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.20 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » gold and stone
Bottom
Topic Subject:gold and stone
volume
Clubman
posted 08-13-09 06:53 AM ET (US)         
isnt it unexpected that gold is more available than stone in age compared to the real world? and rasteve and perhaps others who are editing and creating patches also emphasize more gold in gold mines. from the beta version of age gold was also increased from 300 to 400 while stone remained the same at a low 250.

think its time to make stone mines contain some more stone?

also the trading thing you only trade for gold is another thing that i think should also be able to trade for stone (and other resources which ill cover on the next topic)
AuthorReplies:
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 08-13-09 07:18 AM ET (US)     1 / 20       
Personally I am not too keen on increasing stone. More stone means more towers, and from playing the limited number of multiplayer games I don't think "i have ran out of stone" really brings about "gg".

Each stone mine contains 250 stone, and if I was going to increase it would only be to 300 (1 mine = 2 towers, or 4 roman towers). In DM games this probably won't matter, and in RM games keep villies on one stone clump for longer.

What do others think? Towers in RM are usually used to harass (put one up near an enemy gold mine etc). In drawn out games they may be more helpful, but I would rather have villies chopping, farming and mining gold than having a group of 5-10 running around placing towers.
Ninetails
AoEH MMC Winner
(id: TailSpray)
posted 08-13-09 10:04 AM ET (US)     2 / 20       
I personally would like to see increased stone, there is too little on any given map to really construct enough towers in RM, and really hinders the Babylonian (Yeah, I'd nearly forgotten they existed too) civ bonuses.

| The Slave Pits (4.8) MMC 1st Place | The Fate of Inraya Teaser (4.5) | The Parting Gift | Computer Wars Pack |
"Never experienced any of his revolutionary scenarios, but dang if he isn't charismatic when he speaks!" -Aro
Voted AoEH's Most Helpful Forumer 2009!

Ninetails, of all the forumers you seen to have the inabillity to feel hate against your fellow man. A noble trait, treasure it. -Gumble
Duan Xuan
Clubman
posted 08-13-09 10:44 AM ET (US)     3 / 20       
If it isn't a lot of trouble, I don't see a problem with increasing the amount of stone per stone mine. Just don't go around dotting the map with more stone spots.

The issue here, as many of us are aware, is not how much stone is available. I have never played in a game where anyone ran out of stone. If you run out of stone in an SP mission, then you probably suck or aren't playing the scenario properly, so just restart.

I think it's fairly obvious that stone doesn't have much use. It is only used to create slingers and build towers, both of which are pretty much useless in most games. You won't have the need or opportunity to create/build so many of them. Walls are another thing altogether though - they're pretty useful, so more stone for players is fine.

If you were to juxtapose stone with the other 3 resources, you will realise that it's 'usefulness ratio' isn't 1:1. Unit for unit, stone is far less valuable or useful than gold. You don't even need to bring food and wood into the comparison.

Also, another point that'll bound to be raised is that you won't have the chance to build 100 towers and 3 layers of walls around your base. Players who focus their economy on just food and wood will be able to crush you before you can even upgrade your sentry tower.
Ninetails
AoEH MMC Winner
(id: TailSpray)
posted 08-13-09 10:56 AM ET (US)     4 / 20       
Are you saying I suck?

I like to play as Babylonian and have walls backed by towers. Sure, it won't really get me anywhere in MP, but every now and then I enjoy a little SP game as a break from designing.

| The Slave Pits (4.8) MMC 1st Place | The Fate of Inraya Teaser (4.5) | The Parting Gift | Computer Wars Pack |
"Never experienced any of his revolutionary scenarios, but dang if he isn't charismatic when he speaks!" -Aro
Voted AoEH's Most Helpful Forumer 2009!

Ninetails, of all the forumers you seen to have the inabillity to feel hate against your fellow man. A noble trait, treasure it. -Gumble

[This message has been edited by Ninetails (edited 08-13-2009 @ 10:57 AM).]

Rasteve
Clubman
posted 08-13-09 11:30 AM ET (US)     5 / 20       
Thanks Duan! I was talking from my limited experience, but I see that my thoughts are shared with experienced multiplayers

Ninetails - I will also be changing the AI files, so the need to wall/tower will probably change too. My experience with single player is that computer players will out tool and bronze you easily, and then send in units around 10mins into the game. If playing against multiple computer players I do tend to wall and tower, but only to build up my army, before going on a rampage!

I will slow the computer player down, making it grow its economy just like a human player, before double jumping to bronze and then training a large army. There are some tool-rush specific strats which I will keep (but slightly change) so you never really know what you will get, but generally this gives you the time to build up your economy and have a good 1v1 match.

Of course, the AI/PER changes are limited to the game engine, and therefore the computer player will never be like a human (ability to change strategy, change priorities etc) but hopefully you should see a huge improvement, and bridge the gameplay between single and multiplayer games.
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 08-13-09 06:10 PM ET (US)     6 / 20       
According to Duan's logic i suck as well...hey i already knew that! (you don''t need to remind it to me)
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 08-13-09 06:54 PM ET (US)     7 / 20       
The last time I built more than 2 towers in a RM game was against Basse. Oh yeah, I was Roman!!
Gumble
Clubman
posted 08-13-09 09:00 PM ET (US)     8 / 20       
Increased stone would only be really effective in games against computer players because you could make effective 'kill zones' and bottlenecks.

Stone is a great alternative in trading...

And depending on the map type if you have the uber (shang?) civ bonus to tower range then your kicking catapult ass which is always nice.

Too many people say far too much about Gumble. They also claim Gumble says far too much which isnt true.

One man's truth is another man's lie. Seek TRUTH to escape this moral mire.

'Experts' try to analyse human behaviour and the human condition and make grand conclusions. - Its the same as the guy who explains why a joke is funny and kills the joke.
Fisk
Champion of AoEH
(id: Fruktfisk)
posted 08-14-09 04:22 AM ET (US)     9 / 20       
That is the Choson bonus. I personally think it beats the Babylonian HP bonus.

//The warrior of Isola

"I lack quotes that demonstrate Humor Intelligence or anything about me."

Pineapplefish
Cleidopus gloriamaris
volume
Clubman
posted 08-14-09 05:28 AM ET (US)     10 / 20       
here now. the idea is to have just a bit more stone in stone mines and another alternative way to get stone to be more comparable to the other resources. for gold to have more gold in gold mines may help gameplay, but you dont exactly find more gold in real life than stone.

sure in mp games there is no such thing not that i have heard of about 'i ran out of stone' 'gg' but like i said its just simply to make stone more comparable..at least to gold.

also whats wrong with more towers? for a babylon or choson player to be more sensible matching with rome. towers claim land. dont tell me that aoe/ror strats have changed nowadays and we seldom build towers for a sort of barrier deterent defense or even to claim land including in dm.

and of course tower rush is to harass the enemy. you can simply counter it with siegecraft or cats.

anyone who dont put towers at least to claim land IMO sucks.

ADD: how about make siegecraft increase stone mining production rather than gathering rate? just like coinage for gold.

[This message has been edited by volume (edited 08-14-2009 @ 06:54 AM).]

Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 08-15-09 12:14 PM ET (US)     11 / 20       
I personally think it beats the Babylonian HP bonus.
In this game range bonus always pwns all the other bonuses, lol!
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 08-17-09 02:18 PM ET (US)     12 / 20       
here now. the idea is to have just a bit more stone in stone mines and another alternative way to get stone to be more comparable to the other resources. for gold to have more gold in gold mines may help gameplay, but you dont exactly find more gold in real life than stone.
I agree in theory (realism) but this could affect gameplay in a negative way. You see, more stone means more towers and walls. In RM this probably won't mean much, but in DM games you could turn huge zones into "ghost towns" as the towers would bring great loses to civs with crappy siege. I'm not really experienced enough to really state a case for or against in DM games, but I tend to find that strats that survive on tower rushing/building are good enough. Adding more towers would overpower certain civs (choson are already excellent).

I have played a lot of DM games with Egyptian, just sitting in a corner with towers, priests and chariot archers to crush each rush, and scythe to run around the edge of the map to crush enemy woodcutters and farmers. If I had more towers then in this case the strat would be massively improved.

Now for Choson, another civ I play DM with, I have tried using towers and priests against ele strats (Fruktfisk has been one to see this), and then finish late with a huge legion army. If I had more towers then I would not be pushed across the map as I build up a massive legion army. More towers would mean that I could hold onto more gold and stone sites, and even wood, making choson stronger.

In DM games you start with a huge stockpile of stone, probably 2 stone spots and potential to flood your corner with towers.
sure in mp games there is no such thing not that i have heard of about 'i ran out of stone' 'gg' but like i said its just simply to make stone more comparable..at least to gold.
Stone is required only for towers and walls, but gold is required for so many different units and techs, the reason why gold mines have more resources than stone.
also whats wrong with more towers? for a babylon or choson player to be more sensible matching with rome. towers claim land. dont tell me that aoe/ror strats have changed nowadays and we seldom build towers for a sort of barrier deterent defense or even to claim land including in dm.
I think RM strats don't really rely on towers. You can tower rush, maybe with Roman or Babylon, but the emphasis is more on walls (and of course units) to defend areas. Even with a tower rush you can probably do enough damage with a single tower in the right place (right next to the enemy gold spot for example).

In DM strats towers are much more common, for attack and defense. However, I don't think the gameplay is unbalanced in terms of running out of stone and not having enough towers.

From my conclusion towers are good at what they do, and the balance (cost and resource availability) isn't a problem for me, in RM or DM.
and of course tower rush is to harass the enemy. you can simply counter it with siegecraft or cats.
Unless you tower rush in the tool age or tool->bronze transition! But yes, in DM you are better knock these down with armored eles (who have siegecraft) or siege.
anyone who dont put towers at least to claim land IMO sucks.
RM - more to harass (assuming stone age start)
DM - towers are used
ADD: how about make siegecraft increase stone mining production rather than gathering rate? just like coinage for gold.
What is the difference between production and gathering rate?

Siegecraft already increases production (increase in work rate and stone carry capacity). Actually coinage only increases work rate, you don't get additional gold carray capacity (but you do in my patch!)


Volume - I can understand that you feel that stone needs increasing, but I feel if done, should be small (say +50 per mine) as the balance is already suitable for RM and DM games. If stone > gold in any map, then you are in for a long long game!!!
Basse
Clubman
posted 08-17-09 02:28 PM ET (US)     13 / 20       
I almost never use tower rushes so I never run out of stone in DM
volume
Clubman
posted 08-17-09 07:07 PM ET (US)     14 / 20       
well anyways the idea is to increase stone (per mine) just a bit to make it more sense. also to increase the availability of obtaining stone such as trade or making siegecraft produce more stone like coinage produces more gold.

siegecraft currently increases gathering rate while coinage increases 'productivity' just like it says. for example a gold mine would still say 400 gold after coinage is researched however, if you mine it you would obtain an extra (i think 1) gold per trip with +25% productivity. to be in exact math (without jihad is 16 gold but only 15 gold is deducted from the mine and with jihad 6 gold but only 5 gold is deducted from the mine) 400 gold on the mine somebody without coinage like persia would only mine 400 gold while somebody with coinage lets say assyria would mine 500 out of that 400 gold mine! (amazingly egypt doesnt have coinage to boot with their +20% 'gathering' rate)

the difference especially in RM may seem small but adds up to be huge and can often times even with experts end with 'i ran out of gold' 'gg'

'gathering' rate SUCKS compared to 'productivity'

siegecraft should be '+productivity' rather than '+gathering rate' to make it comparable to coinage even just like the system said above. villagers carrying more especially after jihad doesnt mean jack compared to villagers getting more out of that one resource.

finally im not saying oh simply place more stone mines about the map which really somewhat doesnt solve the purpose.

250 stone per mine is meager and with only stone available from mines sucks. compared to at least if you ran out of gold mines you can trade and gold mines at least last a while and can even increase with coinage.
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 08-25-09 08:59 PM ET (US)     15 / 20       
sorry I forgot the coinage effect is named "productivity", which I feel better explains increased gather rates rather than increased gold yield.

I agree that having a yield increase on different resources would be great, and would bring different changes on the game. Unfortunately i can only see yield changes on the gold via coinage and farm via domestication/plow/irrigation techs.
'gathering' rate SUCKS compared to 'productivity'
In the short term gathering rates are important, but having additional gold via coinage obviously makes gathering rates less important as the game goes on.

It would be good to see craftsmanship increase wood yield, siegecraft increase stone yield and coinage increase gold yield. This would have some interesting changes on DM games, but could be seen to make Persians even more crappy!

Anyways, I cannot see how this would be possible looking at the data file, but I have increased the stone mine by 50 stone in my patch.
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-04-09 06:14 PM ET (US)     16 / 20       
I think I can now make wood, stone and food yields increase (like with coinage on gold). I will test some more today...
volume
Clubman
posted 09-05-09 02:01 PM ET (US)     17 / 20       
okay you say if you make productivity NOT 'gathering rate' of wood, food, gold and stone makes persia, palmyran and mace and those suck, simply improvise by giving them those techs or they are SOL. i think persia revived after greek rule anyways so shouldnt the greeks provide all their market techs to them??

also to add if you add more techs. i think that egypt and summer needs those shields so they can have armored elephant especially how their civ is and the other to counter the hittites.

i think you still dont understand what 'productivity' means vice gathering rate. productivity meaning it makes more of that resource as i had explained coinage with gold mines. gathering rate is simply gather more but you dont get any extra like with the 'productivity' of coinage gold and the farms. to remind you the numbers lets say....

gold mine:

gathering rate=carry more gold per trip but still only collect 400 gold when finished with 1 gold mine

productivity=collect 500 gold when finished with 1 gold mine in that ratio/percentage of productivity

coinage is a must for experts and you be surprised how many countless superexperts i beat in the old days just because they neglected coinage and came at me with something else other than siege (including bowman) telling me 'i ran out of gold. gg' while i still got enough gold just because of coinage to pump out a few siege to finish them off.

EDIT: as a matter of fact, IIRC in aoc the aztecs got like +33% or something productivity on every resource. that means they collect for example 10 wood out of a tree but only 7 wood is deducted out of the tree and food, gold and stone follows respectively

[This message has been edited by volume (edited 09-05-2009 @ 02:05 PM).]

Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 09-05-09 09:21 PM ET (US)     18 / 20       
I think this coinage dilemma requires further tests under controlled conditions that would allow the testers to compare their results.

As of now we don't know if volume's enemies just collected less gold than him because they were less greedy than him (lol, that's a possibility).

[This message has been edited by Suppiluliuma (edited 09-05-2009 @ 09:22 PM).]

volume
Clubman
posted 09-06-09 01:40 AM ET (US)     19 / 20       
simple test:

do scenario builder new scenario and make it all water

make two separate islands for the 2 players. 1 per player a town center and 4 villagers and 10 gold mines.

choose how about a good one, assyria (with coinage) and egypt (without coinage but +20% 'gathering rate'). have the two post-iron and allied.

test

you may use steroids if desired but once all gold is collected by both players look at achievements economy gold collected and look at the difference that added up to.

also jihadists (affects 'gathering rate') do not make any difference you may try it with hittite and assyria (both with coinage) for example and achieve the same result

anyways this topic was intended more into compare to real life, gold would be more scarce compared to stone and also is more into lets have more ways to obtain stone just like gold, for example trade
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-06-09 12:18 PM ET (US)     20 / 20       
Sorry volume I think I have confused you...

Yes coinage does increase the amount of gold for gold mines (i.e. you mine 500 gold from a 400 gold mine). What I was saying is that the AoE wording "productivity" should be "yield", as productivity (definition) better describes gather rates.

Just think of coinage as more gold, faster gold and free tribute.


Balancing the gold vs stone ratio could make the gameplay terrible (in the worst case scenario). For example both civs run out of gold but there is plenty of stone...build towers. If you dont have scythes what can you do in a late DM game?

In terms of trade, the game only lets you trade resources for gold. I wish the market was more like AoK but in AoE I doubt this could be done without the source code.



I tried replicating the coinage "free gold" affect on craftsmanship and siegecraft but it didnt work. I will try another idea and let you know.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames