Or like even meme cosmetics which you know would sell.i rather have us pay one euro per month rather than having them adding stuff for the sake of selling and not making the game better
Or like even meme cosmetics which you know would sell.i rather have us pay one euro per month rather than having them adding stuff for the sake of selling and not making the game better
what's the issue with having many civs by the way? besides it being difficult for new players, I never heard any reasoning why that is a bad thing in general and for players who play the game for years or decades.Time to reduce the civs to a core of 25 to 27 that will be refined for a complete coherent MP experience.
Did you listen to Nadyas Interview with Guanfranco. She pretty much explains it there why more civs make it hard for her to improve. The amount of interactions grows quadraticly and so for pros it becomes too much to ever understand in a life time if made too often. Also more civs make balance more difficult and the new civs reallly make some old ones straight redundant and feel boring.what's the issue with having many civs by the way? besides it being difficult for new players, I never heard any reasoning why that is a bad thing in general and for players who play the game for years or decades.
Anything can be a skill if you want to. It's not a question of skill it's a question of priority. Ofc you can give pawns in chess a unique ability for each rank, but is it necessary ? No.Hmm, I can see that but honestly I think that's a positive thing rather than a negative. Lierrey just said on his stream that he doesn't like the new civs being banned for RBW because "Adapt fast, that's also a skill that players should have."
I personally dislike when there is a perfectly shaped and fully explored meta where every step is clear and based on experience. It reduces the game to execution pretty much. I like the aspect of judging, what will work how well, and to find out on-the-fly how to react to certain situations. That's the most exiciting part of the game for me.
I agree that knowing match-ups can be an advantage, but I think there is probably more to it. Otherwise players like Capoch, who haven't been around for a while, would be overwhelmed by all the new Civs and mechanics. I assume, you just need to have an basic understanding which units each civ can go for. The rest is probably adapting ingame. Sometimes it surprises me how little some pros know about the Civs, but still can play them to their strengths.Did you listen to Nadyas Interview with Guanfranco. She pretty much explains it there why more civs make it hard for her to improve. The amount of interactions grows quadraticly and so for pros it becomes too much to ever understand in a life time if made too often. Also more civs make balance more difficult and the new civs reallly make some old ones straight redundant and feel boring.
Capoch has an history of picking Chinese on Arabia and lithuanains on four lakes only.I agree that knowing match-ups can be an advantage, but I think there is probably more to it. Otherwise players like Capoch, who haven't been around for a while, would be overwhelmed by all the new Civs and mechanics. I assume, you just need to have an basic understanding which units each civ can go for. The rest is probably adapting ingame. Sometimes it surprises me how little some pros know about the Civs, but still can play them to their strengths.
Idk what is your point tbf. He is like top20 only and plays aoe for over a year now. Jordan has reached that too and I know how much he struggled with the new civs. And I believe no player knows all civs well enough and are more guided by bias and intuition. But the level of understatement could rise if you don't have 40 civs and get 4 each year. Or do you think that sicilians were fully explored ?I see, you don't get my point, so you point at something completely irrelevant to the subject.
If you look at his main account, which he is using for RBW qualifier seeding (and probably other tournaments), yes. Check his other accounts Nagash and Teclis and the time before RBW 5 was announced.
Very much this though and this is independent of any match-up, but rather playing a ton of games. And adding 2 or 20 civs doesn't change that. Afterall every civ uses the same generic units.And I believe no player knows all civs well enough and are more guided by bias and intuition
Creative space isnt emptied. Can still add invisible units and units that increase their stats after every kill
I am no expert about, but isn't Huns war, the most popular and best explored matchup historically, extremely clear and well defined in when to go for what, etc? I think that one is more execution based than, let's say, Cumans vs Malay.Meta is never clear. Meta will always evolve by itself if game has enough interactivity. And aoe2 has. It's the reason it's so famous.
It does. Adding two civs to 18 will increase matchups by 33% adding 20 will by 450%. And now don't forget how different new civs are. They are so wacky they disrupt a lot of playstyles you understood.No, but this isn't the point. I don't say that knowing each Civ match-up is irrelevant, but I think it's not deciding whether getting to 2k and beyond or not. Obviously players are better with Civs they have played a lot.
Very much this though and this is independent of any match-up, but rather playing a ton of games. And adding 2 or 20 civs doesn't change that. Afterall every civ uses the same generic units.
Well I did say to preserve that civ just not it's nameI am no expert about, but isn't Huns war, the most popular and best explored matchup historically, extremely clear and well defined in when to go for what, etc? I think that one is more execution based than, let's say, Cumans vs Malay.
Idk but how about a way to support maintenance that doesn't destroys the game. When will it end ? It's now just a money press and no art. As soon as they can't sell docs anymore will drop it like a rock because they can't think of another way. Also not many people work on aoe2. Will said it himself. It's like 10 people. Prob less without dlc work needed. I think we could be able to afford this do we feed already that amount of people.Guys, I don't see why you guys are complaining about new civs.
This is what gets Microsoft some money. It's not like it's a rich company that can just sponsor AoE2 events for the sake of promotion.
The devs need this DLC money to feed their families. Would you rather have them lose their jobs, instead? Who's going to fix our Alt-F4 issue then?
Yes yes, I agree with you. My message was obviously sarcastic!Idk but how about a way to support maintenance that doesn't destroys the game. When will it end ? It's now just a money press and no art. As soon as they can't sell docs anymore will drop it like a rock because they can't think of another way. Also not many people work on aoe2. Will said it himself. It's like 10 people. Prob less without dlc work needed. I think we could be able to afford this do we feed already that amount of people.
In theory, nothing. However, the devs have run out of good ideas for new civ bonuses and are introducing either completely redundant eco bonuses (like cheaper blacksmith/university/monastery, or stone miners generating gold) or completely stupid mechanics like ripping away the armor of units forever or instantly converting half of your food into gold.what's the issue with having many civs by the way?
how can it be a rip off and have a completely different effect at the same time? maybe was a prejudge ?I initially hated the Lithuanians +150 food bonus (coz it rips off the Persians), but now I've played with it I can see it plays out completely differently to the bonus it was inspired by.
Just a change in opinion. I used to really hate overlap. Now I only hate it if it is overlap in effect in practice (like how Aztecs and Slavs both have faster working farmers despite them being different bonuses)how can it be a rip off and have a completely different effect at the same time? maybe was a prejudge ?
So embarrassing too considering the potential AoE2 had for growth. It's like having really fertile land but instead of investing into farm equipment you rent it out as a waste dump. Just bad management of the IP on the part of Microsoft.Idk but how about a way to support maintenance that doesn't destroys the game. When will it end ? It's now just a money press and no art. As soon as they can't sell docs anymore will drop it like a rock because they can't think of another way. Also not many people work on aoe2. Will said it himself. It's like 10 people. Prob less without dlc work needed. I think we could be able to afford this do we feed already that amount of people.
Also altf4 will be addressed when DM gets their promised ranked lobbies, I my Hc4 prize money and a clown wins a clown tournament.
Yeah DE had a lot of potential, the no lag experience was a massive jump that made us forget the bad balance design and game breaking bugs for almost a year, but the magic doesn't last forever, all those bugs and bad leadership from the devs have made Team games completely unplayable since day 1, 4x4 were unplayable for like 6 months, everything was 10 fps min 45, i can't understand how easy people forget about all of that.So embarrassing too considering the potential AoE2 had for growth. It's like having really fertile land but instead of investing into farm equipment you rent it out as a waste dump. Just bad management of the IP on the part of Microsoft.
Doesn't that invalidate your whole argument? Your distaste of new civs/techs/mechanics might just be because you're not used to them yet. I personally don't have an opinion but I found some irony in your post.we eventually start to like them. Well, I do
Well when there are so many problematic things it can be difficult to remember a specific one. Imagine how many items there would be if we compiled a list of everything. It would probably be multiple pages, and no one is going to easily recall every single thing off that. I think too that issues which involve TG can be deemphasized a bit by the greater overall focus that streaming/YouTube personalities place on 1v1s.Yeah DE had a lot of potential, the no lag experience was a massive jump that made us forget the bad balance design and game breaking bugs for almost a year, but the magic doesn't last forever, all those bugs and bad leadership from the devs have made Team games completely unplayable since day 1, 4x4 were unplayable for like 6 months, everything was 10 fps min 45, i can't understand how easy people forget about all of that.
This is undeniably true and why I believe it is fair to question the integrity of people who defend the devs in some way. The performance is so bad that conflict of interest or trolling are simply two of the most plausible explanations for why someone would attempt to say otherwise.The alt f4 got like cancer a year ago, but the devs simply don't care about our experience, on the contrary instead of fixing the issue in all this time they developed 2 dlcs, there were some naive guys saying "oh thank god lords of the wets is coming so the devs will have more money to fix the game", we are at the second dlc out and nothing has been done, the devs simply don't see their mistakes and will do everything to keep forcing people to play settings they never liked before.
It is hard to say for sure whether the garbage DLCs are the initiative of FE or the initiative of MS but certainly the scenario you describe sounds preferable to the current situation.The best thing that could happen to the game is to microsoft ending their colaboration with FE and just hiring a very small studio like skylabs to keep the game steady and patches every 6-12 months, no more civs and no more balance atrocities, so at the end we could get what we were promised 2 years ago a final product.