If you haven’t already seen his video, check it out above, it’s a really good summary of the current and future state of the game. The only thing I disagreed with was a new aoe2 game, as I think that would split the fan base up too much and I think the graphics are already as good as they need to be without distracting from the core essence of the game. Here’s a few more ideas he made me think about:
Imagine if you could get Microsoft or a big sponsor (+crowdfunding if need be) to announce a million dollar tournament coming in 2025. Microsoft could even attach the cost to a new DLC, so a certain percentage of each new DLC purchase will go towards the prize pool. I think that would definitely motivate people to get good at the game. Maybe make it strictly no laming and give bonus cash prizes for the best comeback, the most unusual / most weird meta plays, fight of the night etc.
I think the game itself should have XP level goals where you get a satisfying “New rank unlocked” screen everytime you hit a new ELO milestone, just like you do on Call of Duty and other games. E.g. When a 1000+ ELO hits 1100 they would get a cool new shield or coat of arms animation with sword noises and unlock new icons and maybe small extra features. Getting up to the next +1000 ELO would be more of a motivator then for sure. Maybe this would also motivate the huge number of single campaign players to start playing ranked. I’m guessing this would be relatively little work for the devs but I think its impact would be significant.
To expand on this idea and to also solve the worry of many in the community about “Too many civs” which are “overwhelming” for new players, I think from now on, anybody new who is buying the base game should only get AoK or AoC civs at first. They can then unlock more and more of the civs after either A) Completing a certain number of ranked games. E.g. Every 50 or 100 ranked games unlocks a new civ, with an indicator bar showing your progress until the next civ is unlocked or B) Completing a campaign unlocks 1 or 2 civs, depending on how many campaigns there are (I’m not familiar with campaigns because I don’t play them). This way you can learn the fundamentals with a limited number of civs but you can also experiment with newer civs every time you unlock a new one. Learning the tech trees will then be a gradual process and new players will end up with a much deeper knowledge of civs and tech trees. Instead of being overwhelmed with too much choice and opting for “safe” civ choices, they will be able to digest each civ at a manageable pace. Every civ unlocked could even show you a brief summary video or cut scene of the new civ’s features. So ranked ladder will then have 2x motivators, with both the “New Rank Unlocked” every 1000 ELO and new civ unlocked every 50 or 100 games or whatever. Obviously they will still have to pay for the expansions, but it will be a good way of keeping players active.
In order to further develop the mid ELO player base and create new “stars of the future” as Hera put it, there should be casted tournaments for the mid ELO players. E.g. Something like 1600-1700 “Corporals Cup”, 1700-1800 “Sergeants Series”, 1800-1900 “Captains Cup”, 1900-2000 “Generals Series” and so on. Maybe even The Commoners Cup or Peasants Series for 1000-1200 players for fun and lower level cups for 1100+ too. Small cash prizes for the winners of each bracket and automatic qualification for the next bracket up in the next tournament. I think this kind of casted exposure for mid ELO players will help develop some new marketable personalities and styles in the game and also see more creative non-meta plays which wouldn’t work at the highest level ELO tournaments. And the characters created in these “proving grounds” tournaments will carry through when some of them inevitably break through into the highest ranks eventually, so they’ll already have a loyal fanbase of people who supported them since their early days in the lower tournaments.
A super cheap version of the game for very poor countries which has all the same features but contains ads. You might not think the game is that expensive from your western point of view but when you look at the hourly or monthly wage in some countries vs. the cost of the game, it is actually significant. If a high ELO star of the future could be created from this in a very poor country, that would make for a really compelling “rags to riches” storyline for the fans.
Actaully I didn’t find his Video that much interesting, and he was talking like aoe2 is almost a dead game or will die soon which waaaaaaay far from reality. AOE2 is even now much better than any previous period and the player base is getting bigger and bigger. Also he didn’t talk about major problems like the match making or the balance or in-game chat improvement or even introducing banned civs draft, etc.
The game is going well and people are interested already and we have new people almost everyday.
The most things we need to focus imo are:
Find a better solution for the map pool voting issue and map pool in general and maybe add more bans.
Give players in-game restart option.
Make the chat in-game more flexible and solve the sensor words issue that ban many words for nothing.
Give players in-game banned civs draft for ranked ladder considering we have too many civs and many balances issues.
Introducing a new button that gives the random civ a priority not the civ picker in both 1v1 and team games.
Add a tech tree button in the main screen.
Expand and improve the art of war.
There is many other things also to discuss but let’s start with these points.
I think making a video on that topic is interesting, although the game right now is in a terrific state. Beyond the usual (bug fixing, civ balance, thinking of new additions), I think the devs could focus on three things:
As Hera mentionned, developping the friendship system seems like an excellent idea. It’s not just done through game mechanics, as it is also cultural, but it could be gretly improved.
People transitioning from Single to Multi player mode should not have to go through n defeats before actually enjoying themselves. The starting Elo could be determined at least partly by matching the new player against the AI.
In the days of HD, a lot of things were wrong, but mods were doing fantastically well thanks to the Steam workshop. From Single player campaigns, to expensive game mods (LotR, GoT, etc.), modded civs… This was another way to keep people around, to make Single players transition to MP in a non-competitive manner, to have people bond, and it just added a lot of creativity to the game. I don’t know if it is feasible, but promotting mods would be a good idea, and perhaps the present-day Microsoft site mods could be at least advertised on the Steam workshop?
I don’t think he implied that at all when it comes to the game right now. He specifically was talking about the game in “4 or 5 years from now” and he’s right about that. GL podcast also talked about some declining viewer numbers in recent tournaments. So basically the overall feeling is the game is peaking right now, but has shown some early signs of decline; a trend which may continue if nothing is done about it.
If you do this then the average Elo will be 750, this won’t fix anything
My proposal is that for the first 10 games the Elo coefficient be higher than the current one
This will adjust the right Elo faster
Smash Ultimate did this exact thing due to its massive roster, and it not only made the experience of playing every character more manageable, but it also significantly increased the anticipation of not knowing who was coming next or when. Plus, the feeling of the roster getting larger through your actions was immensely satisfying.
Edit: I wouldn’t tie the unlock to ranked games though. Otherwise, people like me who play strictly offline and rarely play campaigns would never have an expanded civ roster. Make it tied to Random Map games as well.
Because the problem with too many civs is not playing them, but playing against them. Especially if they have some weird mechanics that come totally unexpected (age-earlier things, special buildings, etc).
matchmaking in 1v1 is great, and he spoke about making ranked lobbies. i dont think there is a way to get matchmaking for team games to work as well as it does for 1v1s.
the balance is the best it has ever been. that’s not just my opinion but also Hera’s (see the recent TownCenter pocast, where he and Viper both say this)
i dont think in-game chat has any major issues, apart from maybe the profanity filter
banned civs draft is not something that should be in the normal game. this only makes sense for tournaments
what do you mean by that?
no, i dont think you should be able to dictate what civ your opponent plays
sounds good to me
this will just lead to everyone’s elo dropping over time
i think the idea of unlocking civs over time would have been good if it had been in the game from the start. as it is now it would remove loads of civs from people
if anything we could have a civ rotation along with map rotation. maybe leave aok civs always in the game, and all other civs are on a rota on whcih are currently playable on the ladder. this would reduce the number of civs one needs to learn at any one time
Maybe but this doesn’t mean the balance is good. Many civs still need many nerfs to be balanced (maybe more than 15 civs actually).
Actually it should be. Since devs take years to balance the civs and since we will have more civs in the future, we already now have 44 civs which is quite a lot already.
Like the picker has the right to pick then the random also should have the right to get a random civ match. It will be optional anyway.
To be clear, it wouldn’t remove civs for existing players. Just for new players buying the game. It’s not really a disadvantage for new players. Are you guys seriously suggesting that AoK or AoC civs can’t beat the newer civs? They will also eventually unlock them all anyway.
As I mentioned in my other comment, if AoK or AoC civs are unable to beat the newer civs, then you are saying the civs are not balanced, which is clearly not the case. Aztecs, Britons, Mayans and Franks are among the strongest civs
First, because you don’t know who is a new player. Just because someone bought a new copy of AoE2 doesn’t mean they are a new player. Second, because people often want to play as their own civs and a LOT of those aren’t in the earlier editions. Third, this screws up the way campaigns work. Fourth, this hurts people who want to mentor others with specific civs. Fifth, people don’t like it when you restrict their choices for seemingly no reason.
This is not just a bad idea, it’s a terrible idea. More importantly, it’ll never go through. Devs will never implement this, so there’s no point in even arguing about it.
This is a misunderstanding about how mathematics works. You can’t do this, for reasons I can’t explain, unless you know intermediate leve statistics. Just reading the Wikipedia article will give you some idea though: Elo rating system - Wikipedia
Just to summarize though, if you do this, you’ll run into the same issue over time, except at Elo 750. Then you’ll have to lower it to 500, and then 300, and so on. It will also mess up certain other things, which, again, I can’t get to here.
