Did I miss something or things changed, all my life I’ve known the same continents, since when they changed? I get what you say about population and it’s ridiculous India and china not being a continent comparing population when Europe is but we can’t change that stuff based on what we think would be best or logical.
1 Like
It’s really not clear to me how serious you are about this thread, and to what extent you’re joking or trolling. But anyway, now that I have a bit more time, here’s an attempt to answer your questions.
It’s not possible to sell changes to existing civs as part of an expansion, because of the way online multiplayer works. The alternative would either be that players can only play multiplayer against player with exactly the same DLCs installed, or that different players use different versions of civs depending on what DLCs they have. (The former was fine in 2000, when everything was CD-based and there was only one expansion, but wouldn’t work well now.)
I think your suggestion would be possible with a different model for DLCs. For example, DLCs could be campaign packs whose release could coincide with additions to civs – I believe this model was used by StarCraft II (for two expansions). But it’s not clear to me why that would be a desirable approach – such DLCs would probably not sell as well, because they’d be perceived as having lower value, especially by players who don’t play campaigns.
Do you not think the devs have done both? I think balance has improved a fair bit over the years – we’ve had fewer balance patches recently, but I think that’s a good thing since to me it feels like they’re not really needed much anymore. Pathing has been up and down, but there clearly has been at least some effort made to improve it.
No, I’ve seen a few people say they’d prefer the game to have fewer civs. I think your position is extreme though – in particular, this:
My understanding is that, while The Conquerors still has something of a fanbase (playing userpatch version 1.5), the original AoK doesn’t. I have seen people object to the inclusion of the American civs, though.
1 Like
From experience, I actually think that a restaurant’s menu being too big can be detrimental. Not only is it harder for customers to choose the dish they want, but the kitchen has a harder time having to make all the food. There was a restaurant in my old state that was once on a reality show. I got to eat there and met the owner about 10 years after filming; the guy running the show had to massively scale back the menu because there were just TOO MANY things.
How does this relate to AoE2? While it’s a rather poor analogy because the devs don’t have to individually “prepare” each civ every time it’s selected, the more civs that are added, the more they have to be balanced. And the whole issue of having too many choices is there as well.
That said, I do want as many civs as can feasibly be added, but we have to consider the loss of accessibility and practicality versus the revenue gained from selling DLCs.
2 Likes
Of if there’s no more ideas they could throw variant versions of existing civs like aoe4 does, that could be an interesting idea, the Carolingian dynasty and Merovingian in the Franks for example, or Visigoths etc
Maybe we should tell the troll there’s actually four countries in what he considers India? Almost like the four civs which were added to correspond (albeit loosely):
Bharat
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
3 Likes
Conventions go from 4 to 7, with an 8th submerged one and a 9th if you count Antarctica, though even scientists don’t agree how many they are.
The relative difference between 45 and e.g. 52 is not that great. I find the argument of accesibility laughable considering:
- How long the game has been out already.
- How easy to understand the basic unit triangle on land is.
- How symmetric the civs actually are. The most crazy thing you’re getting is the absence of Knights or Knights replacement on land with the UUs being the hardest part of each civ to get.
- The skill range is wide enough that the differences between civs basically don’t matter.
Not to mention that Pros love new civs as well.
Getting variant civs of European civs is basically what we’re already getting with Poles e.g. It would be better to focus on Africa and the Americas once again.
Not only India as it seems.
Im afraid I disagree I don’t think they would sell better than the variant civs they’re not as interesting but against it’s just my opinion, I could be wrong, I guess we will see.
No. This is the gaming equivalent of having a favourite restaurant that does the best pizza you know, then this restaurant starts selling lots of other stuff and then you can no longer just buy a pizza, but you always also need to but a turd sandwich.
(for those not understanding analogies, pizza in this case is ranked matches with good civs. turd sandwich is having to play against shitty civs like Romans, Burgundians, Georgians, Dravidians, etc)
fixing pathing is something they owe us. They sold an unfinished game and then broke it further
2-4 civs is 80-160 civ matchups. that’s about 2-4 days per matchup
yeah. nothing bad ever happens when games are made purely for money and not because someone has a cool idea and wants to make a good game.
With the same logic we should also accept that lootboxes, gatcha mechanics, and pay-to-win will be added to the game.
The argument “some people will buy it, therefore you should not complain if it gets added” is intellectually dishonest.
2 Likes
Many people have longed for these civs. I believe it is a cool idea to introduce these civs. Someone has cool idea in this forum and get adopted by devs.
There were OP civs introduced at the very beginning of each DLC. But there were also weak civs introduced. It is natural to take time to adjust the civs.
3 Likes
Yes
If anything we should be thankful FE never added anything like that to the game, and resist if they try adding that stuff. The fact we’re getting another traditional DLC, at the very least, suggests WE listens to us about AoE2 (even if unfortunately they don’t when it comes to AoE3).
2 Likes
I also think Teutons, Burgundians, Bohemians and Italians simply merged into “Germanic”. And Vikings and Sicilians simply merged into " Normans".
I think we can go further. Merge Indians, Germanic, Normans, French, Spanish, Romans, Byzantine, Persians, Portuguese, Slavs, Poles, Lithuanians, Britons, Celts, Georgians and Armenians into a single civ called “Indo-Europeans”. Their unique unit are the Divine Twins and you can only have two of them at a time.
We can also merge Chinese, Korean, and Japanese into a single civ and call it the Choo Choo Train. Their Unique Unit is Jack Black.
(Jokes aside, you know Vikings are Germanic and Bohemians and Italians aren’t, right? Unless by Italians you mean Lombards).
3 Likes
Yes I know that. But do you also know that Bengalis and Dravidians are not “Indians”?
You mean Indo-Aryans? Because Bengalis ARE Indo-Aryan. Dravidians aren’t.
“Other people like thing I don’t like. The only possible explanation is they’re dumb casuals.”
7 Likes
Finally, we will have 4 big civs. Asians, Europeans, Africans and Americans.
Joke aside, aoe2 is a bit euro-centric. Having 2 more east asian civs is honestly fine.
2 Likes
The draft mechanic isnt a forced solution to OP civs from being played, quite the oposite. It gives the players more options for planning and doing strategies to get as many interesting matches as posible
And as qlways you come here to just say how much you hate the game, evwn if its been almost two years since the last civ DLC (also you seem to care about which civs are included now?)
1 Like
Nepal and Bhutan. And Maldevese is also a country.
As I said it depends on who you ask.
For example in Russia Eurasia is officially considered one continent instead of two which makes sense for a country that stretches over two continents.
India is a subcontinent. It’s on it’s own tectonic plate and therefor has clear geographic boundaries.
Because of it being an isolated continent before crushing into Eurasia India has more unique wildlife then most of Eurasia.
Arabia is also a subcontinent.
Some people consider North and South America subcontinents and some consider them individual continents.
So I think it makes sense to compare Europe with the Indian Subcontinent (not India as the modern country).
China on the other hand is not a subcontinent and also very different in many ways. China might have been split apart more then it was united during the Middle Ages but there was a concept of a united China under one emperor unlike India or Europe.
1 Like
Yes i should’ve written “at least four”
Those two would actually be great DLC content…