Beyond All Reason has a reconnect feature that uses the lockstep method you described. The units counts are FAR higher in that game and it works very well. It is totally technically feasible. Replaying through the game at 16x speed to catch up is no problem at all.
I really like the idea of more maps designed around teams working together. It does often feel like multiple 1v1s, but coordinating multiple armies with my friends successfully is some of the most fun I ever have in gaming. Being able to choose team positions also a great idea.
Another cool feature from AoE2: team bonuses. Each civ comes with a team bonus that applies to itself in 1v1s, but in team games it applies to the whole team. For example, the Britons +10% production speed for archery ranges is given to every player on the team, so other ranged civs benefit from simply having a Briton teammate. iirc these don't stack, so it means you miss out on team bonuses if you double-up on civs on the same team, but it creates a lot of cool synergies that otherwise don't exist in 1v1s. It also kinda mitigates the problem of team games devolving into two 2v2s, cos even if you never actively cooperate with your opposite flank in a fight, just their presence on the team boosts you in some way
I’m less of a fan of invisible bonuses and more of a fan of in-game bonuses like aura effects being shared (Kurultai, Camel Support, etc). Reason being is game readability for new players. It’d be tedious to memorize yet another layer of stats on top of everything by else. That being said team bonuses could be a balancing lever that could help the devs avoid creating entirely new stats/balance for team game units. So I don’t hate that idea…
The colors thing would be nice, but im not hard stuck on that front. The picking positions could be cool, like a LoL start. I think thatd be fine. The announcer im not huge on, but sometimes i get noises for attacks from the enemies, and sometimes i dont. Make it consistent, ya know. I love gorge! Many of my friends disagree, but i think it adds a different playstyle to the games (including position picking). Civ design is fine, ofc the game is based on 1v1s... Teams become exponentially hard to balance without differentiating solo vs team stats youd need to know. Same with trade. Hopefully the expansion has brought enough in to get support in this way. Reconnecting, sure. But im not bothered by that front rn. 🎉 Always great to see a vid!
No on choosing locations for me. I don't need another reason for people to leave a lobby just because they didn't get their desired location. I also like the fact that sometime you get "boom" civs on the edge that changes up the gameplay. Fine if we add for customs though. Like the rest of the suggestions. I think just seeing the population of allies would be so helpful & in the trade screen allies resources. Often times I think about sending resources if I am floating but I don't know if it is redundant.
Team notifications the way you presented them would be so neat. I now can't think myself playing team games without it. The complexity of team games is so high you NEED some caster UI to handle it.
while i think the whole list is good i really feel spawnpoint pick would be the biggest hit. a lot of civ related imbalance would already be solved by this and i will shill for it until it happens. thanks for the video!
About your point 4: The most played team games today don't have the team working as one for at least huge parts of the game. Example 1: MOBAs (DoTa, LoL & more): In LoL your team is split into 2x 1vs1 and 1x 2vs2 and another person running around helping out everywhere. Only later in the game for certain objectives you group and push together (taking Dragon or pushing a lane) and even then there is the case for split pushers or splitting and pushing 3 lanes with baron buff. Sure the mid lander or the support can roam but that comes at a cost since you force an advantage somewhere else. In AoE terms this would be one of the top 2vs2 players moving their army to the bottom to force an advantage and a push. So AoEs maps are pretty align with LoL for this. And LoL also has an Gorge equivalent which is called ARAM (All Random All Mid; focusing on the ALL MID part) where you just push down one lane in a 5vs5. This plays very different to the normal map "summoner's rift". So that checks out too. Example 2: Tactical shooters (CS:GO & CS:GO2 & more): Again there are different lanes to get to objectives. And the defending side will have to split so not being a 5 stack. And again this works. Sure attacker can play 5 people down one lane but even they split on certain maps and have different objectives. And again there is roaming to force an advantage while praying to all the gods that your then weaker side doesn't loose. So all in all I'll say this "lane" approach aka having 2x 2vs2 is fine and it's good in fact that you can choose to move one or both armies to the other lane to force an advantage while sacrificing something on the other front. That's a good tactical option. BUT all that being said your second point the maps being to large is the real problem. Because if rotations would be more feasible the whole thing would be much more dynamic. So I'd argue the lanes are fine and their should be different lay outs of this. One map 2x 1vs1 and 1x 2vs2 or another map 2x 2vs2 and this in different arrangements is great. BUT again going back to your second point: You need to be able to to declare your position to do this. To make it make sense. Cause this only works in LoL or DoTa because you can choose your lane and who you're going to play on it. For AoE this could be on a 2vs2 map picking English + one roaming fast civ on one lane cause the English are very defensive and could be able to hold out for quite a while while you force an advantage 3vs2 on the other lane or force your enemy to also move. So all in all map size and picking start positions are the real issue not really the lane approach cause that is a very big part of most strategic multiplayers (though different arrangements and also 4vs4 maps like Gorge are very much appreciated and there should be a good mix!).
I've noticed team games seem to be people's entry to ranked games. Any time I see an unranked player in 1v1, odds are they first played team games
9 หลายเดือนก่อน
nice to see this, team games FTW! don't forget the two huge issues there are: dodging resulting in 15+ minutes waiting time at Conq+ elo levels and ELO boosting - currently 9/10 of Top10 highest ranked players is one player+3 smurfs account with 1000elo, so they get more elo point for winning
Hi, they all make sense except number 2. Everyone has to adapt to the position they are in, this is improved with more team oriented maps as you already asked.
I think team oriented maps would help. But for example on gorge, the back player on your team has a lot of leeway to multi-tc and boom. This obviously favors some civs over others. Ie. If you have a China or Abbasid in the back, you’ll likely beat the team with an English or an Ayyubid in the back. All else being equal. Not every civ has the same boom potential. Similarly, not every civ has the same early game defensive potential. Some civs excel in a forward position. Better to let people play according to roles than to like a roll of the die determine which side wins or loses.
@@ChillyEmpire I think that in AoE2 it exists and that will result in always playing the same powerful civs in the same positions and some have been bored like that (comments from sites like aoezone, etc). If the team gets a boom civ in front of the opponents (Gorge is a special map and it is not the rule) then the player with a boom civ will have to adopt a more defensive position against early pressure. Serious analysis should be done on games that are won or lost, with a similar level, depending on the position of each player and draw conclusions. I see it well in custom games, in ranked games we look for adaptation (as long as there is a level playing field with respect to map resources). At least this is my point of view. Regarding the rest, I agree with you.
@@Adribird Yeah to avoid meta stagnation you'd probably have to adopt some kind of balancing model that adjusts the civs and their roles, with regular updates that shake things up. It might even require reworking the civ design to focus on their roles. Basically, it could happen in a world where team games are the dominant game type. Not sure that's the case right now. But I think there could be potential. At the least, I'd like to see it for custom games. At the moment, the random generation really does favor some teams over others.
I think the biggest one on this list is the maps (no point having the stating position selectable on any map other than Gorge right now :D) The colours one would be nice as well tbh I think Notifs and team specific Civ balance would be harder and less important than the above imo as you can sudo solve a lot of the balance issues via the map design (how big they are for boomy civs, how much hunt spawns for Rus etc) Hope the Devs see this video/put a bit more focus into Team games soon, Gorge is great
What about team bonuses like AoE2 has? Or even just making it so more of a civ's options apply to allies. Healing from monks/buildings is one of the only ones that does apply to teams, but what if for instance Mongol's Outpost speed bonus applied to allies? It would give people more things to build around and consider.
I mean, I’d also like it if in the scenario that a player gets disconnected, or even if he just surrenders on his own - don’t make his walls impassable for your team. It’s one thing to play at a disadvantage with one player less, but it’s even harder if suddenly that wall he built to protect your traders now completely blocks them. I mean, even if it’s a programming issue, as in the wall HAS to be owned by some player - that can be solved by giving AI control over that player.
not only the majority of gamers in RTS is team gamers, but also the majority of gamers of ALL kinds of games. The most popular multiplayer games are designed to be played in team, and RTS games such follow this rule as well
at the very least bunching people up a little tighter could help a lot on all the other maps. just being too far away means it takes too long to help your teammate unless you hard scout it beforehand.
Pretty aggree with all of those. But the main thing for me is the map. If they rework maps by getting them smaller and more team focused, it would be wonderfull, the others points are "bonus" for me. For the teams color, another option is to put some red on ennemy models, and some blue / yellow on ally models + the chosen color. For exemple, a red shield / helmet, but the armor in chosen color
@@ChillyEmpire been playing considerable amount of coh3 yes. Should you get it? You ask the most difficult questions. COHfan bias, well yes ofc. As COH experienced player... HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. BRUH. I certainly like the game, but there are things that certainly make you question your life choises at times. Look away from the Multiplayer game balance controversy and see the game for all the other things. Sound design, superb. Animation, great. AI infantry pathing, pretty descent. AI vehicle pathing, *cries in shower* Single player campaign, cant rly say but way more content that predecessors. Map Designs: some good 1v1 and 2v2 maps. 4v4 maps. Meh. Map rotation: *insert For Honor female shoulder boi "MONTE CAVO!"* No seriously there are like 4 4v4 maps and that map feels like the how AoE4 Altai ised to be when it came to being picked by the MM. Game is good. But there is a lot of OOFS. Certainly scratches that COH itch but there are some things that makes you want to go to nearest bdsm club. I Main allies, but out of necessity, you either play ally with 2 min qeue or axis with 7min qeue. The whereboos is strong in this game. That's how I can summarise the game. I would say get the game. But when it's on sale. Then I dont have to feel bad if things become a miss xD.
I'm a top 100 team ranked player on multiple accounts since season 3 and currently run one of the top team game clans. Here are some of my thoughts on the points you make here. Team Colours: No thanks. If they implemented this without making it optional somehow I would probably quit the game. I only play as pink and playing as anything else would be extremely distracting. The only way I can see this working is making it a toggle that only impacts what an individual player sees, similar to how the current team colour feature works. Team Positions: Great Idea. Team Notifs: Sure why not but personally I don't miss any of these features. Maps: Agree. But Gorge sucks, sorry. Especially in larger formats ;) Civ Design: This makes a lot of sense, although I'm not certain Relic has the resources to dedicate to this. Reconnect: Probably impossible without a major overhaul of both the engine and netcode, although this would be amazing. And please Relic fix the fucking crashes.
I only play as pink too…and then someone picks pink from me 😆. My sense is that you care less about team colors and team notifs because you’re a top level player. You’ve trained yourself to understand game state. I’m coming at it from the perspective of getting more people interested in ladder. It’s really hard for noobier players to understand game state or identify who is friend or foe. These features would make the game more accessible to folks and therefore increase the player base. Also why don’t you like gorge? 😞
@@ChillyEmpire That's a fair perspective for sure. As for why I don't like Gorge, there are many reasons. The cramped base layout is very annoying, plus the safe shared gold mine and safe wood lines make it very difficult to do early harassment. The way you spawn in a line makes for some comically close spawns to the enemy team in larger formats (3s and 4s) which encourages both teams to attempt to kill the player in front as fast as possible. As you rightly point out in your video, with no way to choose who spawns where this can also lead to very imbalanced games. I tolerate it in 2s but in 3s and 4s it's definitely up there with my least favourite maps. That being said, we're still looking forward to the Gorge tournament :D
@@ChillyEmpire For the record, I'm very much in favour of accessibility features for newer players, and you have laid out a lot of really good ideas in this video. But for things that will negatively impact the experience for seasoned players they should definitely be optional IMO. I think the best compromise would be to add a third friend-or-foe colour option that does what you suggested, except those colours only show up for players who have it turned on. Everyone else just sees the colours that the players picked.
lol that intro hits hard i just got gold 3 in teams, then had 3-4 games IN A ROW where a teamate quit in the first minute...... then i get a 30 minute penalty for leaving after the quitter...
My most times played teamgames are 2v2. So from this point i agree with point 1, 2 (for gorge). I would have a problem with 3. i do not think it would help in 3v3 or 4v4. Iam not sure about 5, but i would slightly disagree. Because it is too difficult to balance. And i really would hate pause function 😅 but i can understand your wishes and hope some come true. Sry for my englisch
0:32 "We are far and away the majority of online players" (Shows a bar graph of team players being the plurality of all players; not the majority) I get he's saying the majority of the first two groups and it doesn't include the third, but as an aspiring data analyst I've gotta say that's not presented well. If you put some text over it showing that *team* gamers are 59% of all *online* gamers [4600/(46+31)=59.74] then it'd be more clear what you're saying.
Ex-ce-llent ideas, LoL is a great example according to me of « what makes a multiplayer game appealing » and the announcer for every stylish action/blunder someone makes really enhance the involvement of players If you need good sad french songs I can provide them but please stay away from Videoclub ahah
I do agree partially with the team positions. Sure it can suck. However it also kinda adds a lot of randomness to the game which i like (if everything turns into math well its that math :/ )
@@ChillyEmpire i wonder if a "priority mirror" would work well. Like if your team has .. idk a Byzantine player in the front the enemy Abbasid also has a high chance to be front. Yea i´m pitching magic here i know
You play team games to have fun. I play team games so that i have someone to blame for the loss except myself.
why don’t you just blame the bad balancing and that the other civ is op? works fine for me
That works well until i decide to play the OP civ and still end up losing the game :D.
Beyond All Reason has a reconnect feature that uses the lockstep method you described. The units counts are FAR higher in that game and it works very well. It is totally technically feasible. Replaying through the game at 16x speed to catch up is no problem at all.
Yeah, a ton of games can do full replays at high speed, so resimulating just the logic and then rendering the visuals sounds very much feasible.
I really like the idea of more maps designed around teams working together. It does often feel like multiple 1v1s, but coordinating multiple armies with my friends successfully is some of the most fun I ever have in gaming. Being able to choose team positions also a great idea.
Another cool feature from AoE2: team bonuses. Each civ comes with a team bonus that applies to itself in 1v1s, but in team games it applies to the whole team. For example, the Britons +10% production speed for archery ranges is given to every player on the team, so other ranged civs benefit from simply having a Briton teammate. iirc these don't stack, so it means you miss out on team bonuses if you double-up on civs on the same team, but it creates a lot of cool synergies that otherwise don't exist in 1v1s. It also kinda mitigates the problem of team games devolving into two 2v2s, cos even if you never actively cooperate with your opposite flank in a fight, just their presence on the team boosts you in some way
I’m less of a fan of invisible bonuses and more of a fan of in-game bonuses like aura effects being shared (Kurultai, Camel Support, etc).
Reason being is game readability for new players. It’d be tedious to memorize yet another layer of stats on top of everything by else.
That being said team bonuses could be a balancing lever that could help the devs avoid creating entirely new stats/balance for team game units. So I don’t hate that idea…
Appreciate your hard work for the community, thank you!
The battle loss / won thingy would be insanely cool to have!
THANKS FOR CONTRIBUTING!
Awsome ideas, as usual. You simply drop the best content on AoE4 on internet.
* Clap Clap * Gamers all around the world...
@@aaabatteries9948*the flat universe
The colors thing would be nice, but im not hard stuck on that front. The picking positions could be cool, like a LoL start. I think thatd be fine. The announcer im not huge on, but sometimes i get noises for attacks from the enemies, and sometimes i dont. Make it consistent, ya know. I love gorge! Many of my friends disagree, but i think it adds a different playstyle to the games (including position picking). Civ design is fine, ofc the game is based on 1v1s... Teams become exponentially hard to balance without differentiating solo vs team stats youd need to know. Same with trade. Hopefully the expansion has brought enough in to get support in this way. Reconnecting, sure. But im not bothered by that front rn. 🎉 Always great to see a vid!
As console gamer, I miss the classic Arena Mode maps, like at age of empires 2.
For team games could be one big base for the whole Team.
What an amazing opening!
No on choosing locations for me. I don't need another reason for people to leave a lobby just because they didn't get their desired location. I also like the fact that sometime you get "boom" civs on the edge that changes up the gameplay. Fine if we add for customs though.
Like the rest of the suggestions. I think just seeing the population of allies would be so helpful & in the trade screen allies resources. Often times I think about sending resources if I am floating but I don't know if it is redundant.
Team notifications the way you presented them would be so neat. I now can't think myself playing team games without it. The complexity of team games is so high you NEED some caster UI to handle it.
while i think the whole list is good i really feel spawnpoint pick would be the biggest hit. a lot of civ related imbalance would already be solved by this and i will shill for it until it happens. thanks for the video!
About your point 4:
The most played team games today don't have the team working as one for at least huge parts of the game.
Example 1: MOBAs (DoTa, LoL & more): In LoL your team is split into 2x 1vs1 and 1x 2vs2 and another person running around helping out everywhere. Only later in the game for certain objectives you group and push together (taking Dragon or pushing a lane) and even then there is the case for split pushers or splitting and pushing 3 lanes with baron buff. Sure the mid lander or the support can roam but that comes at a cost since you force an advantage somewhere else. In AoE terms this would be one of the top 2vs2 players moving their army to the bottom to force an advantage and a push. So AoEs maps are pretty align with LoL for this. And LoL also has an Gorge equivalent which is called ARAM (All Random All Mid; focusing on the ALL MID part) where you just push down one lane in a 5vs5. This plays very different to the normal map "summoner's rift". So that checks out too.
Example 2: Tactical shooters (CS:GO & CS:GO2 & more): Again there are different lanes to get to objectives. And the defending side will have to split so not being a 5 stack. And again this works. Sure attacker can play 5 people down one lane but even they split on certain maps and have different objectives. And again there is roaming to force an advantage while praying to all the gods that your then weaker side doesn't loose.
So all in all I'll say this "lane" approach aka having 2x 2vs2 is fine and it's good in fact that you can choose to move one or both armies to the other lane to force an advantage while sacrificing something on the other front. That's a good tactical option.
BUT all that being said your second point the maps being to large is the real problem. Because if rotations would be more feasible the whole thing would be much more dynamic. So I'd argue the lanes are fine and their should be different lay outs of this. One map 2x 1vs1 and 1x 2vs2 or another map 2x 2vs2 and this in different arrangements is great. BUT again going back to your second point: You need to be able to to declare your position to do this. To make it make sense. Cause this only works in LoL or DoTa because you can choose your lane and who you're going to play on it. For AoE this could be on a 2vs2 map picking English + one roaming fast civ on one lane cause the English are very defensive and could be able to hold out for quite a while while you force an advantage 3vs2 on the other lane or force your enemy to also move. So all in all map size and picking start positions are the real issue not really the lane approach cause that is a very big part of most strategic multiplayers (though different arrangements and also 4vs4 maps like Gorge are very much appreciated and there should be a good mix!).
I've noticed team games seem to be people's entry to ranked games.
Any time I see an unranked player in 1v1, odds are they first played team games
nice to see this, team games FTW!
don't forget the two huge issues there are: dodging resulting in 15+ minutes waiting time at Conq+ elo levels
and ELO boosting - currently 9/10 of Top10 highest ranked players is one player+3 smurfs account with 1000elo, so they get more elo point for winning
Hi, they all make sense except number 2. Everyone has to adapt to the position they are in, this is improved with more team oriented maps as you already asked.
I think team oriented maps would help. But for example on gorge, the back player on your team has a lot of leeway to multi-tc and boom. This obviously favors some civs over others. Ie. If you have a China or Abbasid in the back, you’ll likely beat the team with an English or an Ayyubid in the back. All else being equal.
Not every civ has the same boom potential.
Similarly, not every civ has the same early game defensive potential. Some civs excel in a forward position.
Better to let people play according to roles than to like a roll of the die determine which side wins or loses.
@@ChillyEmpire I think that in AoE2 it exists and that will result in always playing the same powerful civs in the same positions and some have been bored like that (comments from sites like aoezone, etc). If the team gets a boom civ in front of the opponents (Gorge is a special map and it is not the rule) then the player with a boom civ will have to adopt a more defensive position against early pressure.
Serious analysis should be done on games that are won or lost, with a similar level, depending on the position of each player and draw conclusions.
I see it well in custom games, in ranked games we look for adaptation (as long as there is a level playing field with respect to map resources).
At least this is my point of view. Regarding the rest, I agree with you.
@@Adribird Yeah to avoid meta stagnation you'd probably have to adopt some kind of balancing model that adjusts the civs and their roles, with regular updates that shake things up. It might even require reworking the civ design to focus on their roles.
Basically, it could happen in a world where team games are the dominant game type. Not sure that's the case right now. But I think there could be potential.
At the least, I'd like to see it for custom games. At the moment, the random generation really does favor some teams over others.
@@ChillyEmpire Improving the Late Game (I made a thread on Reddit about that) is what will lower the stagnation.
This would help the game a lot someone pls send this to Relic ASAP
I think the biggest one on this list is the maps (no point having the stating position selectable on any map other than Gorge right now :D)
The colours one would be nice as well tbh
I think Notifs and team specific Civ balance would be harder and less important than the above imo as you can sudo solve a lot of the balance issues via the map design (how big they are for boomy civs, how much hunt spawns for Rus etc)
Hope the Devs see this video/put a bit more focus into Team games soon, Gorge is great
Gorge is great brother.
What about team bonuses like AoE2 has? Or even just making it so more of a civ's options apply to allies. Healing from monks/buildings is one of the only ones that does apply to teams, but what if for instance Mongol's Outpost speed bonus applied to allies? It would give people more things to build around and consider.
Could be a great lever to use to avoid creating entirely new unit stats for team games.
I mean, I’d also like it if in the scenario that a player gets disconnected, or even if he just surrenders on his own - don’t make his walls impassable for your team.
It’s one thing to play at a disadvantage with one player less, but it’s even harder if suddenly that wall he built to protect your traders now completely blocks them.
I mean, even if it’s a programming issue, as in the wall HAS to be owned by some player - that can be solved by giving AI control over that player.
100% agree that’s a great point.
not only the majority of gamers in RTS is team gamers, but also the majority of gamers of ALL kinds of games. The most popular multiplayer games are designed to be played in team, and RTS games such follow this rule as well
The basic rule of thumb is if you and teammates are good at solo you for sure your team is great
at the very least bunching people up a little tighter could help a lot on all the other maps. just being too far away means it takes too long to help your teammate unless you hard scout it beforehand.
Now I want mangudai whose cost scale based on the number of players.
How dare you making reasonable suggestions on the internet
YES!
Pretty aggree with all of those. But the main thing for me is the map.
If they rework maps by getting them smaller and more team focused, it would be wonderfull, the others points are "bonus" for me.
For the teams color, another option is to put some red on ennemy models, and some blue / yellow on ally models + the chosen color. For exemple, a red shield / helmet, but the armor in chosen color
That combined color idea isn’t bad. I wonder if it’d look too busy in-game though.
So true me and friends been saying this from start
The intro 😂
Team position placement is my #1
Followed by team map design for better team coordination
Meanwhile as a CoH players: You guys have maps???
Should I get COH3? Have you been on that? COH1 is one of my favorite games of all time and I played the shit out of COH2 as well.
@@ChillyEmpire been playing considerable amount of coh3 yes.
Should you get it?
You ask the most difficult questions.
COHfan bias, well yes ofc.
As COH experienced player...
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. BRUH.
I certainly like the game, but there are things that certainly make you question your life choises at times.
Look away from the Multiplayer game balance controversy and see the game for all the other things.
Sound design, superb.
Animation, great.
AI infantry pathing, pretty descent.
AI vehicle pathing, *cries in shower*
Single player campaign, cant rly say but way more content that predecessors.
Map Designs: some good 1v1 and 2v2 maps.
4v4 maps. Meh.
Map rotation: *insert For Honor female shoulder boi "MONTE CAVO!"*
No seriously there are like 4 4v4 maps and that map feels like the how AoE4 Altai ised to be when it came to being picked by the MM.
Game is good. But there is a lot of OOFS.
Certainly scratches that COH itch but there are some things that makes you want to go to nearest bdsm club.
I Main allies, but out of necessity, you either play ally with 2 min qeue or axis with 7min qeue. The whereboos is strong in this game.
That's how I can summarise the game.
I would say get the game. But when it's on sale.
Then I dont have to feel bad if things become a miss xD.
@@Kameeho lmao thanks for the review
Up up
I'm a top 100 team ranked player on multiple accounts since season 3 and currently run one of the top team game clans. Here are some of my thoughts on the points you make here.
Team Colours: No thanks. If they implemented this without making it optional somehow I would probably quit the game. I only play as pink and playing as anything else would be extremely distracting. The only way I can see this working is making it a toggle that only impacts what an individual player sees, similar to how the current team colour feature works.
Team Positions: Great Idea.
Team Notifs: Sure why not but personally I don't miss any of these features.
Maps: Agree. But Gorge sucks, sorry. Especially in larger formats ;)
Civ Design: This makes a lot of sense, although I'm not certain Relic has the resources to dedicate to this.
Reconnect: Probably impossible without a major overhaul of both the engine and netcode, although this would be amazing. And please Relic fix the fucking crashes.
I only play as pink too…and then someone picks pink from me 😆.
My sense is that you care less about team colors and team notifs because you’re a top level player. You’ve trained yourself to understand game state. I’m coming at it from the perspective of getting more people interested in ladder. It’s really hard for noobier players to understand game state or identify who is friend or foe. These features would make the game more accessible to folks and therefore increase the player base.
Also why don’t you like gorge? 😞
@@ChillyEmpire That's a fair perspective for sure. As for why I don't like Gorge, there are many reasons. The cramped base layout is very annoying, plus the safe shared gold mine and safe wood lines make it very difficult to do early harassment. The way you spawn in a line makes for some comically close spawns to the enemy team in larger formats (3s and 4s) which encourages both teams to attempt to kill the player in front as fast as possible. As you rightly point out in your video, with no way to choose who spawns where this can also lead to very imbalanced games. I tolerate it in 2s but in 3s and 4s it's definitely up there with my least favourite maps.
That being said, we're still looking forward to the Gorge tournament :D
@@ChillyEmpire For the record, I'm very much in favour of accessibility features for newer players, and you have laid out a lot of really good ideas in this video. But for things that will negatively impact the experience for seasoned players they should definitely be optional IMO. I think the best compromise would be to add a third friend-or-foe colour option that does what you suggested, except those colours only show up for players who have it turned on. Everyone else just sees the colours that the players picked.
lol that intro hits hard
i just got gold 3 in teams, then had 3-4 games IN A ROW where a teamate quit in the first minute......
then i get a 30 minute penalty for leaving after the quitter...
It’s not your fault son
Interesting ♨now 🙏🏼🖤
My most times played teamgames are 2v2. So from this point i agree with point 1, 2 (for gorge). I would have a problem with 3. i do not think it would help in 3v3 or 4v4. Iam not sure about 5, but i would slightly disagree. Because it is too difficult to balance. And i really would hate pause function 😅 but i can understand your wishes and hope some come true. Sry for my englisch
wait, delhi sacred site bonus is lost if the sacred site not captured by himself?
really?
Having the game not count as a loss if someone leaves within the first min
0:32 "We are far and away the majority of online players"
(Shows a bar graph of team players being the plurality of all players; not the majority)
I get he's saying the majority of the first two groups and it doesn't include the third, but as an aspiring data analyst I've gotta say that's not presented well. If you put some text over it showing that *team* gamers are 59% of all *online* gamers [4600/(46+31)=59.74] then it'd be more clear what you're saying.
Good point. I had thought plurality was still a kind of majoirty.
Ex-ce-llent ideas, LoL is a great example according to me of « what makes a multiplayer game appealing » and the announcer for every stylish action/blunder someone makes really enhance the involvement of players
If you need good sad french songs I can provide them but please stay away from Videoclub ahah
LOL is videoclub bad? I just used it for the meme.
Nah I would not say they're bad but it's exactly like Despacito : ICANT@@ChillyEmpire
I do agree partially with the team positions. Sure it can suck.
However it also kinda adds a lot of randomness to the game which i like (if everything turns into math well its that math :/ )
In competitive games, it’d suck to lose the game at the start simply because one side got a randomly bad spawn compared to the other.
@@ChillyEmpire i wonder if a "priority mirror" would work well.
Like if your team has .. idk a Byzantine player in the front the enemy Abbasid also has a high chance to be front.
Yea i´m pitching magic here i know
@@justdracir8197 Just allow players to pick position. It'd be less convoluted.
It is meant so that you win 50% of your matches .... regardless of the league you're in.
You kind of reaching bro. Like the color thing pretty easy just remember what color your team is
imperial china with 24 vils lol
LOL I just typed random stuff that’s so funny that you noticed this
@@ChillyEmpire 😂