> I don't really care about the tiny minority of people who care about the skill ceiling within a super low level micro.
I'd argue that most people that kept playing aoe2 online and kept it "alive" all care about that.
> I'd like to see RTS games that randomize game parameters each time, requiring you to actually strategize.
aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense).
In games with fixed maps, you see much more interesting one-off strategies (people like to call it cheese[0]) because you can plan everything down to the second. You'd plan & practice strategies on specific maps in specific matchups against the "standard" build orders.
AoE2 has these types of strategies too, but since the maps are always slightly different, you can't plan your building placement etc ahead of time.
There's also MegaRandom [1] which takes the randomisation to the next level. But I'd argue micro matters significantly more in that map, since you can end up in "unfair" situations where you need to outplay with micro to stand a chance.
> Nudging guys a few inches to the side is the opposite of what makes the game fun for most people.
That's how these games stay popular for 20 years. It's like complaining about strafe jumping in quake, it's what kept the game alive all this time.
> aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense).
I'm more of a fan of the in-game, on the spot strategizing that randomized maps force you to do, than the out-of-game meta-strategizing of fixed maps, where you do comparatively limited in-game strategizing.
> I'd argue that most people that kept playing aoe2 online and kept it "alive" all care about that.
I didn't say they didn't?
> aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense). In games with fixed maps, you see much more interesting one-off strategies (people like to call it cheese[0]) because you can plan everything down to the second. You'd plan & practice strategies on specific maps in specific matchups against the "standard" build orders. AoE2 has these types of strategies too, but since the maps are always slightly different, you can't plan your building placement etc ahead of time. There's also MegaRandom [1] which takes the randomisation to the next level. But I'd argue micro matters significantly more in that map, since you can end up in "unfair" situations where you need to outplay with micro to stand a chance.
The random maps are random within a very narrow set of parameters. They don't change the strategy. Practicing standard build orders is what 99% of players will need to do. I agree, at the very top level there is a level of strategy again. But in that grind to the top, the way you do better is by simply narrowing the time to get your first rush online. There's very little chance to actually change your gameplan.
> That's how these games stay popular for 20 years. It's like complaining about strafe jumping in quake, it's what kept the game alive all this time.
These games have not stayed popular. RTS has not done very well as a genre. You've got Starcraft and AoE2. And that's kind of it. AoM, AoE3, the shittier spinoffs, and AoE4 haven't made particularly big splashes. Nor have other franchises.
The thing is, these games are really fun to play casually, or in single player. But playing competitively where people are going to do stuff that works is so different and not compatible with what people liked when they were introduced to the series.
Consider a comparison to fighting games, where it's also a hard requirement to be obsessively deep with the game to make any progress. Fighting games have still seen a ton of success with many popular new titles.
edit: I was super deep on the AoM scene and mildly deep on the AoE2 scene; dropping off well past the title's prime but sometime before AoE2:DE
edit edit: I can also recall that the majority of online players back in the day would like the setting but seem to lose interest in playing normal maps and eventually settle on silly scenarios. It's not surprising that MOBA games have really taken off as that's what a lot of these scenarios were in some form; but worse.
I'd argue that most people that kept playing aoe2 online and kept it "alive" all care about that.
> I'd like to see RTS games that randomize game parameters each time, requiring you to actually strategize.
aoe2 already has randomised maps, I think that's why you actually get less strategy (in a sense).
In games with fixed maps, you see much more interesting one-off strategies (people like to call it cheese[0]) because you can plan everything down to the second. You'd plan & practice strategies on specific maps in specific matchups against the "standard" build orders.
AoE2 has these types of strategies too, but since the maps are always slightly different, you can't plan your building placement etc ahead of time.
There's also MegaRandom [1] which takes the randomisation to the next level. But I'd argue micro matters significantly more in that map, since you can end up in "unfair" situations where you need to outplay with micro to stand a chance.
> Nudging guys a few inches to the side is the opposite of what makes the game fun for most people.
That's how these games stay popular for 20 years. It's like complaining about strafe jumping in quake, it's what kept the game alive all this time.
[0] https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Cheese
[1] https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/MegaRandom