know that those people are leaving because a crow sniped one of their cities and they just ragequit immediately? do you have any evidence of that happening to more than 10 people? i don’t see a “quit and never launch the game again immediately after losing a city to a crow” achievement, so i don’t think you’ve really thought your use of “evidence” through very much. every bit of “evidence” that you’ve provided is pretty irrelevant to the advantages and disadvantages of crow sniping as a game mechanic. your arguments put way more forward to support the idea that someone murdered your girlfriend while playing AoW3 multiplayer on their laptop than “crow sniping is causing players to leave.”

    #218127

    There is a reason they put it down and forgot to come back to it.
    And your reason is that people are somehow less important if they don’t play as much as you do. They paid as much as you did.
    Like it or not evidence is better than pulling stuff out of your back end. It’s irrational and self centered to demand the devs must cater to people who play the game all day, rather than most people who play it for a couple hours.

    I have to agree with Lord Nerdfish here, every single person has the same amount of “right” to tell his opinion, (well except me, my magnificence gives me trice the right), I have to add though that if a player has more hours in the game it is more likely he knows his stuff and add value to the overall opinion. (this doesn’t mean that number of hours = truth but I expect you guys to be influenced enough by my geniality to understand this point)

    #218128

    NINJEW
    Member

    every person is equally valued. that doesn’t mean that anyone is leaving because of crow sniping.

    like it or not but misreading numbers that are mostly meaningless in favor of theories that you haven’t backed up at all while peppering everything you say with a strange grudge against anyone who likes multiplayer games isn’t convincing anyone

    #218156

    Nerdfish
    Member

    tldr

    There are many, many reason why casual players leave, ANY of them is more important than making sure some guy who play MP has an advantage over someone who play less MP.

    like it or not but misreading numbers that are mostly meaningless in favor of theories that you haven’t backed up at all while peppering everything you say with a strange grudge against anyone who likes multiplayer games isn’t convincing anyone

    I am not going create an illusion that your opinion matters more than the numbers because you don’t like the numbers. If I talk to you it sound like you matter when you don’t.

    #218158

    NINJEW
    Member

    lol you think your opinion matters too

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 101 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.