Maybe they could delete Burgundians and Sicilians in return. Just go 2 meme civs at a time and slowly cycle through all the 1000 civ suggestions the AOE2 subreddit made over the years.
Last edited:
And what's the point of complaining about complainers? I didn't forbid anyone from buying the DLC if they find it enjoyable.Well tbh nobody forces you to buy the DLC's and play the new civs. If you just don't like it, don't buy it. For the people who DO enjoy the extra content, it's a nice buy. No reason to complain in my eyes.
The balance is a never ending subject, they are about to add new units and more buildings like they just did with the last 2 dlc, meaning that they have to add OP units to make their dlcs more appealing, they will just partially balance here and there and will left for many years broken stuff.Personally, I'd be fine with them adding civs if they didn't have a history of breaking the game every other patch. Although MP campaigns is a good move for them- could be an easy way to make DLC that a lot of people will pay for, without breaking the balance.
I think Bulgarians prooves that tnew civs can become as good, well-flavored and favorite as any Aok civ. Yes, not all new civs are amazing, but again not all old civ are neither. Burgundians, for example, i believe that if they get the eco discount nerfed to 33% will become a balance and fun civ to playI don't like it. I don't think I'm ever going to enjoy any of the new civs but at the same time it's like whatever; 2 new civs is still only 5% of all civs in the game and I doubt many people are going to play them after the initial phase of them being new and broken in either direction passes
Matter of personal preference, but as long as burgundians have their flemish revolution for me they always will be just a silly, gimmicky civ that I can ignore/tolerate, but not actually enjoy.I think Bulgarians prooves that tnew civs can become as good, well-flavored and favorite as any Aok civ. Yes, not all new civs are amazing, but again not all old civ are neither. Burgundians, for example, i believe that if they get the eco discount nerfed to 33% will become a balance and fun civ to play
Sicilians are really weird. But different and balanced. So, I guess all in all new civs are not as awful as we thought originally
They released an expansion pack in 2000...Guys this is standard business practice and AoE2 should have been releasing expansion packs back in 2005. It is incredibly delayed but thank God they've finally come to their sense and have seen the light.
They're only 15 years too late. And somehow still making money.
but if they did this 15 years ago, they probably won't be able to making money till today...Guys this is standard business practice and AoE2 should have been releasing expansion packs back in 2005. It is incredibly delayed but thank God they've finally come to their sense and have seen the light.
They're only 15 years too late. And somehow still making money.
Not necessarily. Although the Conquerors expansion in 2001 had 5 new civilizations, they didn't need to include that many all at once. Maybe 2 new ones every 1.5 years or so can easily last 15 years considering that we've had 21 new civs since the Conquerors.but if they did this 15 years ago, they probably won't be able to making money till today...
Remember that the constant drip of DLC was not a well established monetization strategy at that point, nor were the digital distribution platforms that really make it possible.Not necessarily. Although the Conquerors expansion in 2001 had 5 new civilizations, they didn't need to include that many all at once. Maybe 2 new ones every 1.5 years or so can easily last 15 years considering that we've had 21 new civs since the Conquerors.
This is an excellent point and one that you would have hoped was applied by those who made the most recent DLCs. Unfortunately I think they believe the DLCs would not sell very well if they did not include MP available civs. Maybe this is true compared to campaigns, but I don't think they have really explored the monetization of cosmetics as much as they could have, which honestly makes little sense considering how focused FE seem to be the artistic side of things.And expansions or DLC don't always have to focus on new civilizations. They can focus on cosmetics, new campaigns, and so on. Just like in WOW they offer new mounts for $20. The mount doesn't do anything differently, it's just a new look. For $20 lol.
History already is if you think about it. Their lazy low effort remastering of AoE2 with DE (no new engine) fits exactly your description.And we're talking about AoE2 here, a game that nearly died and had to be brought back from the dead. Imagine if MS had taken care of the game, the pro scene, cultivated the strong following it once had instead of abandoning it for crap games like AoE3.
I just fear that with AoE4 history is going to repeat itself. AoE2 is a perfect game, milk it until you can't milk it anymore.
If only EA was managing the AOE franchise... we can only dream.just give me the full sellout now microsoft
I want loot boxes with 0.02% chance for an option to build your own civ
I wish that they fixed Sicilians and Burgs, the nerfs were ****let me guess 2 new (unnecessary) broken civs so everyone plays them and then eventually get nerfed after 1 or 2 months
Why do people strongly dislike new civs in general? The game is so well balanced for RM (when you consider Arabia and other maps) that more civs just give more colour and complexity to the game, no?
Biz, I didn't mean 1v1 Arabia is perfectly balanced, I mean all civs have viable strategies on a variety of maps, maybe I could have written that clearer. Some civs are better at certain maps, others excel elsewhere. For example, Turks or Italians on Arabia any good? No, not really, but amazing on water maps and arena respectively.
I'm finding it tricky to understand exactly what you mean in your post, but by spam just one unit type, do you mean knights or xbow? Because I see mostly xbow, but then you start talking about paladin spam (then you must mean team games, as it's not a very good 1v1 unit as it's so expensive?)
Anyway, it's sounds as if you really don't like the game, so I'm not sure why you play it. Personally, I like the variety, it's means there's something in the game for almost everyone.
I know what you mean, but I think we are moving towards a more and more balanced game, and I think over the last year it has improved a lot:that's not how matchmaking works
people see the map before they pick their civ + spawn position, so it doesn't really matter if the garbage civs are better in other situations. the only situation that matters is the one that comes up. they deleted FR/BR from the game and replaced it with single maps, so the whole concept of civs having different strengths & weaknesses does not actually apply
if i don't want to play arabia, i'd have to alt+f4, and i don't do that. i'm a RM player, not a map-dodger
No, devs bad, microsoft bad.I know what you mean, but I think we are moving towards a more and more balanced game, and I think over the last year it has improved a lot:
- If two players of 100 ELO apart played the worst civ matchups on Arabia, the better player would be very likely to win
- If two players of equal ELO play random civ on Arabia, the worst matchups would only yield about a 2:1 win loss ratio. Not the "95% of civ matchups are decided at minute zero" that you say.
This is not my opinion, this is fact (check aoestats to check details).
I think we should (as a community) keep lobbying the devs for balance changes, and they clearly listen and try and implement as best as they can. They're not done yet, but we're getting ever closer. It'll only stop when the money stops, and I for one am totally happy to keep spending at such a low rate!