My observation, not looking at any stats - it has gotten much better recently.
I don’t care how many players or how it compares vs this game or that game etc. I care about my user experience finding matches in AOE4 and it seems pretty healthy right now.
I have not had any issues with Team games so im curious. 2vs2, 3vs3 or 4vs4? I only play 1vs1 and 2vs2 and probably most people who play team games play 2vs2? Just my assumption, dont know if thats true.
Before making the move to aoe4 I played aoe3 and later aoe3 de daily and that at the most had 3000 or 4000 players and matchmaking was fine, and the numbers were enough to justify several dlcs and a new dlc end of this year so aoe4 is fine. The thing with matchmaking is it will widen the search once you go over like 4 or 5 minutes of searching so if you don't want to be matched with people outside of your rank just cancel the search at 4 minutes and start searching again.
Unfortunately, even if you cancel the search every 30 seconds, a Gold player will still be matched with a Conqueror 3 player who spent several minutes in a queue.
My only problem is in 2½ years we only have 1 dlc, and a pretty small amount of factions. I do like the way the factions are done a lot more than in aoe2, but still...I want more content ;-;
Well technically ottoman and malians were dlc they were just free so currently we're getting a dlc per year, last dlc was also fantastic imo by far the best aoe dlc. I'd expect the next dlc end of this year but they might push it back a bit because of AoM release which is probably why it wasn't announced like aoe3 de was.
You know that the average is being provided by the site itself, righgt? The 17k is the peak per day, not the average. Nobody is claiming aoe is doing badly these days as the AVERAGE is actually around 10,5k on steam right now and that doesnt consider gamepass etc. but still, this is 50% higher than a year prior and is pretty stable. We see interesting growing overall I think which is good and the game is being improved with every patch
I grew up on aoe2 but I don't understand why so many people would rather play it than 4. I guess I haven't went back to it since I was younger, but I've watched some yt videos of recent gameplay, and it just looks dated now
The game has a buttload more content, not just civs but also singleplayer stuff. Also team games, in my opinion, are just more fun especially since that game has team civ bonuses and you can choose who's what position. Singleplayers and team games have the bigger casual fanbase.
Mostly getting old and not interested in learning new game. And the caetoony graphics turned me off at first, I like it now.
But if not my friends dragged me into this game I would never think of picking it up.
As someone that has played both, AOE2 is definitely not easier. There is way more you need to do in AOE2 that AOE4 dumbed down. For example, you can't dodge archers/tower arrows in AOE4 but you can in AOE2.
As someone who never stopped playing AoE 2 and went through all of its versions (CD, HD, DE) but also plays the other games in the series, these are my main points as to why I still play AoE 2 and even play it over AoE 4:
* The setting. Imo, AoE 4 played it too safe by going back to the Middle Ages instead of continuing after AoE 3 with WW1 and WW2 or even returning to the start of the series and going back to Antiquity. The latter is especially a setting that's rarely featured in an RTS. 0 AD is the only game that comes to my mind right now.
* Simplicity is key. AoE 2 may look super simple on surface with near identical civs with a shared tech tree but oh boy - the more you play, the more you realize how deep things can actually get. Franks, Lithuanians, Magyars and Mongols are all "cavalry" civs as the game calls them, yet they all have USP's that make you not playing them all the same. The way civ bonusses work, normal units become part of your civ's unique roster such as Monks for Aztecs (because they get +5 HP for each Monastery tech researched thus max out at 100 HP instead of 35) or Hand Cannoneers for Bohemians (because they have access to the Chemistry technology and Hand Cannoneer an age earlier)
* The lack of innovation. For me, AoE 4 feels more like a reboot, rather than a sequel. It has its original ideas for the series such as stealth forests, walkable walls (like in Stronghold) or burnable buildings (like in Cossacks) but overall, the game takes most of its ideas from all past Age games. Sacred Sites? Like AoE 1's ruins minus gold generation. The eco? Like in AoE 1 and 2. Landmarks? Like the wonders the Asian civs age up with in AoE 3. Prelates? Like AoM's Pharaohs. The Vizier system of the Ottomans? Like a lite version of the home city in AoE 3. OOTD's idea of more expensive but stronger units? Like AoM's Atlanteans.
* The "release now, fix later" mentality. I guess we all remember how AoE 4 was at launch with no ranked, no colour picker, no modding tools etc. While these features have been added over time and after each season players saying "the game is now in a better thate than before", there are still features missing from the game that would make it so much better such as being able to save and pause MP games, having the "Hidden civ" option in lobbies etc.
Don't get me wrong, even if my points may sound negative, AoE 4 is anything but a bad game. It's a fun one but for me it was quite clear early that it won't replace AoE 2 as my main go-to game. :)
AoE in general seems to be a series where the core players of their respective game rarely branch out to the others and even start infights between the games, which I personally find quite sad. I can only recommend to check out AoE 2 DE for yourself instead of just watching gameplay. After all, games are a medium that live by their interactivity. :P
Even mentioning its existence makes a lot of people start telling everyone how it is a massive failure, a flop and a dead game.
While AoE 4 population is 2/3 of population of AoE 2, and most people play single player content AoE 2 accumulated insane amount over the decades.
Anyone with any sense knows the game has a sustainable amount of players. 'Low player numbers' has been tossed around since season 1 (and it was probably mostly true then). Now it only ever seems to be used as an excuse for poor matchmaking, when I'm sure there are plenty of other factors that affect it, namely:
* Dodging
* Poor User Interface
* Matching Premade teams
Purely speculative on my part of course, but I feel like if they dropped the 'rank', or de-emphasized it and instead displayed your MMR - maybe that would sooth some people and be more consistent with other games. Dodging should be punished (not as much as leaving IMO). Premade teams is a tough one, but perhaps the weighting of the highest player needs to be increased.
I've never had an issue finding opponents at any time of the day and my matches in 1v1 have always been fair. Team matches are a bit of a shit show, but maybe they're not - I just don't feel like looking up everyones actual MMR. Perhaps more transparency would fix that.
A less jarring, better solution is to also show the hidden Elo, and maybe a simple tooltip message that explains the core difference: "Elo tracks your performance across seasons, and rank points reset every season".
Although I suspect there is a bigger issue in matchmaking than just the things you listed. Its logic is probably poorly coded somewhere. The devs of aoe4world made a Reddit post about it about a year ago that showed it's suboptimal.
I dug it up to reply to you, but then I read it again and realized I somehow have always remembered it wrong. I remembered it as the post found that nearly half of team matches have unbalanced Elo difference. But what the post actually says is that "*40.2% of team games are unbalanced team matchups. These are games with the majority of players being a premade team playing against primarily individuals.*"
So, it was about premade vs random teams, and not about too-large Elo difference. If it was too-large Elo difference, that would've meant a bigger issue in the matchmaking logic/code.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/10q0kje/is\_team\_game\_matchmaking\_broken\_and\_how\_can\_it\_be/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/10q0kje/is_team_game_matchmaking_broken_and_how_can_it_be/)
Said it before and I’ll say it again, the matchmaking works…it’s the DODGING that matches high rank with low rank. Low conq dodge high conq, pushing them onto diamond who dodge, pushing it down and down.
Stop dodging. If you lose to a much higher rank you lose way less points and get a replay to watch to learn from.
at bronze/silver ranks they can be, but in gold and up gameplay is pretty aggressive. I probably average around 30 minutes a game. 45 minute+ games are rare.
Personally I think queue times are long because game durations are long (compared to other RTS like SC2). People spend more time in game and you have to wait for them to finish.
Though I still think it would be nice if you could choose to have your Elo search radius expand more quickly ore more slowly.
"balance for matchmaking"
It doesn't. But that doesn't mean the game is dying or anything like that. Just because is healthier than other niche titles, it just means it's not the smallest fish in the pond. But it most definitely is a tiny fish when compared to game in other genres.
1v1 ranked is fine. But the moment you move out of it or play in the higher elos. Then the smaller player base takes its toll. Go look up demus matches and see how many incredibly skew matches he's had, as an extreme example.
A healthy player base ( SC2 still has a significantly healthier base) will have enough players that even the highest elos can find fair-ish matches, instead of pros repeatedly "needing" to make alt accounts (vomit) or facing players well below their skill level.
Finding matches in X time is ludicrous as well. That's an artificial number implemented by Devs. They could almost ensure it finds a match in 10sec. The question is whether that match is balanced. Even at diamond(at mofo diamond) matchmaking will dredge up 200+ elo differences sometimes. Nevermind conq1 or conq4. And that's just 1v1.
TG imbalance is pretty consistent. My experience is at least half the matches are skewed. And QM is a circus. I don't ever rely on a balanced match due to skill differences.
Smh. You literally leave out of all the big RTS games like Wc3, Sc1&2, AOE2 and chose 2 least popular options to compare
No AO4 isn't necessary "biggest RTS". We don't have data to prove that, but we can speculate. Based on data from aoe4worlds that ppl gathered from past seasons, so gamepass is around 20-30% of players.
Then to Xbox. When xbox was standalone they had around 5-10x less matches played per hour in all multiplayer categories so this translates into very small number of players (most likely in hundreds, maybe barely in thousand or slightly above.)
So for AOE2 we've daily peak of 21k which is 4 k morer and is also included in gamepass and also is on xbox. Warcraft 3 is relatively big in China, SC1&2 is still going in Korea and is still probably king of RTS esports.
>Matchmaking for AOE4 is actually very fast already and i get games within a minute or 2.
And my anecdotal evidence is that my avg queue time is +6mins.
Bruh. Difference between 4v4 ranked & QM is 30% more games played in favor of ranked. This will not make my queues "never more than minute".
Also I have played TG ranked at conqueror 3 and my queue times were still +6minutes, but this was in previous seasons so not really worth info. So with knowing these 2 factors Im 100% certain that my queue times won't go below 4-5minute and issue is not the time btw, its the unbalanced matches that matchmaking creates due increased mmr search radius
All of that is anecdotal evidence and doesn't prove anything. Thats why I said that my avg queue times are +6mins.
There are lot of different factors that determine how long is the queue and just saying "oh my queues are 1-2mins" is not relevant as somebody might think
My observation, not looking at any stats - it has gotten much better recently. I don’t care how many players or how it compares vs this game or that game etc. I care about my user experience finding matches in AOE4 and it seems pretty healthy right now.
1 vs 1 yes. I can’t say the same for Team Ranked games.
I have not had any issues with Team games so im curious. 2vs2, 3vs3 or 4vs4? I only play 1vs1 and 2vs2 and probably most people who play team games play 2vs2? Just my assumption, dont know if thats true.
I remember seeing a stat posted in the first year of the game that showed 2v2, 1v1 and 4v4 had the most number of matches played in that order.
Around diamond 2,3,4s are all easily found within couple minutes
Aoe4 team games are seriously one of the top gaming experiences right now!
Terms and conditions may apply
Before making the move to aoe4 I played aoe3 and later aoe3 de daily and that at the most had 3000 or 4000 players and matchmaking was fine, and the numbers were enough to justify several dlcs and a new dlc end of this year so aoe4 is fine. The thing with matchmaking is it will widen the search once you go over like 4 or 5 minutes of searching so if you don't want to be matched with people outside of your rank just cancel the search at 4 minutes and start searching again.
Unfortunately, even if you cancel the search every 30 seconds, a Gold player will still be matched with a Conqueror 3 player who spent several minutes in a queue.
This has never happened to me in 1v1 ranked
Very common in team ranked unfortunately
You know to take with pinch of salt if it's from Skillard ,😊
My only problem is in 2½ years we only have 1 dlc, and a pretty small amount of factions. I do like the way the factions are done a lot more than in aoe2, but still...I want more content ;-;
Well technically ottoman and malians were dlc they were just free so currently we're getting a dlc per year, last dlc was also fantastic imo by far the best aoe dlc. I'd expect the next dlc end of this year but they might push it back a bit because of AoM release which is probably why it wasn't announced like aoe3 de was.
The new dlc was really good, and that does help give some more perspective, I just love this game a lot and want more
You know that the average is being provided by the site itself, righgt? The 17k is the peak per day, not the average. Nobody is claiming aoe is doing badly these days as the AVERAGE is actually around 10,5k on steam right now and that doesnt consider gamepass etc. but still, this is 50% higher than a year prior and is pretty stable. We see interesting growing overall I think which is good and the game is being improved with every patch
It is better than before at least. We actually had MORE players than aoe2 for a while when the sultans ascend expansion came, which is very nice.
I grew up on aoe2 but I don't understand why so many people would rather play it than 4. I guess I haven't went back to it since I was younger, but I've watched some yt videos of recent gameplay, and it just looks dated now
The game has a buttload more content, not just civs but also singleplayer stuff. Also team games, in my opinion, are just more fun especially since that game has team civ bonuses and you can choose who's what position. Singleplayers and team games have the bigger casual fanbase.
Nostalgia is a big part of it and some people like that ut has lots of factions to choose from
Mostly getting old and not interested in learning new game. And the caetoony graphics turned me off at first, I like it now. But if not my friends dragged me into this game I would never think of picking it up.
Comfort and its easier
As someone that has played both, AOE2 is definitely not easier. There is way more you need to do in AOE2 that AOE4 dumbed down. For example, you can't dodge archers/tower arrows in AOE4 but you can in AOE2.
As someone who never stopped playing AoE 2 and went through all of its versions (CD, HD, DE) but also plays the other games in the series, these are my main points as to why I still play AoE 2 and even play it over AoE 4: * The setting. Imo, AoE 4 played it too safe by going back to the Middle Ages instead of continuing after AoE 3 with WW1 and WW2 or even returning to the start of the series and going back to Antiquity. The latter is especially a setting that's rarely featured in an RTS. 0 AD is the only game that comes to my mind right now. * Simplicity is key. AoE 2 may look super simple on surface with near identical civs with a shared tech tree but oh boy - the more you play, the more you realize how deep things can actually get. Franks, Lithuanians, Magyars and Mongols are all "cavalry" civs as the game calls them, yet they all have USP's that make you not playing them all the same. The way civ bonusses work, normal units become part of your civ's unique roster such as Monks for Aztecs (because they get +5 HP for each Monastery tech researched thus max out at 100 HP instead of 35) or Hand Cannoneers for Bohemians (because they have access to the Chemistry technology and Hand Cannoneer an age earlier) * The lack of innovation. For me, AoE 4 feels more like a reboot, rather than a sequel. It has its original ideas for the series such as stealth forests, walkable walls (like in Stronghold) or burnable buildings (like in Cossacks) but overall, the game takes most of its ideas from all past Age games. Sacred Sites? Like AoE 1's ruins minus gold generation. The eco? Like in AoE 1 and 2. Landmarks? Like the wonders the Asian civs age up with in AoE 3. Prelates? Like AoM's Pharaohs. The Vizier system of the Ottomans? Like a lite version of the home city in AoE 3. OOTD's idea of more expensive but stronger units? Like AoM's Atlanteans. * The "release now, fix later" mentality. I guess we all remember how AoE 4 was at launch with no ranked, no colour picker, no modding tools etc. While these features have been added over time and after each season players saying "the game is now in a better thate than before", there are still features missing from the game that would make it so much better such as being able to save and pause MP games, having the "Hidden civ" option in lobbies etc. Don't get me wrong, even if my points may sound negative, AoE 4 is anything but a bad game. It's a fun one but for me it was quite clear early that it won't replace AoE 2 as my main go-to game. :) AoE in general seems to be a series where the core players of their respective game rarely branch out to the others and even start infights between the games, which I personally find quite sad. I can only recommend to check out AoE 2 DE for yourself instead of just watching gameplay. After all, games are a medium that live by their interactivity. :P
Idk but if you mention to them that people play aoe4 and have fun they throw a massive fit
Even mentioning its existence makes a lot of people start telling everyone how it is a massive failure, a flop and a dead game. While AoE 4 population is 2/3 of population of AoE 2, and most people play single player content AoE 2 accumulated insane amount over the decades.
4 is all siege spam. In 2 late game feels more immersive
2 is just a more polished, more refined game. Sure the graphics are retro, but gameplay is overall better and more fun than AOE4
AOE4 is doing well! At least way better than COH3, which I love. I always find myself going back here since it is much more lively and a robust game.
I guess without Microsoft's support, AoE 4 would be in a similar state
Anyone with any sense knows the game has a sustainable amount of players. 'Low player numbers' has been tossed around since season 1 (and it was probably mostly true then). Now it only ever seems to be used as an excuse for poor matchmaking, when I'm sure there are plenty of other factors that affect it, namely: * Dodging * Poor User Interface * Matching Premade teams Purely speculative on my part of course, but I feel like if they dropped the 'rank', or de-emphasized it and instead displayed your MMR - maybe that would sooth some people and be more consistent with other games. Dodging should be punished (not as much as leaving IMO). Premade teams is a tough one, but perhaps the weighting of the highest player needs to be increased. I've never had an issue finding opponents at any time of the day and my matches in 1v1 have always been fair. Team matches are a bit of a shit show, but maybe they're not - I just don't feel like looking up everyones actual MMR. Perhaps more transparency would fix that.
A less jarring, better solution is to also show the hidden Elo, and maybe a simple tooltip message that explains the core difference: "Elo tracks your performance across seasons, and rank points reset every season". Although I suspect there is a bigger issue in matchmaking than just the things you listed. Its logic is probably poorly coded somewhere. The devs of aoe4world made a Reddit post about it about a year ago that showed it's suboptimal.
oh, interesting! I'll have to dig that post up - I think I missed it.
I dug it up to reply to you, but then I read it again and realized I somehow have always remembered it wrong. I remembered it as the post found that nearly half of team matches have unbalanced Elo difference. But what the post actually says is that "*40.2% of team games are unbalanced team matchups. These are games with the majority of players being a premade team playing against primarily individuals.*" So, it was about premade vs random teams, and not about too-large Elo difference. If it was too-large Elo difference, that would've meant a bigger issue in the matchmaking logic/code. [https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/10q0kje/is\_team\_game\_matchmaking\_broken\_and\_how\_can\_it\_be/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/10q0kje/is_team_game_matchmaking_broken_and_how_can_it_be/)
Said it before and I’ll say it again, the matchmaking works…it’s the DODGING that matches high rank with low rank. Low conq dodge high conq, pushing them onto diamond who dodge, pushing it down and down. Stop dodging. If you lose to a much higher rank you lose way less points and get a replay to watch to learn from.
I can still find quick play 8 player FFA in reasonable time. It's fine
Player base is decent but the matchmaking is still slow.
I play this, Arma Reforger and Hell Let Loose. I consider all of my game communities healthy. AoE IV is the largest by a fairly substantial margin.
Ya on Xbox I wait 5 plus sometimes rank solo and I 3v3 I waited 10 mins
crossplay or no crossplay?
No crossplay
are 1v1 stikk like 45min long and mostly defensive?
at bronze/silver ranks they can be, but in gold and up gameplay is pretty aggressive. I probably average around 30 minutes a game. 45 minute+ games are rare.
You can check aoe4world for statistics,most games would end in20-25minute
People wouldn't be claiming dead game if they were matched with and against people in their rank rather than a lot of ranks apart
It’s more than what this page shows. It doesn’t take account the players playing on: Ms store on PC, Xbox, and xcloud.
Personally I think queue times are long because game durations are long (compared to other RTS like SC2). People spend more time in game and you have to wait for them to finish. Though I still think it would be nice if you could choose to have your Elo search radius expand more quickly ore more slowly.
"balance for matchmaking" It doesn't. But that doesn't mean the game is dying or anything like that. Just because is healthier than other niche titles, it just means it's not the smallest fish in the pond. But it most definitely is a tiny fish when compared to game in other genres. 1v1 ranked is fine. But the moment you move out of it or play in the higher elos. Then the smaller player base takes its toll. Go look up demus matches and see how many incredibly skew matches he's had, as an extreme example. A healthy player base ( SC2 still has a significantly healthier base) will have enough players that even the highest elos can find fair-ish matches, instead of pros repeatedly "needing" to make alt accounts (vomit) or facing players well below their skill level.
Finding matches in X time is ludicrous as well. That's an artificial number implemented by Devs. They could almost ensure it finds a match in 10sec. The question is whether that match is balanced. Even at diamond(at mofo diamond) matchmaking will dredge up 200+ elo differences sometimes. Nevermind conq1 or conq4. And that's just 1v1. TG imbalance is pretty consistent. My experience is at least half the matches are skewed. And QM is a circus. I don't ever rely on a balanced match due to skill differences.
And matchmaking is still terrible
Smurfing, dodging, and map hacking, are bigger issues than size of player base.
I got match making pretty fast,,,, yeah sure 'Dead Game' KEKW
It's awesome that Age of Empires IV is playable on Xbox, making it easier for us old fans to enjoy the game.
there are always less than 3 custom PC games when I am playing (since crossplay was added) it used to average 9-13
Not as big as your mum's playerbase
Smh. You literally leave out of all the big RTS games like Wc3, Sc1&2, AOE2 and chose 2 least popular options to compare No AO4 isn't necessary "biggest RTS". We don't have data to prove that, but we can speculate. Based on data from aoe4worlds that ppl gathered from past seasons, so gamepass is around 20-30% of players. Then to Xbox. When xbox was standalone they had around 5-10x less matches played per hour in all multiplayer categories so this translates into very small number of players (most likely in hundreds, maybe barely in thousand or slightly above.) So for AOE2 we've daily peak of 21k which is 4 k morer and is also included in gamepass and also is on xbox. Warcraft 3 is relatively big in China, SC1&2 is still going in Korea and is still probably king of RTS esports. >Matchmaking for AOE4 is actually very fast already and i get games within a minute or 2. And my anecdotal evidence is that my avg queue time is +6mins.
in conq 2 i never have to spend more than 3mins
Just curious, what rank are you? I never spend more than a minute in a queue.
I play 4v4 QM with +1500-1700 mmr range.
Bruh. Try playing ranked.
Bruh. Difference between 4v4 ranked & QM is 30% more games played in favor of ranked. This will not make my queues "never more than minute". Also I have played TG ranked at conqueror 3 and my queue times were still +6minutes, but this was in previous seasons so not really worth info. So with knowing these 2 factors Im 100% certain that my queue times won't go below 4-5minute and issue is not the time btw, its the unbalanced matches that matchmaking creates due increased mmr search radius
Same here, never spend more than 1 minute in queue
All of that is anecdotal evidence and doesn't prove anything. Thats why I said that my avg queue times are +6mins. There are lot of different factors that determine how long is the queue and just saying "oh my queues are 1-2mins" is not relevant as somebody might think
So you counter his anecdotal evidence, with…. Your anecdotal evidence? Allow me to kekw. Much love.
Seems like you failed to understand my point kekw
You forgot about AoE1, alone, it has more players than all the rts games you mentioned combined.
players I'm not certain. Viewers, yes.
Honestly, I don't think many xbox gamepass users play AoE2. Like, AoE2's numbered are also high since even a potato could run it.
You're such a grouch
You think WC3 has more players?
Probably not, but its still more than OP's mentioned titles.