tissuepapercatmat
Gun_rose
SalzZ_Vinchester
trashaway
Influenza
i just watch clips like this and wonder how anyone can vote 10,9,8 etc. Most people just arent playing/watching the same game as me
Today's birthdays
AOE-II DE How Would you Rate the Currant State of AoE2 DE?
-
Thread starter
Paint
- Start date
i just watch clips like this and wonder how anyone can vote 10,9,8 etc. Most people just arent playing/watching the same game as me
There is a difference between there being bugs in the game and it being completely broken. Over the last couple of patches I had very few problems myself.
I like the current state of the game very much, and the recipe for that is simple:
- I am a noob. I don't care about elo, don't mind the occasional bug or cheater, or temporarily broken civ, and sometimes just like to play campaigns and chill.
- I don't need a game community to enjoy the game. I have enough friends irl, even some playing age with me on my level. I don't need in-game social interaction (except expressions of general manners and decency), or twitch chat or anything like that.
- In ranked matchmaking, I play what comes along, trying to understand the intricacies and enjoying to play; except for extreme "tastes" like team islands or socotra...
I can see what you're saying, but I don't think the difference in people's perception of the game's state is due to a lack of awareness of these issues. I expect it's mostly due to:
i just watch clips like this and wonder how anyone can vote 10,9,8 etc. Most people just arent playing/watching the same game as me
- How much people care about the issues (a bug every now and then doesn't significantly dampen my enjoyment of the game, but I can see why it might for some people).
- Different interpretations on what the ratings mean. For me it makes sense to compare the game to it's previous states, and since I would rather play current DE than DE 2 years ago, or HD, or Voobly etc, it wouldn't make sense for me to rate it as 'below average'. If the ratings are instead interpreted as the level of polish and feature completeness relative to some other games, however, I can definitely understand why some would rate it lower than the 7 I gave.
LokaloWell this voting system is terrible to begin with. There might be true that there are more players that like closed maps than anticipated before, however there are few big factors to concider.
First, map pools to vote from usually are quite terrible, some "open maps" in the pool are so terrible that I myself as full Arabia player would preffer to play Hideout.
Second point is that according someone's numbers in this thread given TG players there are wayyy more and most of them do not play 1v1, but I'm pretty sure many of them still vote for 1v1 maps. For example I almost never play TG and I almost never vote for TGs, but is that a case for others? Everytime I jump to some TG with some streamer there are more people with 0-30 games in 1v1 in over 2 years of DE and many games of TG. So if those people actually do vote for 1v1 maps it makes not too much sense. There should be something like if you didn't play a single 1v1 or TG in past month you shouldn't be abble to vote for that category, similarly as after 1 month you are not in leaderboards anymore.
And on the topic. I voted for 7. However as some people already said it depends what we are comparing. If we compare old AoC times, I like this way more, shift queue alone is amazing, people can say it makes game easier, well it does, but at same time it requires less apm which is good, its strategy game after all(many, especially with high apm might disagree, but that's fine). So if we compare old times and now, I think DE deserves more than 7. However I voted 7 more with a view of how game could be in ideal(for me) scenario. With civs being balanced faster, not making some unbalanced stuff like shrivamshas/flemish revolution. Overall game state is bit too repetitive due walls I would say. Client has zero possibilities to communicate. No DM queue. No proper web for stats, things like aoenexus and dashboard are made by community which at this point is being used and taken like a must/standard thing for daily use.
So overall gameplay/mechanics I would say is in quite great spot even with some pathing nonsense and is worth better grade, however experience playing the game could be much better if those things like client would be fixed/changed and civs like Hindustanis, Gurjaras, Poles, Bohemians would be tuned faster as it can be super frustrating to play against, because there are many people who pick them and turn off random and you can't do anything about it.
Just add automatic ballistics like AoE4, EZ
i just watch clips like this and wonder how anyone can vote 10,9,8 etc. Most people just arent playing/watching the same game as me
Well aoe2/aoc was an already 9 of 10 game and that explains why it lasted for that long without companies involved or even official support, most users who started with DE are ignoring that part.
Some improvements have been done and several regressions are still happening, aoe2de is a third version of an already beloved game, selling it 3 times with such initial score shouldn't be lower than its original version, you guys have pretty low standards.
Improving the playability and some Quality of life improvements are enough to keep the same score of its ancestor, but removing the player's freedom, social aspects and breaking the balance on purpose, forcing noob bashing on their match making system on the most active ladder are really negative aspects that affects the experience of most users regardless their elo.
One should expect a 10 of 10 from a third remake at this point based on previous score, previous platforms, all the data about balance and existing patches that improved the game, not to mention all the money injected and gained over the +10 millions sales exclusively from the second remake, but if you can't see that then don't be surprised of why the game hasn't grow despite the true potential it had.
Some improvements have been done and several regressions are still happening, aoe2de is a third version of an already beloved game, selling it 3 times with such initial score shouldn't be lower than its original version, you guys have pretty low standards.
Improving the playability and some Quality of life improvements are enough to keep the same score of its ancestor, but removing the player's freedom, social aspects and breaking the balance on purpose, forcing noob bashing on their match making system on the most active ladder are really negative aspects that affects the experience of most users regardless their elo.
One should expect a 10 of 10 from a third remake at this point based on previous score, previous platforms, all the data about balance and existing patches that improved the game, not to mention all the money injected and gained over the +10 millions sales exclusively from the second remake, but if you can't see that then don't be surprised of why the game hasn't grow despite the true potential it had.
Yeah, 1v1 ara huns with 200 ping all day was definitely a 9 of 10 gaming experience ...
RayneIt was. Like Ra would say, big plays, big balls, no walls.
Be able to play ranked games on maps they like. That's the user requirement, beyond that it's the responsibility of the developers to find the solution.
This actually never bothered me tbh.
What bothered me was the infamous 3-4 sc rush into a 12 min stonewalled base. Or even worse, the infamous click feudal at 8 min into seeing a fully walled opponent 10 seconds later.
MaSmOrRaThese numbers sadly are not tracked anymore, but when they still were, the "unraked" ladder was by *far* the one with the highest number of entries.
I think 170k was the last public number, compared with 70k for TG and 40k 1v1.
Of course there will be overlap, but it's not at all clear to me that the majority of the community wants to play ranked.
The game is in a sad state unfortunately. I lost all taste to play it almost...
The soloQ Tgs is catastrophic. We find ourselves playing against 2K5s while having 1K1s in our team. It's a pure waste of time.
For the maps it's the same, I find myself playing Arena or Nomad 8 times out of 10. I would like to be able to play Arabia in 4vs4, but I just can't.
The fact that when someone quits at the beginning, we have to wait 5 minutes to be able to quit without penalty is simply scandalous.
In short, everything has to be revised.
The soloQ Tgs is catastrophic. We find ourselves playing against 2K5s while having 1K1s in our team. It's a pure waste of time.
For the maps it's the same, I find myself playing Arena or Nomad 8 times out of 10. I would like to be able to play Arabia in 4vs4, but I just can't.
The fact that when someone quits at the beginning, we have to wait 5 minutes to be able to quit without penalty is simply scandalous.
In short, everything has to be revised.
Unranked was only more popular because the ranked teamgames stink. Also a ton of these unranked lobbies have a "soft" ranking required. How many noob/noobish arena/BF 4v4s are there? A ton! All of these players would be better served by having the ability to just play ranked BF/Arena 4v4 games over and over. Instead these players resort to unranked lobbies and classify it as "noob", "noobish", 1000+, 1200+, etc. This is users trying to bypass poor system design.
We don't need hard data to see this is a large issue in the game.
PotkenyLots of people ask for ranked lobbies as a solution to ranked matchmaking, would that help them in this use-case?
I think that could be good. Some people dont like that an arena clown could get 2k team rating by only playing arena games but I don't think that matters. If someone gets a high elo playing BF and Arena then they'll be matched against other people with similar ELOs who like to play similar maps.
At the end of the day, it's not the consumers job to tell the devs how to meet our needs. We should be able to say "let us play ranked teamgames on maps we like" and the devs should find a solution to that. Whether it's ranked lobbies, or arena/BF/arabia/nomad only queues for teamgames, or something else I don't care.
Since when does the consumer need to prove something to a software developer providing a product using hard data? How are we supposed to quantify exactly how much happier people will be with the product if they fix team games?
DE is a success and is very fun. But ranked team games are poorly designed. AOE2 has a cult following pretty much so it'll take a lot to alienate players.
"In this context, if you want to convince the devs to change something as fundamental as the Matchmaking system, you have to give them a very good reason to do so."
You are joking right? You expect the consumer to gather proprietary data on a product then provide that information back to the vendor? What are you actually saying here? We don't need data to prove to them, it's their job to listen to the consumer and make a better product or lose sales.
Probably in real life the real reason this hasn't changed is because Viper, T90, and Hera haven't complained about it enough. They simply gave up on ranked team games.
I'm super confused by your attitude on this. Part of their product is bad in a specific way, a lot of consumers complained about this thing, and your response is to say I either provide hard data on how many DLC sales they lose or I should kick rocks?
Stop apologizing for poor design and speak up for the players, please.
FYI, I deleted the post you quoted, because I've discussed this soooo many times already in this forum and I always end up regretting it. I guess I wasn't fast enough this time 
In Portuguese we often use this expression: "If a team is winning, don't change the players".
That's what I meant here.
Have you you considered that the devs might indeed be listening, but your perception of the quality (or lack thereof) of the MM system just happens to not be shared by the majority of players using it?
Or do you have data that indicates your opinion is shared by the majority?
And this is why I'm tired of discussing this.
You just assumed I'm defending the devs because I don't happen to 100% share your view on this.
I don't have an opinion on the TG MM system. I have a grand total of 0 TG played in DE.
The only thing I was doing was explaining why I *think* the devs haven't changed the system so far.
In Portuguese we often use this expression: "If a team is winning, don't change the players".
That's what I meant here.
Have you you considered that the devs might indeed be listening, but your perception of the quality (or lack thereof) of the MM system just happens to not be shared by the majority of players using it?
Or do you have data that indicates your opinion is shared by the majority?
And this is why I'm tired of discussing this.
You just assumed I'm defending the devs because I don't happen to 100% share your view on this.
I don't have an opinion on the TG MM system. I have a grand total of 0 TG played in DE.
The only thing I was doing was explaining why I *think* the devs haven't changed the system so far.
Last edited:
No, my response is to suggest the devs already are in possession of such data and based on it they've decided it's not worth taking the risk of completely overhauling a system that as far as they are concerned *is* working.
You don't know that.
There is no way they had any data that showed them 2 wood walls were hurting their bottom line. But they nerfed walls because pros complained constantly, now palisade walls cost 3 wood. Pros don't complain about team games because they basically play ranked 1v1 arabia so team games don't get improved.
I like you podcast, but your stance of "just give up on this subject" is lame.
That would be incredibly wrong and biased by the devs, in my opinion if they actually think that "majority" of playerbase is satisfied with the current MM system. Majority doesn't just mean pure numbers when in comes to certain aspects of the game - because obviously there will always be more casual/lower elo playerbase compared to hardcore/cream of the crop. And matter of fact is, you will never find the casual players as deeply invested into the aoe scene as hardcore members of the community, so there needs to be a certain weight associated with say a high profile player like Viper's stance to a LEL John who plays "TGs noobs only every saturday" (Sorry to all John's out there)
- Devs ask pros for their opinions regarding balance because pros have most experience and the game balance is centered around that. Cool, nobody will complain because it's in everyone's best interest (Sorry John, we can't buff teutonic knights just for you, it will break the balance)
- Devs ask everyone (including casual players who play maybe once a week) to vote in the ranked mappool and then decide based on the majority. Like how is it fair? Mbl and Hera plays 1000s of games and they have to play from a mappool which is mainly decided by what the "majority" of lower elo prefers, something which is no fun at all for higher elos.
A great analogy I thought of is Football. We have millions of football fans who love playing casually in parks and we never really care about offside or VAR. Now imagine if Fifa asks every player who plays football what their stance is on Offside rule or VAR introduction. Obviously a casual Joe playing in the park won't care, he will say No to Offsides so he can continue scoring goals by just waiting around the GK area 11, but the competitive game of football would be so wrong and exploitable if there's no offside or no VAR. Imagine
Time
Your time
G M T
Your zone
Calendar
Featured Events
AoE Live-Streams
Voobly Top 5 RM 1v1
MUHAMMEDD DE Top 5 RM 1v1
Hera 2644
_Barles_ 2639
Villese 2617
GL.TheViper 2602
ACCM |AOEbuilds.com 2594
Voobly Top 5 RM Team Game
DE Top 5 RM Teamgame
2583
痛大师 2245
HGB_AOE 2181
chaos_2_win 2009
正义的威震天 2008
Voobly Top 5 DM 1v1
Voobly Top 5 DM Teamgame
DE Top 5 Empire Wars 1v1
[aM]_MbL40C_ 2053
ACCM |AOEbuilds.com 2031
Hera 1999
Yo 1964
CDUB.dogao 1935
DE Top 5 Empire Wars TG
mYi.Sitaux 1752
__BadBoy__ 1726
ELEOS | ElNoniro 1690
Lauth3 1687
BlackRock 1668
