Thoughts on the strategic stagnation

[Out4Blood]

They're now playing something they enjoy more.

Players won't come back to a game if they left that rapidly, they'll find something else. If they had left after 1-2 years, you'd see some of them coming back saying they missed the game. In RON, you might get some late buyers join in, but these are the not the "hard-core" gamers who keep communities bustling - these are casual gamers who are less likely to take up the multiplayer experience, and even when they do, tend to play less often.

[HalfLotus]

I guess we'll see. Predicting the future is hard to do.

edit: And on topic about strategic stagnation. The threads at ron heaven are some of the most in depth (and testy) I have seen in an RTS forum. Particularly the rushing threads. We havent uncovered a great deal of discrete strategies, but the ones that do exist, even the simplest rush, can be debated from many, many angles and must consider a wealth of factors, as each rush is different from the last. This is what makes RoN great.

It also speaks well of the community when the strategic discussion is so well thought out (though delivered immaturely at times). All other mainstream RTS's (Wc3, AoM, C&C) have forums that are devoid of any useful information. It's mostly jibberish.

[Out4Blood]

You mean the thread that I started? Which I did precisely because there has been SO LITTLE written about it.

And as for other games not comparing, that's simple not true. There are dozens of sites that describe detailed strategies for playing all of the nations in AOE and AOK.

Kohan has extremely in depth strategic discussions.

So why is RON different? I believe it's because overall strategies don't tend to change game-to-game. Sure there are map-specific strategies, but other than that, I don't see much variation. I dunno, maybe I need to get our more.

[Out4Blood]

You mean the thread that I started? Which I did precisely because there has been SO LITTLE written about it.

And as for other games not comparing, that's simple not true. There are dozens of sites that describe detailed strategies for playing all of the nations in AOE and AOK.

Kohan has extremely in depth strategic discussions.

So why is RON different? I believe it's because overall strategies don't tend to change game-to-game. Sure there are map-specific strategies, but other than that, I don't see much variation. I dunno, maybe I need to get out more.

[HalfLotus]

You mean the thread that I started? Which I did precisely because there has been SO LITTLE written about it.

Yes the thread that you started. Prior to that the Infidel's had done a _very_ in-depth guide about rushing. Also myst wrote his article on defending the rush at MFO. Even after all that has been written (by very good players), there is still much to debate and new facts have been uncovered in your RonH thread.

And as for other games not comparing, that's simple not true. There are dozens of sites that describe detailed strategies for playing all of the nations in AOE and AOK.

Kohan has extremely in depth strategic discussions.

I was speaking of forum discussion, not "guides" per se.

AoC and AoK have been around for many, many years and have been played millions of times by probably millions of poeple. It takes alot of time and alot of effort for strategies to evolve out of RTS games (especially ones as complex as RoN). It is simply not possible for a brand new game with a _tiny playing population_ to burst out with a boatload of new strategies. Yet there are already several guides for discrete strategies. RoN has a half dozen ancient rushing guides, the 150 rush, Turkish Classical Rush, the Mongol Rush, and the Medieval Attack on this site (there are hundreds of approaches to a medieval attack, there will be many more written). There are also nation specific guides for Bantu, Korea, Aztecs, and Mongols with others sure to come.

Even the simplest strategy in RoN must be analyzed in many, many, MANY ways before it can be completely understood. In a comprehensive RoN rushing guide (the simplest strategy), there would be enough caveats to fill an encyclopedia. The guides for strategies of other RTS' (even the most complex ones) will tell you to do basically the same thing every time.

It is because of RoN's greater complexity that it takes more effort to discover discrete strategies. Then when you find one, it takes even longer to test it in all the scenarios that are possible within RoN.

So why is RON different? I believe it's because overall strategies don't tend to change game-to-game. Sure there are map-specific strategies, but other than that, I don't see much variation. I dunno, maybe I need to get out more.

How much multiplayer do you play? I see people win with all sorts of wacky strats...ancient rushes, 150 rushes, nation-specific Classical attacks, Medieval attacks, booming to gunpowder, booming to industrial...

You mention that every posted replay looks basically the same, and I agree. This is because people only post close games, which tend to be slug fests that last through industrial/modern. People dont post the replay when they whip somebody with a classical attack or a 2:45 rush.

[Mort]

I joined this forum just to say this -

Look at blizzard and how they have seemingly always managed to get us interested and STAY playing the game.

- look at Starcraft ONLY 3 teams Alines, Humans and the inbetween race

WArcraft - Only 3 races

ANd each race has totally UNIQUE races and units. EACH unit can be spammed (mass produced). And each has special units that can only be created at the END of the game. (like in starcraft and the ghost unit - he had to sneak into their base and plant the laser for a nuke).

I think that the whole border thing is good - BUT it allows for less strategy - like maybe planting a base right outside theres. or sneaking into their base.

To put my two main points into a couple sentences -

The game tried too hard to make it a even game (balanced) that it stopped strategy and made it a boring slow pace game to the - always sending troops to a waypoint at the border to, and that being the only strategy you need.

and that they may have alot of races, but each race LOOKS THE SAME except for a few unique units that cant do anything anyway.

ive noticed that the main objective is to just upgrade your military units through teching up levels, and that just pisses me off, i have my massive army ready, and i cant attack due to attrition, and he comes at me with the same size force that had been upgraded 5 seconds earlier to beat my lower level military.

I like how the economy is set up, but i just hate it how the game is set out that even if you WIN a battle, you still can LOSE more than the other player. (due to booming etc. techs)

i have alot more to say, and i said that would only be two sentences.... oh well, O4B really sparked me, i really do like this game, but it lacks the strategy you can use with military. the units are cool - but they should be able to do more and be more different in look and ability.

eg. russians should have accurate riflemen that can stab with there rifles, while germans have grenade throwers. the bantu should be able to dig under ground and pop out when an enemy troop comes past.
the inca should be able to hide in trees with snipers. the turks can use the mountains as bases. there should be differnt types of towers - arrows/bombardment or gun/missile for the later ages.

[Flip McWho]

I agree with some of the points raised here. Although i had never really thought of it 'till i read it here. Nice thread Out 4 Blood.

The points about the units i agree with quite wholeheartedly, armies are usually made up with a bit of everything. I suppose this was aimed at making more variety in armies but instead makes all armies virtually the same.

The points about the economy....interesting. I can see where your coming from, but if you counted the commerce cap by removing it, it would mean that the whole early game would be developing each city as far as possible 'till you have the best economy possible then producing units. Maybe one way would be to have the abilities that extend the commerce limit do so by more of a margin. Maybe, maybe not.

I think that the whole border thing is good - BUT it allows for less strategy - like maybe planting a base right outside theres. or sneaking into their base.

I wouldn't call being able to plant a fort (although to an allied computer I once put redoubts althrough his territory and then declared war, quite fun that was) or barracks in your enemies backyard much of a strategy. I mean sure getting the building up can be difficult but once it's up your pretty much away. I like borders too and reckon they add to strategy as you have to figure away around them.

ive noticed that the main objective is to just upgrade your military units through teching up levels, and that just pisses me off, i have my massive army ready, and i cant attack due to attrition, and he comes at me with the same size force that had been upgraded 5 seconds earlier to beat my lower level military.

What do you mean can't attack because of attrition? Haven't you, with your massive army, built any supply wagons? I think that that him having an upgraded army should make a difference. He spent those extra resources (admittingly probably not a significant amount of resources) on upgrading his troops. He should get a benefit out of it, otherwise what would be the point in upgrading units at all if an army a couple of levels higher is on par with your army a couple of levels lower? (This isn't what your suggesting i think but i'm just taking that to its extreme) This makes for less strategy.

[Azrikam]

My 2 cents on the reduction of the online community. I'm a huge fan of Apolyton and Rise of Nations, but other than a far too long break when my PC was DOA, I've been playing the game instead of talking strategy on the forums. As for the multiplayer community, although RoN is brilliant in MP, I still enjoy playing SP against the AI. When I do play MP, it's in LAN games against friends. So, I've never played RoN over the Internet, and unless my RoN LAN opponents dry up, I won't have any need to.

I don't think the lack of people on the boards or in the MP definitely says that RoN is dying.

I do agree that similar armies is an issue, but I don't know how to fix it without upsetting the game as a whole. Altering ramping sounds good, but until I see it in action I wouldn't be able to guess how it would affect other parts of the game.

[Out4Blood]

You mention that every posted replay looks basically the same, and I agree. This is because people only post close games, which tend to be slug fests that last through industrial/modern. People dont post the replay when they whip somebody with a classical attack or a 2:45 rush.

You're missing the key fact that you provide the evidence for. Close games with competitive players always involve the same strategies. There's not much variation at all. But when there's a huge skill mis-match, sure, you can win by doing anything. But in comparing strategies, I hold all else equal, including skill. Thus, when goo dplayers meet, and winning is important, the game tends to play exactly the same every time. That gets boring for everyone - and that's why you see a LOT of good players leaving. Most people think it all stems from the MP issues. But I can't speak for them - I've never had any MP issues playing 1on1.

[HalfLotus]

I haven't seen anyone post that they are quitting the game because of a lack of strategic options. 95% of the people that bash the game do so because of crappy MP and a tiny community.

Close games with competitive players always involve the same strategies. There's not much variation at all

What are you basing this on? The pitiful amount of replays that are posted? How can you pretend to know what goes on in every multiplayer game? If you have tried different strategies on Gamespy you know that there are many, many ways to win.

I've seen with my own two eyes that all kinds of strategies work in an equally skilled matchup. Here's a few: Ancient rush, 150 rush, Classical attack, Fast classical raiding to Boom, Slow raiding and Boom, pure boom to GP, pure boom to industrial.

Keep in mind that there are dozens of ways to execute each one of these strategies (hundreds in the case of booming).

I cant speak to the expert level, but Thao (tuf_richter) says this on RoNH:

theres no lack of depth.
theres a lack of good players.
only players that could say something about "lack of depth" are top 10 players. no top 10 player is posting in such threads.
i changed my style of playing several times:
age 1 rushing--> booming, gunpowder attack --> classic attack --> heavy booming ---> booming and raiding --> heavy raiding
all with good results.

and if you think all games look the same you have no idea"

There's a new replay in the Medieval Attack thread. I played a guy who was better than me and I beat him with an Ancient rush followed by a boom to the Medieval attack.

I'm sure you're a whiz against the AI, but you clearly have very limited experiences in multiplayer.

[Out4Blood]

Most of the people I've seen leaving post that they are leaving because they are "bored." I've stated my opinion as to what makes them "bored." You're certainly allowed to have a different opinion though...

[Jaybe]

"Boredom": The state of mind in which it's the same ol' thing, game in and game out.
It was good for a few months, but there isn't much "depth" to it. No appreciation for going through the ages because they go so fast, even on Extremely Slow & Expensive.

From a SP TBSer who has gone back (at least for a while) to Civ3 (Large games that take weeks to complete).

[Madine]

I know I've seen more posts complaining about mp connectivity problems than posts complaining the game is boring.

[Out4Blood]

I wasn't having any before but I upgraded my card today from a 16MB STB card (4 FPS) to a 128 MB Radeon 9200 and NOW it crashes when I try to do multiplayer...

[Grond]

How many of the top players from the beta still play?