You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.43 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » I'm scared.
Bottom
Topic Subject:I'm scared.
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
FOF_VenoM
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 05:25 AM EDT (US)         
Bungie ruined Halo 2, but they didn't think they did.
Will ES do the same? (No offense, but the whole card/deck thing is pretty strange.)

It would be cool if it worked right, but even one of your guys said "If you're playing against a way higher level guy, and he chooses a cavalry deck, and you choose a dragoon deck, then he will be very sad."

So, now we're playing poker? Gambling over the decks?

Also, since I will play the French(cavalry heavy civ), when I go into matchmaking, in the few seconds before the game starts, my opponet can go (OMG ANTI-CAVALRY DECK FOR ME HAHAHA), which renders my cavalry useless, in virtually every online game.

The only remedy for this is: You should have to be able to choose your deck based on the map, THEN the pregame lobby shows you your opponet's civilization, and the game starts. And THEN, someone could get lucky, like having chosen dragoons, when i chose cuirassier.

WTF if this game is that unbalanced, I will scream.

PLEASE ES respond.. Don't take offense to what I said.. I ahve experience with waiting for a great game which turns out to be an imbalanced piece of crap. (Halo 2)

I just don't want Multiplayer to be a toss-up, not even SLIGHTLY, and I definitely don't want people to choose their decks based on my civilization(French.)

My opponet:' liek 0mG he's playing FRENCHIES HE MUST BE USING CAVALRY, I R SO using DRAGOONs!'

AuthorReplies:
Vuredel
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 05:53 PM EDT (US)     26 / 43       

Quote:

You might say "well don't play cavalry then.", But it doesn't work like that, I WANT to use cavalry, that's just the French's THING, you know. My special unit shouldnt just be rendered half-useless because of my opponet choosing his deck that can deal with the French.


Aww, you WANT to use cavalry because they're your THING and you don't think it's FAIR that others can counter it. Boo hoo.

Stop thinking of it as a card game, just because they use the words "card" and "deck" doesn't make it a card game. It's still an RTS, and in an RTS you always have to second-guess your opponent and take risks. It's the same decision as "Am I going to build heavy cavalry? What if the enemy builds pikes?" So what did you do in AoK? Did you just quit when you were Franks against Byzantines or Saracens because you were afraid they would counter your cavalry? Please.

If you're afraid that an all-out cavalry deck is too much commitment, then make a half-cavalry deck. Expecting to be able to build as much cavalry as you want without getting countered is absolutely ridiculous. Try some other strategies or something.

XsX_Invader2
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 06:10 PM EDT (US)     27 / 43       
well before i make my statement...

Quote:

Bungie ruined Halo 2, but they didn't think they did.

ok so covenant have camo and spartans have... flashlight. that's the only unbalanced thing....

now for my real statement :P

it's kinda common sence though, if you're facing a french guy, even if you don't get an anti-cav deck, he's probably still going to use cavalry no matter what so you might as well make pikemen and dragoon no matter what, regardless of decks (come on even an infantry deck is ok...)

if you're french and you see he got an anti-cavalry deck, what's wrong with sending in the musketeers/riflemen/grenadiers/whatever in first? at least now they have no anti-cavalry and you can run him down with your horses.

oh and i think they're putting in more counters for cavalry to make it easier to deal with raids...

SandyMan
VIP
(id: ES_Sandyman)
posted 08-25-05 08:35 PM EDT (US)     28 / 43       
let's play Let's Pretend. I'm going to pretend I'm a totally ignorant person who is going to make the ALL CAV DECK OF PWNAGE. Let's see, I'll be French because their cav rule.

I can put 20 cards in my deck. How many cav cards do the French have if I can pick every single cav card? 16?! Neato! Way better than the Portuguese or British. But wait. Four of them are actually Dragoon cards. Nerts. Who needs Dragoons when you're going all cav? That leaves me with twelve Cav cards. Plus, I should choose either Cuirassiers or Hussars so I don't have to upgrade both lines of cavalry (which would be kind of stupid). if I go cuirassiers I end up with like eight total cards. (There is overlap because some cards are good for both types of cav.) This means that no matter how much I want to shoehorn myself into the mighty cav deck I still have a dozen or so cards "left over" with which to bolster my cav. Hmm. Better get some Food and Gold shipments to train my mighty cav. Perhaps some outposts or fortifications, in case I get rushed 2nd age (since cuirassiers don't appear till the 3rd). Advanced Arsenal upgrades? That's good for the cuirassiers. And so it goes.

In the end you end up with a deck that does in fact make killer cuirassiers, but if it turns out that your enemy produces nothing but pikemen, you're not necessarily pwned. You can used your Food & Gold to produce villagers and artillery. Your outposts will be useful regardless. You might use your Advanced Arsenal to buy musketeer upgrades instead. Etc. Sure your deck might not be quite the perfect one for battling pike, but by no means are you left helpless.

And if you're a little smarter, perhaps you can FORCE your enemy to start producing units that are vulnerable to cavalry. If you start pouring out musketeers to kill the enemy pike, for instance, then your opponents might switch to artillery or skirmishers of their own, to counter your muskies. If they do that, then a shipment or two of cuirassiers from the motherland would come in quite handy. And you won't even need to build a stable!

In other words, just because you're using a "Cavalry Deck" doesn't mean you can't produce other units. And just because your enemy is going heavy anti-cavalry doesn't mean cavalry are completely useless vs. him. You may not want a colossal cavalry army vs. an enemy who sticks to hand infantry, but a few cavalry are almost always useful, and getting them from your HC instead of training them is just a nice perk.

Of course, this also applies to any other kind of unit you might do. Basically, you can't really box yourself into a particular type of unit deck. Most decks are built more around "Second Age Rush" or "In The Pocket" or "Boat Boom", not a unit type. Of course a second age rush might include Hussars, but that doesn't make it a Hussar deck.

It's possible to make decks that are so bad they'll tend to lose. Heck I made a deck like that for ES_Vega the other day when I got a chance to sneak onto his account when he was off getting a soda. It had absolutely no 1st or 2nd age cards. So far he hasn't tried it out. I keep assuring him that it would rule but he doesn't believe me.

I think a lot of the fun will be people trying out "mismatched" decks.

Doggiedoodle
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 09:07 PM EDT (US)     29 / 43       
You seem to be restating the same concern that the card/deck system is like gambling. I think this is because the terminology is associated with gambling. As I said earlier it is just part of increase the inherent randomness of an RTS because you don't know what your opponent is doing and your opponent doesn't know what you are doing. All the other complaints I'm seeing seem to be focused around your units being counterable which is how the game is supposed to be.

The typing comment is because you separate every point into its own body of text which makes it very difficult to read, when things are difficult to read I consider it poor typing whether its from typoes or something else. Also this:

Quote:

My opponet:' liek 0mG he's playing FRENCHIES HE MUST BE USING CAVALRY, I R SO using DRAGOONs!'


contributed quite a lot to that opinion.

[This message has been edited by Doggiedoodle (edited 08-25-2005 @ 09:07 PM).]

dupsky
Banned
posted 08-25-05 09:17 PM EDT (US)     30 / 43       
one question:
how hard is it to make all the possible combinations ,with all these cards and the different civs, without making any totally dominant combo, assuming the same talent?

it seems monumental to me.
the mp community will be the ultimate test to see what you didnt.
my advice to you is simple , keep talent related (mp) for long term success.
so far, i see no problems with this becoming the best rts for at least 3 years, and that is assuming aoe4 is comming out in the 4th.
if your multiplayer system is valid (so far it seam to be) this is the ultimate rts, this is the new standard.

Doggiedoodle
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 09:38 PM EDT (US)     31 / 43       

Quote:


how hard is it to make all the possible combinations ,with all these cards and the different civs, without making any totally dominant combo, assuming the same talent?


I looked up how to calculate combinations(not permutations where order counts) and when I did it for 120 cards with 20 cards per deck it gave my calculator an error. Its possible I made a mistake somewhere as I haven't been great at math for a while and I didn't do very well on the exam that dealth with combinations and permutations(both of which are a result of laziness).

[This message has been edited by Doggiedoodle (edited 08-25-2005 @ 09:41 PM).]

dupsky
Banned
posted 08-25-05 09:45 PM EDT (US)     32 / 43       
doggie i dont think its that simple.
only because of the fact some cards dont appy to some civs but it was a nice try.
monumental is the word, lol!
Doggiedoodle
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 09:45 PM EDT (US)     33 / 43       
That was only calculated for one civ though, not for all 8 and every civ has 120 cards.

[This message has been edited by Doggiedoodle (edited 08-26-2005 @ 00:12 AM).]

dupsky
Banned
posted 08-25-05 09:51 PM EDT (US)     34 / 43       
not that im opposing you , but im curious to know how combinations and premutations are a result of lazyness??
it seams like a strange statment.
Doggiedoodle
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 09:54 PM EDT (US)     35 / 43       
My problems in math are a result of laziness but I double checked this. The number of combinations for a single civ is exceptionally large. ES probably has a claculator with enough digits to give the exact number. I edited the post above btw.

[This message has been edited by Doggiedoodle (edited 08-25-2005 @ 09:57 PM).]

dupsky
Banned
posted 08-25-05 10:02 PM EDT (US)     36 / 43       
ok, lol, thats like my lazyness to hit the damn caps button twice, before and after the first letter in a sentance.
im sure someone will find a way to be inherently ahead of the majority.
but this is so good , because if you invented it you should reap the benefits of it because you are the first.
afterwards, when its fixed you can try to exploit it another way. thus the cycle goes on.....

Echy88
Skirmisher
posted 08-25-05 11:54 PM EDT (US)     37 / 43       
As deathshrimp said the decks will only give you a boost, it will not determine the game. You can still use your cavalry as the french in moderation against an anti-cavalry deck. If you have other units it will force the opponent to change his strategy. You make it seem like the deck determines the game, when its far from that.
Doggiedoodle
Skirmisher
posted 08-26-05 00:14 AM EDT (US)     38 / 43       
Whoever wrote that site deserves severe mathmatical punishment, they missed a parantheses. Here's the correct number of combinations per civ 2.946223 * 10^022 or 29,462,230,000,000,000,000,000...
The_Vger
Skirmisher
posted 08-26-05 08:53 AM EDT (US)     39 / 43       
I have been playing this game from this company since AOE, when only 8 thousand people were on the zone at night. And one thing about this company, they do respond to the consumer. Relax and let them do their job.... their good at it!!

V

sleepingdog
Skirmisher
posted 08-26-05 10:59 AM EDT (US)     40 / 43       
1. People stop flaming venom, are you "that" immature that you can't just discuss with somebody who has a different opinion than you have? Give me a break, THIS is ridiculous.

2. He has shown a point that he is concerned about...there's nothing wront about that. Nevertheless, Venom, what I have heard it's just not working the way you "think" it's going to be. What I've been told is that you are going to LOSE the game if you base your deck on your opponent's civ. Decks are not supposed to work as counters to certain things but only to strengthen some strats in orde to make them stronger than they are without decks. For instance, if you have a "rush"-deck then your rush will be much stronger than without this. But of course this does NOT mean, you have a guaranteed win if your opponent has chosen a late-game deck.

Finally, you complained about guessing....but if you start to think about, EVERYTHING in strategy-games is about guessing. You could even say good guessing = good gaming, simply because playing "skilled" comes down to "guess" what your opponent may be doing and to "counter" it while he hasn't really found out that know his plan.

Since I come from the warcraft III I can only name some examples from this game, I hope they make my point clear though.
You have to decide when to creep and WHERE to creep; both comes down to "guessing" what your opponent does. (If you creep at unusual creepspots you prevent creepjacking etc.)
If you see your opponent is fastteching, you can "guess" that he is going air, but this can also be wrong, so you lose.

Indeed, this IS what's fun about real time strategy games, that you NEVER know what your opponent is doing and he NEVER knows what you are doing.
So nothing is more fun, than to surprise him with something unusual and win the game.
For instance, focus on infantry when playing against brits and surprise him while he is focussed on anti-cav.

Decks are just another way to help you playing some strats more efficiently....but certainly won't decide the outcome of a game.

[This message has been edited by sleepingdog (edited 08-26-2005 @ 11:00 AM).]

Ceres629
Skirmisher
posted 08-26-05 11:31 AM EDT (US)     41 / 43       
I have no idea why people refer to this as "gambling"

Just because ES used the term shipment "cards" and "decks" how does this become a game of poker?

This is no different that wondering whether to build a few towers to defend a potential rush. You are also "gambling" that your opponent will rush so you spend extra resources to defend it incase it happens. If it doesn't happen and your opponent booms then he could have a head start on you since you wasted money defending a rush that never happened.

These type of "mind games" are what make RTS'es so cool to me, you are constantly trying to out think your opponent and out smart them, bait them into thinking they know what your are going to do and then you hit them with your Killer-Unbalanced-Strategy-Of-Doom™

I trust ES will implement this feature sucessfully, making it balanced unlike in AoM where the minor gods selection wasn't diverse enough with some being obvious choices over other "useless" gods, which limited its potential.

The deck system has huge potential and it could become a new standard seeing many imitations in the future.

Ceres629
Skirmisher
posted 08-26-05 11:34 AM EDT (US)     42 / 43       
Surely it must have a way in game to check out an opponents stats?

On battle.net even if they didn't have the level system showing you your opponents level at the load screen (those who play warcraft3 know it does though), at least if you typed "/stats [playername]" at any time during the game, you can get the level, and No. of wins and losses of your opponent.

Surely ESO2 will have this feature as well? Even if the opponents rating isn't immediately visible, surely we can check their win loss ratio via a command?

regular_gonzalez
Skirmisher
posted 08-26-05 03:33 PM EDT (US)     43 / 43       
I think it's a bit of a moot point. Take AoM, for instance. If your opponent is Zeus, you know he will likely go heavy on the Hops. Of course, if he's any better than a noob, he knows that you know this, so you each have a decision to make -- should you go for infantry counters or, knowing that the zeus player knows you will do that and will build, say, anti-archers (anticipating your archers as a counter to his hops), build cavalry instead to tear up your archers? And knowing this, do you build cavalry counters?

Outthinking your opponents in this manner was great fun in AoM. This looks to build upon that.

« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames