Dear devs, please keep the new cosmetics optional in the settings menu

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

What I mean by this is an option to turn unique castles off, unique monastery off and unique monks off. If they are turned off they just default to their architecture set versions.

There are people who like the new civs and new mechanics but not the cosmetics.

I wouldn’t mind if AoE2 goes in the direction of cosmetic DLCs, heck, I wouldn’t mind if it goes in the direction of cosmetic lootboxes either. As long as they don’t introduce unfair gameplay advantage, and only limit themselves to skins, and you have the option to turn the new aesthetics off staying with the classic visuals.

As long as I myself am not forced to use those cosmetics I don’t mind if someone who likes cosmetics uses them. It’s just a matter of taste.

It would be great if there were an Option tabs called “Cosmetics” with multiple options like:
Unique Castles.
Unique Monks
Unique Monasteries.

And all can be turned on/off. If turned off you get the classical/architecture look of the Castle or unit. The default is on “yes” to all but you can manually disable what you don’t like. This way everyone is happy.

11 Likes
2

Does that mean all civs that currently have custom castles should also get generic ones?
Should American civs also have generic monks?

Why stop there. Why not also remove all Architecture sets added after AoK or AoC.

I think some things should just stay mods because they are something only a very very small fraction of the player base actually want.
I can get why relatively many people are afraid of regional unit skins but I don’t think even 1% of the player base is against unique castles.

4 Likes
3

The idea behind turning off unique cosmetics is more about offering players choice, rather than forcing a complete removal of those features. It’s not necessarily about making the game more generic across the board but giving players who prefer the classical visuals the option to opt out of specific aesthetics like unique castles or monasteries or monks.

For example, if someone doesn’t enjoy the specific look of a unique monastery or monk but still enjoys the civ’s mechanics and gameplay, having the option to revert to a more neutral, classic design allows them to tailor the experience. This wouldn’t necessarily mean all civs should lose their unique castles, but rather that players could choose if they want to see those unique visuals or stick with a more generic look that fits with the original architecture.

The “concern” about removing all architecture sets post-AoK or AoC is a complete strawman and an exaggeration of the original suggestion. Nobody is asking for that, and you know it, what was proposed is simply an option to toggle certain cosmetics off, not a mandate to go back to the older architecture sets or completely remove newer ones.

Nobody says we should revert back to AoK or AoC, except people who want cosmetics but for some reason God cannot explain are upset that other people don’t want cosmetics. Please explain me the process of why a small change that will not affect you in any way offends you so much that you had to make a strawman out of it? I have a hard time grasping why you are so upset with an option that would influence your experience by 0%.

This is the equivalent of being mad at people who like chocolate because you want vanilla and telling them “maybe we should all eat from the trees like monkeys right? why stop there? eat the root of the cacao tree”. I don’t think words are needed to explain how stupid that is.

You just make stuff up so you won’t engage with the real argument, because you have nothing to say when it comes to the real argument since you know you’re wrong.

So, please, help me understand: why does this minor option, which doesn’t affect your experience in the slightest, cause such a strong negative reaction? Why get upset at people who just want to play the game in a way that suits their taste?

Why did you took personally other people just wanting to play the game the way they want to?

4 Likes
4

I get what you mean. My concent ins about adding a lot of options to the setting that less then 1% of players want.

Yes but that is a super small target audience.
There are a lot of other things that more people probably want that only exist as mods right now.
You probably have seen the things like cube mod and so on.

If you want a very specific look for a specific civilisation you probably need a mod.

There are people that want to old architecture sets back for Byzantines, Spanish and Vietnamese.
For pretty much any change that has been done to the game there is someone who doesn’t like it.

There are probably more people that want that compared to people that want to not have unique castles and specifically want a catholic church for the Byzantines.

No people actually do.
Popular request is to add a AoK/AoC only queue to ranked for example.
But that wasn’t really my point anyway.

I’m not upset, I’m just saying that I don’t think many people share the very specific needs you have so I don’t think it’s a good idea to make it an official feature.
Especially because it’s very easily modable, even without a datamod.

Regional skins for example are currently not possible without a data mod because generic units only have 2 appearances (Normal and Chronicles) so it’s impossible to give 2 AoE2 civs different generic units without making a datamod that is not multiplayer compatible.

As I said I’m not upset.
I’m generally in favour of options but there is a limit. The settings menu will get confusing for new people when there are hundreds of toggles for very minor things that only <1% of the player base actually want.
It’s something else if those are accessibility options that are actually needed so those people can play the game in the first place.
Minor likes and dislikes of specific visual aspects don’t all need to have their own official setting.

Maybe you should try out the update and the new castle models before you decide that you hate them so much that you need to get rid of them to enjoy the game.

4 Likes
5

A mod will serve you well if thats what you want

4 Likes
6

How many times are y’all gonna post the same crap that only a dozen people care about at most?

4 Likes
7

People are already used to dlc civis having different castels why should they revert back to generic?

Why should meso monks revert back to generic monks?if they are excluded why only them?

Monasteries reverting back is the only one which should/could be done.

3 Likes
8

Us impures can never understand the facets of Purism.

3 Likes
9

It seems this is Schrödinger’ request. Less than 1% of players want this but at the same time too many people post about this. It almost sound like the real reason is because you don’t want the buttons and the numbers of players who want this is actually higher than you would like to believe.

It doesn’t seem to be a super small target audience. Only an echo chamber on your part.
It is also not a difficult change to implement.

There are people that want to old architecture sets back for Byzantines, Spanish and Vietnamese.
For pretty much any change that has been done to the game there is someone who doesn’t like it.

There are probably more people that want that compared to people that want to not have unique castles and specifically want a catholic church for the Byzantines.

And is a complete strawman and an exaggeration of the original suggestion because I never talked about such a thing.
You was the one who brough up. And then answered yourself.

Let me reprhase that: Nobody on this topic says we should revert back to AoK or AoC.
Except you of course since you brought it up even though it has nothing to do with the original post.

Check the number of likes. Plenty of people share the very specific needs I have.

To the point where CountGriashnackh was roasted for saying this is a bad change and now he is back on another topic saying there are too many topics like this.

Using CountGriashnackh’s logic: There are too many topics about China, clearly this is a problem with China. We need less China topics.

You would have had a point if you were talking about changing a feature. But in this particular case, a turn off button where you get the classical/architecture look of the Castle or unit does not affect players like you in any way.

I am sure you made a statistical analysis for that <1% number and it’s not just your personal bias.

Maybe you should give people the option not to try what they don’t like. People who want cosmetics but for some reason God cannot explain are upset that other people don’t want cosmetics are the equivalent of people mad at people who like chocolate because they themselves like vanilla and telling them “maybe we should all eat from the trees like monkeys right? why stop there? eat the root of the cacao tree” . I don’t think words are needed to explain how stupid that is.

2 Likes
10

Yes, the OP suggestion would be very good and I will use it.

Well, looks like I’m not supposed to enjoy the vanilla cosmetic experience because Skadidesu says I’m not supposed to. I’ll just change my preferences I guess. :frowning_face:

Sarcasm off, it’s also worth pointing out that many AoE2 players are vanilla veterans from 1999 and may see the new skins as too much of a visual change from the original concept. I don’t know whether the numbers would be >50% or <50% but Skadidesu’s suggestion of <1% is laughably inaccurate and comes across as mean-spirited.

If we had to pick between either:
a) no new skins
b) new skins

This would fight would have had a point. But considering that the OP suggestion is “the option to turn new skins on/off” this means we get a+b. So this whole fight is really stupid.

Some people just want you to enjoy the game the same way they do, and if you don’t do it like them by definition you are doing something bad.

It’s also worth pointing out that 95% of AoE2 players are not active on the forum. This is the forum for the most dedicated few. Typically hardcore players who are extremely passionate about the game. The average player isn’t as deeply involved in every update or change. The vast majority of players don’t have the interest or time to engage on the forum about a cosmetic they didn’t like. They’ll just stop playing the game and that’s it.

There’s literally a choice:
a) win-win - you get on/off options.
b) win-lose - you get no on/off options.

And some people want the win-lose out of spite. What is wrong with enjoying the game in a different way than you and having the option to do so? not everything has to revolve around you.

2 Likes
11

Unique castle skins is a change that almost the entire player base loves.
It’s regional unit skins that people worry, mostly because of readability.

You listed Monastery skins. There were only 3 new ones shown, one of them being the Byzantine one. So it looked to me like you don’t want that.

Of course not. I’m just saying that it’s still not worth making it an official feature of the game because its easily remove them with a mod. Much easier then adding them with a mod.

I won’t protest if they add the option. I don’t mind.

It’s really hard to find any arguments against those building skins.
I can understand the readability argument for units but not for castles.
It also doesn’t seem to be the reason why you want to change it back.

[poll] Cosmetic DLC
I made a poll a while ago but it doesn’t ask this exact question.

12

Ah, so there is a worry about regional unit skins, thank you!

You must have mixed the answers.

“juat mod it man” isn’t an argument, if mods are a solution to every game why change anything at all in the base game?

I just don’t like them. I have nothing against them & nothing against the people who enjoy them. I just don’t like them. I find the original much more beautiful than the regional generic units version. It gives the game a beautiful style that other games where every unit looks unique would not have.

Not exactly the question indeed, but it seems that 16% of answers were still “no”. This a far cry from your <1% let’s be honest. And this is on the forum, when it comes to the majority of the player base who doesn’t frequent the forums the number is much much higher.

There is a good point to be had there “No because of nostalgia”. Many players are in AoE2 for nostalgia, I think this is the reason it’s more popular than AoE4. And I think forced skins would break a part of the community.

And that 62% of players who answered said “I would pay for it”. Which, I wonder why they didn’t introduce marketable skins in AoE2 yet. Not like Counter-Strike or League of Legends but something to that style, if a lot of people are interested in them, good for them. I have no issue with it, as long as I myself don’t have to use those skins.

13

Because for there to be new skins, you need to modify the base data files. Of these two options

  1. Devs modify the base data files and modders modify the sprites to their original forms
  2. Modderss add modified data files, meaning that only the people with the modded data files can play each other in MP,

number 1 is way more convenient for everyone involved

1 Like
14

Because it isn’t.

If you want to add unique castles you have to make a data mod which is not multiplayer compatible and you also well have to make all the castles. Also this mod would break with every update.
Same for regional units skins.

To remove the regional castles you can very easily make a mod that gives all civs from one architecture the same castle skin. You don’t even have to do it yourself, there will likely be someone else doing it for you.

Hiding unique skins is a lot easier then adding them, isn’t that kinda obvious.

The buildings question has 9% “no”. But the question is not if people would want to actively remove those skins.
How many people have a mod installed that removes the unique castles of those civs that already have them?
How many people have a mod installed that removes regional Trade Carts?

I think that would lead to a big backlash from the community and not actually generate that much sales.
I’m surprised by the high percentage of people voting for that.

1 Like
15

Why add new campaigns? When you can just mod new campaigns.
Why add new architecture, when you can just mod new architecture?
The ranked issue can also be fixed with a mod that has a separate ranked mode for people with modded AoE2.
Let’s cut off every update because everything can be solved with mods.

The units, ie Monks, has 16% no. The buildings has 9% no. Because 32% players voted “only Castle” and 5% voted “no”. So rougly 37% of players on this forum only want an unique castle and that’s it.

This is a far cry from your original “<1%”, and you made the Poll yourself, you should have known.

The proper question would not be if people would want to actively remove those skins.
The proper question would be if people would want the option between changing between the new & old skins.

As long as they are optional, I have 0% issue with it.
Why would it lead to a big backlash from the community if 62% people voted “I would buy it” ?

There is clearly a market for it.
Just not my market so I would like it to be optional.

1 Like
16

Hard agree. Honestly, even for the regional units skins, I’ve seen some impeccable fan work that is so subtle and great that I just wish they’d implement it. You know, regional spearmen, etc, but the differences don’t affect the unit recognition at all.

17

From the poll you made, this is the first comment:

topictalk
topictalk861×235 15 KB

Someone who is in favor of regional units, and would even buy them (so part of the 62% who said yes) but would still like the option to go back to the old ones. It looks like we found another “<1%” players.

18
  1. Skins are added with an option to turn them off in Settings, meaning that both people who use the new skins & old skins can play each other in multiplayer.

this is literally the most convenient solution for everyone involved.

4 Likes
19

Making a campaign takes a lot of work.
Removing a campaign doesn’t.

Designing a new architecture and making the destruction animations is a lot of work. It would also not be multiplayer compatible.
Removing an architecture set is very little work.
We are comparing like 100 man hours of work to 10 minutes of work. This is not equal at all.

This would require a ranked queue for every mod. Each of the queues would have almost no players in it so it would not be fun to play.

Most features can not be added with mods. At last not with official mod tools.

The poll is about all regional units. Most people will be more critical about military units then about Monks. Also Monks already have 1 regional sprite which likely increases the acceptance for additional ones a lot more.

The question was a different one. What kinda unique building people would prefer. There was no option for both Monastery and Castle.

The problem is the number of options that would be needed.

Regional Monks

  • Yes
  • No
  • Only Americans

Regional Trade Carts

  • Yes
  • No
  • Only Americans

I know you didn’t mention those but why should they be excluded. Not any different then Monks, right?

Regional Castles

  • Yes
  • No
  • Only for DLC civs
  • Only for none AoK/AoC civs

Unique Monastery

  • Yes
  • No
  • Byzantines and Ethiopians only
  • Pagan Shrine only

Regional King skin

  • Yes
  • No
  • Queen for everyone

Also something you didn’t mention but would logically make sense.

Elite Unique Unit Skins

  • Yes
  • No

Why not that too. This actually has some readability impact.

I don’t think an “all off” button is something that many people would want either.
Once the game adds regional military skins it would make sense to make a “all off” for all military units though. That is something widely requested.
Do Monks count as military units though?

1 Like
20

You still need devs to modify the data files.

Look, I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but dev time is best invested in other stuff. Changing Aztecs monks or the new Chinese castles, or the Byz monastery to the Euro counterpart, or any of those options won’t take modders more than 4 minutes

Hell, there’s already a cube mod if you people are so worried about building readability

2 Likes