I know this is an extremely speculative thread, but what do you think will happen to AOE2:DE?
2 more DLC-s, nothing else??
I hope enough DLCs to get up to 48 civs, which seems to be the maximum entry number.
AoE4 will likely flop hard, and most people will return to AoE2.
It might sound negative but there is plenty evidence that there will be new bugs(guaranteed), balance will be awful cause of the new civs/units introduced, months and months of just playing the newer civs cause they will be broken(see burgundians).
The pros will be playing aoe4 most of their time cause of the sponsors and the big eyes over there, the general activity will drop a lot for the multiplayer base.
The common topics you see right now about alt f4 or tg ladder being broken, disconnections might still be a thing in 2022.
There will be hype around AoE4. MS would push towards AoE4 tournaments but the game will not be ready to host high level events for at least several months. When big tournaments arrive the settings would feel limited compared to AoE2 events. Few and asymetric civs, small number of competative maps. There will be alot of mirror matches as balance will be lacking. It will be almost impossible to host TG event in AoE4.
While some streamers and MS tournaments will be focused on AoE4, AoE2 will be doing good. I imagine some sponsors like Redbull would stick to AoE2, also I think Memb and T90 won`t move their events towards AoE4 while Nili might. We might see some decline in players but in the long run the game will be fine, people will return. Ultimatelly AoE4 and AoE2 will have different player base similarly to Aoe2/AoE3 now.
I’m still waiting for square formation to be added there, might play it from time to time - but odds are I’ll be sticking with aoe2
it will also depend of who will play AoE4. maybe some SC2 pros will switch, same with LoL and DOTA.
I suspect day9 is playing AoE2, to make easier his switch to AoE4, and he alone can move a lot of people to the AoE4 scene.
I don’t have any reason to play AoE4, for 1v1 there is SC2, and for Aoe4 my friends never will buy AoE4 or even a pc that can run it.
I’ve read that they are busy with co-op missions, available for public test group already. If it works well they might focus more on some specific co-op DLC.
They will release 40 for free. I’ll never pay for campaigns only. I touch them once if ever. Haven’t played the new DE ones yet even.
You should. All 3 LotW campaigns are better than the vanilla ones. They are really well done.
That’s good to hear. I like doing campaigns and co-op missions, so more of them is always nice. I would have added civs for free instead, but I can understand that they want to keep sales up.
Why You Say few and asymetric civs like it is a Bad thing? Starcraft with 3 civs did a lot better than AoE2 and it is a fairly balance Game.
But I think too aoe4 Will need some time to balance the Game, at least for the rest of this year AoE2 Will be superior
We would still be arguing about the same things over and over like too many european civis not enough indian civis etc.
Jokes aside I see few more dlcs coming like now and maybe the option to add our own civis enabled.they will not do all 48 civilizations.
Asymetric is not a problem on its own. SC2 makes a good job as you say but Im thinking from the perspective of a AoE2 viewer where SC2 is not so fun. Its mostly about execution, it doesnt allow for comebacks and seems limited in options. We are used with civ drafting, constant map tweaking and home maps for big events.Settings where a very slight change allows for different civs/strats to shine.
One of the great things about AoE2 is it can be played in so many ways 1v1 and Team games. Both as modes RM , EW, DM and maps Arabia, Arena, Islands, Megrandom, Nomad, Mega random, Black Forest. All these have subcommunities and require slightly different skills for competative play while also suggest different sets for possible civ choices. Even if the change in settings is much smaller lets say Arena and Regicide Fortress it suggests fior very different games while both boomy and focused mainly on late game.
A game with small number and more different civs would have only one or posibly two good options for any different setting. Once some meta is established matches will be much more about execution than strategy choice. Having abit more different civs would have more predictable strategy choices in a way as tech switching will be harder/impossible. Imagine if AoE2 only had goths, franks, aztecs, turks, britons, indians and italians for example. All of them play completely different but you kind of know what they can and would like to go for. They might be balanced in general but certain matchups would be unbalanced, too.
Thast why Im thinking from AoE2 players/viewers perspactive once the initial hype is over AoE4 will be a little lacking. I think as depth and options it will look more as AoE3, which is not bad in itself but its a different taste. Thats my point I know SC2 is balanced and popular but its not the best fit for me.
Well, to be fair, I have that exactly same sensation about AoE2, every civ has a very narrow meta… I think thats mostly a problem of fast games rather than if it is symetrical or asymetrical civs.
Franks, one of the most picked civs ever is a VERY PREDICTABLE one, and still very effective. If you don’t know build orders you cannot have even matches in competitive.
Don’t get me wrong, if I found this game boring I wouldn’t had buoght it or waste my time in this forum… once you execute your build order you still have to scout, raid, win key positions in the map, decide when to engage and when to retreat, decide if it is worth to change your army composition and ofc mock your defeated enemy every time you can… thats the fun part of AoE2 for me… Hopefully AoE4 can recreate that
Ofc we all hope its a good game. I understand your point. Its not all about build order there is timing and execution. What I fear it is going to be mostly about timing and execution. I think changing army composition will be limited as civs should have mostly quite different army rosters. Point being its not going to be much about what units you decide to use but how well you use them. Smth we can see quite evidently in SC2.
Here is where I disagree with you I think while there is meta in AoE2 most civs can play most strats if its needed. Thats why smbd like Daut can win sometimes vs smbd like Liereyy.
I fear in AoE4 for each matchup there will be much more prescribed composition. In the best scenario there will be different power spikes for each civ the times you have to kill or survive. While it is also part of the strategy aspect in AoE2 its often not because of civ bonuses (malay fast aging uo, burgundy flemish revolution) but strat choice like 1 TC push, fast imp, boom or full feudal push that can be used by pretty much all civs.
Yes Franks are fairly predictable but also powerful as you say. But lets compare a pool of civs with 37 option and one with specialised 8 civs. Most often when you play against franks you dont evaluate the chances to meet them to more than 20/25% as you would seldomly pick a civ designed to be strong against them.
As I said before imagine the civs available are: britons, goths, franks, turks, italians, indians, aztecs. All different and all predictable. This doesnt mean they will be unbalanced. With limites number of civs like that you can give tools to each civ to deal with every other. Yet the options and possible scenarios are limited esp with only a couple good options on different maps and settings. We again go to the timing and execution which are valuable skills but now what AoE2 viewer is only looking for.
Have you read some of the topics where team game players are complaining that fixed position has ruined their experience. People are fed up to play agains the same optimal civ compositian: indian, frank pockets and mayan, briton flanks or whatever. Many prefer to risk playing unfaurable match up rather the very same game once again. Plus they know in AoE2 with not so different civs you always can do smth.
Ofc its all my opinion but I think AoE4 is going to be a very good game. I will buy it and try it. But what I expect it to be a great single player experiance and not as good a multiplayer game as AoE2 is. We will wait and see ofc bu thats my expectation.
I think now the American DLC will come after the DotD DLC (unfortunately I wouldn’t expect a large number of new civs from America - 2 civs). This DLC is likely to be followed by the African DLC (4 civs), followed by the Indian DLC (3 civs).
The further development of AoE 2 depends largely on the success of AoE 4. It seems to me that AoE 4 will gain a short-term success, as fans of the series are used to the symetry of civs. Rather, AoE 4 will be considered a game that is played every once in a while.
I think that the 3 DLC proposals that I mentioned at the very beginning are the next ones in line. If AoE 2 fans do not switch to AoE 4 (it will not be huge), I think that the developers will continue to develop this game for a few more years.
PS: But I want AoE 4 to get new civs too. Maybe the developers will want to encourage undecided players with new civs? Possibly they already have civs ready for the future and if the game is a failure, will they add them in the free update?
- Probably two more DLCs with two civs and 3 campaigns. Most likely one on South Asia (India) and another for Africa.
- More bug fixes and optimization
- Playerbase may fall due to AOEIV but it will eventually bounce back
Though I would prefer different themed DLCs before those two.
- regional monks.
- unique castle to all civs.
- completion of the UI update.
- fixation of long pending bugs.
- modding related issues resolved.
I hope AoE2 keeps being alive for a decade more to come with new civs, new maps, new units, new campaigns.This game has the potential to live forever.
Yeah, I just hope MS doesn’t kill off AOE2 because they don’t want it to compete with AOE4.