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

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.11 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » who LIKES to play a deathmatch?
Bottom
Topic Subject:who LIKES to play a deathmatch?
xShahx
Inactive
posted 12-09-98 12:36 PM ET (US)         
I was just wondering how many of u actually WANT to play dms. I cant stanf the damn things, its a waste of time and i have not even played a dm in almost 5 months. If you like it or hate it post and tell me why you even consider playing it. How can you play it? its just chaos, you didnt earn all of those resources with skill, you didnt put the effort of making your economy better, its just making a hundred troops and watching them kill each other to no point. But that's just my opinion.

xShahx


AuthorReplies:
Ender
Guest
posted 12-09-98 12:56 PM ET (US)     1 / 11       
Deathmatch can be a very fun way to play AOE. THere are a few problems with it though, first off the races are even less balanced than regular AOE, most civs are aweful compared to hittite and choson. This isn't quite as bad in ROR from what I've heard but I haven't tried it out. Second DM is very draining, its constant action the entire time, I can play multiple regular games of AOE no problems, but 1 or 2 DM and I'm done for the night.

I'd suggest once you get good at RM you try DM, it really will improve your RM game. I didn't think ti would until I played some good ex-DM players who would just blow me away late in iron. It really teaches you what the optimum iron age armies are and how to use them.


postapokalyptic
Clubman
posted 12-09-98 01:12 PM ET (US)     2 / 11       
I like DMs myself, although RMs are my favorite. What I dont like are the standard settings for DMs. Everyone plays 2.0 speed 200 pop. These games are not Real-Time-Strategy. They are Cramp-Your-Wrist-Till-The-Cursor-Blends-Into-The-Background Games. 1.0 Speed DMs With 100-150 pop are the best IMO. If people played these DM settings more often on the Zone you would see me playing these a bit more in place of RMs.


orangepanther
Clubman
posted 12-09-98 01:35 PM ET (US)     3 / 11       
i play DM , but RM my favorite.I actualy was able to become above average in DM, but not wannabeexpert as in RM.


Even when you lose,you gain more than somebody who didnt fought at all.

Dhamon
Inactive
posted 12-09-98 01:52 PM ET (US)     4 / 11       
I have been playing DM for quite some time now. why do I play it? partly because I enjoy it, and partly because Im much better at it than I am at RM.

DM, at least in upper skill levels is far from chaos, it is a mix of speed, Superunit Knowege, multi-tasking, and lots of teamwork, and controling land.

Speed is just finding out a few build orders that suit your style, and applying them in fast expansion, or rush tactics, which is not that much different than using set RM strats, such as Tool Rushing as opposed to booming.

Superunit knowlege is as ender said, knowing which combos are the most efective, and knowing exatly what to do when your opponent switches tactics.

Multi-Tasking is definitely at its peak in large pop DMs, where you have 100 military units, and 100 villagers, keeping your army up to strenght.

Teamwork, from what I know, is much more important than in RM. First, most games are Iron starts, which means you have shared vision. Second, since you have so many units at your disposal, it is easier to make joint attacks. DM also brings out each units weakness, since battles involve such large numbers. Since every unit does have its weaknesses, and NO one civ has the ultimate unit combo in its self, teamwork dealing with complimentary units is very efective. An army of Choson Legions and Hittite Cats can walk through ANY defense, and almost any other combo....bring along cho villagers to set up towers, and your almost invincable.

Killing villagers is not the basic strat. In RM, almost all strategies come down to either having more villagers than your opponent, whehter by building more, or killing his off. In DM, strategy revolves more arround land, which gives you places to build, as well as res, instead of villager slaughter

If play AoE for its historical aspect, with the building of great empires, DM fits in in a surprising way. Think of it as the famous battles between 2 armies, as opposed to empires. In those acnient battles, there were definitely large numbers of troops, Villager raiding was NOT the way to win (like RM play) Stratigic strikes to gain land played an important part. Feints and diversionary tactics are also probably more common in DM.

Im not knocking RM, because it definitely has a lot of good points, but So does DM, as long as you just look past the surface.

For those looking for a balenced RoR, DM is much more balanced than RM. From what I have seen so far, Choson, Hittite, and Carth are all about equal, with civs such as persian, Greeks, and Roman not far behind. More combined armies are comon in RoR DM, with AEs, which naturely make priests more powerful as well.

Dhamon
Team Sudden Death


Scorp98
Inactive
posted 12-09-98 02:19 PM ET (US)     5 / 11       
Well I agree with Dhamon about the teamwork aspects of DM. I was a RM player exclusively and also was of the mindset that DM was nothing but mass slaughter and where was the skill involved in playing it. little did I know, I began experimenting with some DM about 7 months into my AOE career. The reason why was that I knew that I had a proficiency in utilizing Iron age units and in the battle tactics involved in large unit manipulation. My strength in RM had always been in the cleanup role. I usually shot for late brnze early iron dominance. Of course Random map games involved alot of early brnze fighting and in a limited group of people tool rushing was envogue. I had read all the strategy I could lay my hands on from sites such as shaitan and the old Expert clan page with players such as Maimen matty and Pie pie. What i found in DM was that it was a far more intense game. The initial resources that everyone has to start with are evaporated in expert level DM games within 15 min. Large pop games are normal because of the scale of warfare. And the teamwork was certainly a key ingredient in my switching to playing as many DM games as I can get in a day. Now consider this the winner of ultimate ager tourney was primarily a DM player. Really what I would say to those of you with limited understanding of DM is that it allows you to be a complete player and that without the experience of DM you are an incomplete AOE player. I would encourage people to delve into DM there are many things to be learned from it and it will improve your RM play I guarantee it. There is a whole other gaming experience that most RM players are simply denying themselves because of some misplaced perception that they are better than DM players. Better to play both.


NoSoup4U
Inactive
posted 12-09-98 02:48 PM ET (US)     6 / 11       
I don't like broccoli...oops I mean DM, I'll never like DM, and I'm just not going to play it.


Puff
Inactive
posted 12-09-98 04:06 PM ET (US)     7 / 11       
Funny how,

I started my AOE playing career (It is a career) as an RM player (Nearly all do).

I played RM untill my fingers bleed ! and continued untill they wore down to stumps that fit exactly into the grooves on my keyboard.
Then the WOODBUG came along and for me and many other RM players the game was ruined. (Prior to the fix)
I switched to DM and found a whole new world of AOE gaming.
Its fast exciting and VERY VERY strategic.

Unlike some who post (or will) here I have experience in both formats and believe me I know what im talking about.

DM is my favoured game, I did however let my RM skills slip and I can no longer bronze at 11 minutes more like 18+

One of the other posts here mentioned that you cannot be a complete AOE /RM player without gaining the experience that DM has to offer, this is very true.

Any RM game that proceeds into iron age will give an advantage to the RM player who has taken the time to learn DM

Knowing both is the greatest test of skill any AOE/ROR player can face.

Its a huge tactical error to ignore DM if you are an RM player.

I am also playing RM again for the first time in months, I know this much though:

DM is awesome and only the people who havent tried it or do not understand it, will say otherwise.

HulkH0gan
Inactive
posted 12-09-98 04:42 PM ET (US)     8 / 11       
Hi my name is HulkH0gan and I am a hard core DM player.

Let me start off with a little history in my RTS experiences. I've PLayed C&C,C&C RA, DUNE 2000. When I started playing AoE it was natural to start off with RM's. Rm had it's up and downs, but I just lost intrest and wanted a bigger challenge. Somthing which involed more teamwork and multitasking and that is what I found in DM.

Now to anwser questions or critism from RM players I hear all too offten.

(a)1."Well DM players don't have no econ they don't earn any resourses"

(b)1. What you are describing is basically what we Vets would call a newbie DMer. IN the Expert level there is constant Econ management, without an econ you will lose very fast in this game. The average Vill high for Dm players is 80-100 for Choson. 100-120 for Hittitie.

(a)2." There is no teamwork or skill involed in DM just build a lot of cats and you win"

(b)2. Well in the begining of DM all people did was just build cats and there wasn't really any teamwork involed. In the hear and now winning conditions involve land dominace,econ managment, and most important Teamwork.

(a)3. "Rm is better than Dm cause of the popularity factor, so clearly it is better than DM."

(b)3. That is half true. Rm is more popular by far in the means of maxium people at peak times. Since Rm is what we all started with it's only natural to play it more. But if you
exclude the rookie rooms RM only has about a 100 more players than DM..
This does not mean RM is better than DM or vise versa.

Those where the 3 comments I hear most from Dm players. And I hope this clears up any more questions RM'ers have for DM.

And that is why I play DM.

HulkH0gan


Godzilla
Clubman
posted 12-10-98 11:39 AM ET (US)     9 / 11       
there are a bunch of reasons why I play DM. I like the action... I like the speed... I like how the game actually requires you to use combined forces, to actually worry about what the other guy is going to send at you. Its not really all about mindless killing and just sending army upon army at each other. The action is really fast, even at 1.0 (which i like to use in the big nasty expert games). The beginning of a DM is really quite intense. You have to think quickly as to what you should do at the beginning, should you rush or hold back and get set up instead. Either way you have little time to decide, you have to get everything set up fast and you have to start making an attack quickly. I find RM to be a slower, more relaxed game. the action really doesn't start until at least 10 or 12 minutes in. In DM, the action could start at the 3 or 4 minute mark. And please don't try to tell me that DM is about just midless because RM is all about killing poor innocent villagers.

DM is a military game, but you also have to keep an economy going. Without an effective economy, you're dead at the 15, 20 minute mark. You're out of food, wood, gold, and stone. So you just end up being a sitting duck. And you also have to try to steal your opponents resources. The less they have, the better for yourself. me and my partner won a game the other day simply because we controlled the gold, and the other team ran out. They couldn't do anything because their economy had run out of gas.

And the other thing is... yes it may seem like chaos to you, but its not really, its just more troops. Now if you're a hittite who's supporting a choson player, you'll find that the action is really fast. you have to be all over the map, clicking to different groups, watching your cats to make sure they're not killing stuff they shouldn't be killing. You have to have your HHA's following close behind to protect them from hordes of legions trying to overrun you. And at the same time, you're trying to make an economy thats going to help supply your needs and your choson partners needs. It really is a fun game, not just make a unit, then send it to its death.

The civ balance is another story. Hittite and choson definetly rule, but greek isn't bad, they make choson look really bad if they can survive the initial rush. I've seen babylonians used very effectivly. Now in ROR, the game has even more civs you can use. Carth are good, Persia is viscious with their AE's. Choson is still great as is HIttite. Even rome isn't so bad due to their siege/legion mix.

Now, DM isn't for everyone, and neither is RM. Just remember that most of the DM crowd plays and did play RM at one time and many of them were very good at RM before they started DM. DM is just another variation of AOE that people like to play. Its more of a great equalizer. You're economy is no longer based on if you got a bad spot or not. Or if you have a great fishing site or if your wood is 2 miles away. Now if you get a bad spot, you can at least build in a new location and still make an effective attack. But please don't just call DM mindless, or say it has no point. Because it does, It just conquest rules with large armies. There is lots of strategy involved. You have to thing of think of ways to get past you enemy, concentrate your attacks on their weaknesses, look for holes in their defenses to exploit and then at the same time, give help to you teammates whenever they need it. Its a fun game, just probably something that you might not seem like lots of fun if you keep getting beat down in expert games. But a good DM will last hours and will give you a great game that rivals any in RM.


Space Cowboy
Inactive
posted 12-10-98 01:43 PM ET (US)     10 / 11       
I can understand why many of you dont like deathmatches, yet I have to admit, I love them myself. I don't get to play much multi-player, and DMs are a great way to sharpen your quick-thinking skills, and bone up on new stratagies and tactics. It does get old after a while, but I find it is a fun way to practice stuff while single-playing.


Abraxas
Inactive
posted 12-10-98 04:25 PM ET (US)     11 / 11       
Well in an earlier post elsewhere I referred to DM as lame. I played 2-3 games of DM a couple of days ago, and I had fun. I was pretty tired, so I just decided to play it and try some wacky experiments, not caring about winning. I went with Egypt one game and built nothing but walls, towers, priests and a few jugs. I expected to get wiped fast, but I guess it took the Hittites and Choson attacking me by surprise and the hittite cats killed their own army as I converted one cat in every bunch, along with a few cav outside my walls. Eventually I did loose, but I was the last to go from my team. So while I doubt I'll be playing DM regularly, maybe from time to time I'll try it and see if I do reap any benefits by way of improving my rm play.


Abraxas

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

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames