10 Reasons AoE2:DE is so bad

Seriously? It never acted for me that way before February patch. Also, they clearly stated it was going to be removed.

They did?? Wow thats great news. Can you show me? Its super frustrating. I can’t believe HC3 is gonna be played before its patched.

Well, to be fair it is not a “simple graphics update”. Games are extremely hard to make and have them work flawlessly, especially when trying to make ends meet with a dated engine.

Right there Units attack closest Target over commanded target(@GMEvangelos ’ reply)

I didn’t realize that was a bug since release. It didn’t start for me or a lot of other people until the last patch.

There’s no way that bug would be intentional. There is an attack-move button already in the game. I doubt that the developers thought it would be a great idea to make individual targeting impossible.

@SorryHaah is wrong about this right-click bug being in game since release or beta. It was added to the game in latest patches.

Since first version of the game in 1999 right-click has made units try to find compromise between attacking targeted unit and splitting between nearby units. This behavior might seem a little bit unintuitive, but it is needed in order to keep right-click working properly when ordering units to attack group of enemy units. Units must be able to attack closer units in order for group attack to work without units overprioritizing reaching single targeted enemy unit.

Everyone can test right-click behavior in AOC/HD scenario editor for themselves. Go on, arrange 40 vs 40 melee units battle, select your units, right-click on enemy unit and observe what happens. Similar behavior must happen in DE so that people can continue playing like they are used to.

I even answered to @SorryHaah in that topic, asking him to compare AOC and DE behavior, but he didn’t respond.

Recently a bug was introduced, which causes right-clicked units to not prioritize attacking targeted unit enough, but hopefully their behavior will be returned to AOC/HD behavior in next patch. You can see from that topic, that after the bug introduction suddenly a lot of people started to complain about it.

Before the bug only couple of people complained, but during that time right-click worked similarly to how it works in AOC/HD, so they simply don’t like how right-click has always worked in AOE 2. Tough luck, it is fundamental part of gameplay and should never be changed.

4 Likes

I tried it and posted it in the comments with videos here: Units attack closest Target over commanded target

Long story short no this was not in the game before DE

I responded in that topic.
Current behavior certainly wasn’t in AOC/HD, but I and many other people find, that behavior before latest patches was similar to AOC/HD. You should have done comparison videos at that time to show any differences.

2 Likes

You talked so much to not say anything in the end. So you don’t like the game - no one cares. Let others enjoy it. Go outside, pet a dog, eat some ice cream. Geez

He did raise good points and explained why he also focused on more “trivial” things (like not liking some features)
The most important post imo is:

If you yourself had many issues and knew other people who do as well, you would complain too right?

I completely agree all of those. It seems devs even don’t care about the issues and the community. That’s really disappointing.

1 Like

I really hope the developers let these kind of posts not affect them. The game has been modernized, and is getting constant updates. Your points are just ‘whinging’. If you aren’t happy with this game, go back to Voobly - That still works just fine. The rest of us will stay on DE.
I’ll add, not saying the game is perfect, but its been 4 months - Give them a chance to work through the issues. This isn’t the same team that developed the game 20+ years ago.

2 Likes

This matchmaking is so good man. Keep up the good work boys!

1 Like

I’m sorry but wouldnt luck be a bigger factor if everyone has to go Random civ? If I get Mayans and my oponent gets Byzantines on Arabia, wasnt he unlucky? I am all in favor of allowing players to choose. ■■■■, I dont want to play the third MegaRandom in a row. Or Hideout. Or Alpine Lakes. Ugh.

1 Like

I don’t think you understand how statistics play out when factors are random over time. IMO both map and civ should be random, leading to the best case test of adaptability and skill over time, as anyone with a basic understanding of probability could tell you. There will be cases of civ mis-matches, but they become inconsequential over time, much more so than a system where people can pick Civ.

1 Like

this is nuts to me… like thinking of other competitive games… playing heathstone and not doing whats in your deck when you play a game or playing league and given a hero at random you’ve never played on a map you’ve never played. etc etc

like sure it can be fun to adapt and see what happens at times but as the main ranked way to play? theres over 30 civs some people only like certain civs…some are trying to get better by focusing on a main one or two. making it always random just screws this all to ■■■■. No one should have to try to remember all 30 civs in case they get them in ranked…or try to hurry though the tech tree at the start of the game. Even Pro and casters forget things that some civs have or dont have because they aren’t famialr with them. Also if both are random its more then just possible civs match ups…not all civs are good on all maps…that’s the way its supposed to be. Its going to really suck when you get like…islands and someone gets Italians or Vikings and then the other player gets something with terrible navy? these will be common as well as civ counter picks. now its one thing if I chose random and got a bad civ for the map or other player as I made the choice to do so but forcing it? just going to decide matches before they start and anger so many…you have people complaining now because they don’t like the map pool and just want Arabia…having it all random and civ choices is going to be even worse

1 Like

Hardly. Comparisons to a game like Hearthstone don’t really apply here either. It’s a completely different game. Civilizations in Age are similar enough that the win rate even for the worst possible civ matchups that you can put together can still result in the underdog winning. Having 30 similar civs and not doing random as the standard for ranked play is simply bonkers. There’s a reason why the majority of ranked play was random civ prior to DE.

It also completely goes against their stated goal to get more players playing more maps to then allow civ picking. I honestly think it’s a test for Age IV to see what the actual needed number of total civs for future expansions is, since we know the Civs in Age IV will be far more specialized. If Microsoft sees that all of the sudden half the civs aren’t being used, the cost benefit is to make the expansions for Age IV more expensive and even offer stand alone civ purchases closer to some other strategy games. The fact that so many people are supporting this behavior is sad for the community long term.

yes the games are different but the point was that its a competitive game where you don’t even know what you can do,what map you’re on or anything until you get into the game. Then its a mad dash to figure out what civ you are with the map hope its something good and figure something out all while trying to do your normal eco and scouting. Like look at HC3…a lot of those matches were so good because the pros knew the maps and came up with ideas on how to best use the map with the civ they picked.

Also what? like yes an underdog can win in age but that doesn’t make it fair. theres meta civs for a reason. ■■■■ theres been thread in this forum about people pissed off playing a meta civ. Like lookingat my example before with islands. if you don’t have anything good for water and the other player is the top tier water civ…you’re already way behind.

MS already knows some civs don’t get used, its why they have balancing updates every month as well as bug fixes yet civ also have different areas they are good in and others they are bad at. That’s why you’re able to pick your civ so when you get a map you can figure out what you’re going to do ahead of time. like mongols are good on open maps not the best on water maps…pre buff goths were good in team games when you could be protected…bad in 1v1s…Indians are good on maps with shore fish…etc etc… that’s the whole point of giving them different bonuses and strengths

also huh? if they see half the age 2 civs aren’t being used…they make expansion more expensive or offer civ stand alones? that doesn’t make sense. Age IV civs are more specialized yes which means like I said before they are going to have more strength and weaknesses if people aren’t using a civ the answer isn’t ‘well up the expansion price or sell a new civ’ they don’t get paid on the civs use where they have to try and cover their cost back. The real answer is ‘huh why don’t people play this civ?..oh its terrible so no ones picking it lets either balance it or remember this lesson for the other new civs we make’. Them being more specialized means that you’re really going to need to know how they work and what map is good for them because if you don’t or random throws you on a terrible map for them its useless

That mad dash is part of the skill involved. If you can’t do it and need to have extra planning, are you really more skilled than your opponent or just good at one facet of the game?

I’m glad you referenced Hidden Cup. The reason those pros are so good and adaptable with every civ? Years of playing on random to test every possible angle out. Not only utilizing 3-5 civs and rotating based off of the map.

There aren’t inherently bad civs. The argument that they release balance patches actually lends itself more to a random civ approach.

Don’t forget that the whole multiplayer system was designed by Relic and adapted for DE. There’s a method to the deliberate changes they made from how Age was played for 20 years previously to how DE was set up.

1 Like

For me the main problem is that the game doesnt give us many choices. On Voobly and HD we could decide who to play, with civ pic or without, ranked or unranked on random map or not. Now its weirdly split up between Lobby Browser (where we cant play ranked, and not being able to see ratings of others makes teamgames etc very hard to do) and we have ranked matchmaking where skill levels are even but we cant play the maps we want or against an opponent we want to play (we cant even rematch and we dont even see opponents rating afterwards and its very inconvenient to add them as freinds).

I do not say that the current system is bad but there are some things they could implement that would help many without hurting anyone (like showing ratings, have a build in friendlist, give a option to play random civ if both tic a box while the countdown is on)

3 Likes