How long should we wait until we get the next DLC?

And I guess AOM retold. That,one is said to be using aoe3 engine, which is great if they focus on developing that I will buy it for sure

2 Likes

Each user may have better or worse arguments based on their knowledge and experience, but do not have more or less the right to give their point of view.

3 Likes

No se puede quejar uno por los piojos siendo calvo, la mejor crítica que se puede hacer es siempre constructiva y con respeto.

1 Like

We will never have as many civs as aoe2 because making civilizations in aoe3 is not as simple as making it in aoe2 so we will never have as many. So, we will never have that mess.

14 Likes

I don’t get it. Why do you say “they”? This is literally what the user you’re answering has done in that very same post.

2 Likes

Yes, I think that they will arrive until 30 and peaks civs and there they will stop…

1 Like

Como calvo con una tupida, frondosa y hospitalaria barba, espero que tengas razón y que los piojos no se replanteen vivir en un bajo.

Los dos puntos de vista son correctos, mientras mayor variedad mayor dificultad y mas alta es la curva de aprendizaje.

El juego competitivo se ha vuelto cada vez mas complicado y enrevesado de balancear, y para los novatos ni hablar.

Pero la rejugabilidad, la innovación, la alegria de recibir novedades, poder usar cosas nuevas con tus civs antiguas que se habian quedado muy atras en originalidad y opciones respecto a las nuevas…

Yo soy un jugador de 2005. Y aunque la cosa se complique, sigo jugando y aprendiendo felizmente. Y prefiero mil veces todo este nuevo contenido a no haber recibido nada.

8 Likes

Yo estoy de acuerdo…con todo el contenido nuevo que recibe,AoE 3 está en su mejor época desde 2007…eso sí se siente en falta nuevas campañas…

4 Likes

Fixed. English is not my native language.

Regarding the topic at hand, and from my point of view, a game can be replayable without severely damaging the PvP/competitive experience with other elements (more historical campaigns and Co-oP, more historical maps, some game mode new…).

I think the balance of treaty and supremacy should be urgently separated and severely reduce the complexity on the skill floor (cut some mechanics/cards/civs) and make an AoE2-4 style map pool with a series of maps and vetoes, being able to see the map before choosing civ.

1 Like

AoE3 is on a Steam sale now.

Tinfoil hat time

Maybe they’ll release a tease of artwork for DLC to coincide with the sale.

7 Likes

No more content for Europe, it’s time for Africa and Asia.

2 Likes

I would say Asia more, since the rest of the continents have already been visited in the DE: America (Incas, USA and Mexico), Africa (Ethiopians and Hausa), both in 2021 and then Europe (Sweden, Italy and Malta) in 2022… now it’s time of Persia and Oman (Southwest Asia) or Burma and Siam (Southeast Asia)…

2 Likes

Africa is still fresh, let’s give some love to asians and native americans first (the existing civs) before adding any new content.

1 Like

Yes, I think that now it will be Asia and then South America (Tupi and Mapuches) since the USA and Mexico dlc count as North America…

Actually, what I meant is that the existing asian and native civs should be updated to be on par with europeans before adding new ones. Don’t get me wrong, I always appreciate new civs, but I don’t think this should be a priority for now.

1 Like

Yeah, Asia is the region that needs the most work now. Apart from new civs, we need more maps, more natives, reworking many historical inaccuracies, etc.

You find them bland and boring I presume?

Well, the devs are trying to change that so I don’t see what the problem is.

See above for the reason why this is funny.

The fact you had to quote one post twice is also funny.

I’m not particularly fond of Mercs training out of barracks/stables either especially with the Dutch. Highlanders should be trained out of forts while Blue Guards are available in the barracks. I don’t have to go on some conspiratorial rant with insinuations galore about the devs intentions. This has to do more with you and your own bias’ than the devs.

Obviously, the dots weren’t connected so I’m gonna put things more clearly.

Here you are in this thread telling people the game has enough civs and you personally don’t want any more. For a game that you quit. To deny players that want more content for a game you no longer play is selfish.

Time to move on and let people enjoy all the work the devs continue to put forth. The support has been a dream come true for some and while the very nature of a game like this leads to bungles here and there the devs are doing the best they can given the circumstances. Threads like the one you made aren’t helpful in the slightest.

Furthermore, if all you care about is balance and readability then AoEIV should be right up your alley.

11 Likes

As always ranked 1v1 is the only mode that you’re allowed to play, and you have to win most of them to get into college.
Some people say new civs and new mechanics are “too innovative/radical”. No. They are the LEAST innovative/radical thing to do. That’s why some “old veteran (ranked 1v1) players” might find new contents confusing. This game, this series, and most existing RTS games rarely tried to improve their designs and gameplay to accommodate new contents. From stuff as simple as better tutorials and guidance, to campaigns and more innovative modes that encourage the players to explore the contents.

Dumping more civs and “new” mechanics (90% have been seen in other games) is actually a no-brainer. And everyone just looks at them with a ranked 1v1 perspective because of few improvements in other aspects of the game.

If a game genre has so many limits that prevents it from expanding, it dies. A lot of genres have managed to keep expanding, innovating, and adapting to modern gaming. Some are very competitive. Some are very casual. However RTS according to some people just magically cannot. Add this and I cannot recognize. Add that and I cannot remember. Add that and it ruins the ladder. Well it’s not really their fault because both the developers and players only have a ranked 1v1 brain even for a game with a very small competitive scene.
Do you see Total War, paradox games or Civ players complain about too many factions or units? Do they ever have problems recognizing them? No. Because they have enough time and leisure to look at them and explore them——because it’s not ranked 1v1 where you have to execute every move perfectly within precision of seconds.

Sc2 had some success with coop (and blizzard games always have much better casual gameplay and community contents since the very beginning, ironically as they are much more pvp focused) but unfortunately blizzard dropped it due to its own problems.
Stormgate seems to emphasize pvp but 2v2. I’d like to see how it works out.

3 Likes

Your post is redundant and too long. I don’t bother read it anyway. But i am just expressing my opinion. I personally dont like new civs and new mechanics. How does it matter if I own this game or not, or whether i quit this game or not. It doesn’t stop me from expressing my views. And who are you? why did you jump out of nowhere and here to judge me?

You are turning out to be really boring to read…

Ok

LOL. Guy, you run out of options.

Of course you have the right to comment, but the contradictions in your posts, your lack of experience, your low rating, your persistent attacks on both European civs (racism?), vanilla civs and new civs…

they make your opinion a shitty opinion.

9 Likes