compare it with aoe2 stats.
+ take into account, that some ppl come to watch viper.
+ take into account that first day of the group == boring, no drama, no deciders.
→ aoe2 had similar numbers. 13k at day1, but 30k+ at day3.
hope (actually not…cause do not care) we will see same viewers for age4.
the most fun games were with Capoch, he tried some proxy. he tried SS victory.
Other games as OP described feudal 2 TC meta with 1-1-1 army (archers+pikes+horses)…and monks sometimes.
yes, if you “conquer III” and can distinguish difference in small moves → games are different for you. But if you regular player. same 1+1+1 vs 1+1+1
Lost one fight in the middle == lost the game.
The very first set on day 1 - MarineLord vs IAMMAGIC - was amazing - seed #1 vs seed #16. Especially game 3 showing the power of feudal Ottomans. I’d never considered they can actually get Janissaries in feudal age. Rooting for IAMMAGIC - underdog, Canadian and AoM player.
Dude you never even post in any of the other AoE games’ forums. I doubt you even look at them seeing as all of your likes are on comments in the AoE4 forums. You also have never created any of your own topics. You exist solely to be negative about this game that you don’t play.
Other aoe are fine compared to aoe 4. Sure they have some mistakes but is nothing compared to the aoe 4 issue which is a big direction change in the wrong side. I will stay here because I care about aoe as a whole.
Just wanted to say that coming from Facebook and Reddit where there’s a lot more traffic and the user base is larger , we are definitely seeing a lot more new players and a lot more expressing their interest in the game.
I’m actually surprised how much traffic FB sees.
While it is sad that around here we have the same few people (4 or 5) that don’t like the game, and don’t have anything good to say about anything, yet continue to post their distaste as if it will help in any way.
The continuous spamming of alt accounts gives a very warped perception as well.
I don’t like Dota, but I don’t go to their forums to tell them what I think should change. My ego isnt big enough that I feel the need to convince others to stop liking something that I don’t like.
If you list them and consider how each of them are actually good in different ways. The minority are actually the weaker ones.
Delhi UU arguably needs some attention. But that’s because their feudal/early castle game is so good already, buffing elephants becomes difficult without earlier nerfs
Mangudai again are difficult because they’re so easy to use, and already considered OP at the lowest elo due to their ease of use. Mongols themselves have been so Good for so long it’s understandable their UU was left out
Chinese have such a strong late game eco and grenadiers were so good for so long
Good UU: LBs, royal knights, arbs, landsnek, streltsy, PRELATES, IMPERIAL OFFICIALS, BEES, fire lancers, CKN, Warrior monks, camels
Early MAA are Incredibly good, early Knights are incredibly good and seeen so often people forget they’re unique
Good UU : fire lancer, landsnek ? am I missing something.
Landsnek is paper unit, with niche role cost so much gold and is so bad. The only reason you make them is you mix few of the in the army so the opponent don’t see them.
Fire lancer, gimick unit, doesn’t feel neither as fire neither as lancer. Prelates can have so much depth put into them so they can be truly unique, I mean there are fine like that but as holy civ I would like to feel my priest. Now as I saw ottoman, you can deliver priest who give aoe healing to the priest and donkey who give movement speed to everything. This two shipments give more diverse strategy than couple civilization together.
And I love this choosing build stuff ngl, if HRE have something unique which give them technology to choose when they put relics would be so much flexible and fun instead of just gold in long term.
Also idk why elephant don’t have neither traple dmg, neither aoe dmg, doesn’t make sense to me.
I tried malians yesterday and since the meta is spaming trash units archer-spearman-horse I don’t know why is this stealth unit even in. Tried to raid but you better go with sofa, tried to flank but most people don’t use armored units why would you spend gold on that. Maybe if the core mechanic of the civ is stealth like I can use archers, sneaky horses, or some fast infantry unit with clubs would be more fun.
Like I mean the civs should be made around some gameplay style in terms of strategy.
Stealth, speed, raw power, hit and run, cheap and overwhelming, turtling, ambush etc.
Criticism to improve a game is welcome, but I see a problem, from my point of view:
Comments like “the game is rubbish and disappointing” or saying things like “I tried civilizations and uninstalled the game, what a disappointment” (a bad way of attracting attention) or criticizing when you haven’t played in months a game (most of these criticisms do not correspond to reality, since they have not played recently) not only do they not contribute but they include unnecessary negativity and harm coexistence in the forum, where we then have to make decisions with the lack of respect that result from it.
Some user here has been littering the game directly or indirectly almost since the launch. Not a single positive comment from the beginning and hardly any constructive criticism.
After that I wonder, wouldn’t it be better if he dedicated himself to another AoE that he likes instead of permeating continuous negativity in this forum?
Constructive criticism yes, hateful or destructive comments, no.
What you say is to use logic. If you’ve been here for a while and you don’t like a game, despite the changes, there’s no point in continuing. I wouldn’t do it with any video game that doesn’t interest me.
plump, there were more people upset and way worse but they are legit critics of the game because most of them are true and by that one I afraid that the new ones will get the same reaction and dissapointment as us.