It’s context sensitive, not purely “if I like it”. I was not 100% on board with the Romans being added, but it’s tolerable.
It’s a matter of multiple issues at once that make the 3K civs not fit with the game. Just time would be one thing, but it’s that, being short-lived political states that are just the Chinese civ and heroes.
Because I don’t want the 3K civs in the main game at all. They actively ruin my ability to enjoy AoE2.
Not to mention that usually when a DLC visits a part of the world, that’s it, no going back in. “Losing” civs like the Tanguts or Tibetans, ones people have been asking for for years is exceedingly frustrating. I would trade the 3K civs in a heartbeat for them.
We’ve had what, half a dozen DLC’s? I guess if you’re counting what’s been added thus far, no, they haven’t done two DLC’s for the same part of the globe yet, but they haven’t really done that many yet.
Even to that, I’d assert you’re really not considering The Forgotten. AKA, that release where they went back and added a bunch of civs that never got in and should have gotten in, ergo, they were forgotten. They could do a DLC of a similar motif to The Forgotten expansion, and given how well a selection of new civs that all play dissimilarly due to their association with civs from older DLC’s that each had their own flavor, something of that type of release would likely be a massive success.
I’m also counting the HD ones, and the Last Khans.
So that’s:
Africa
South-East Asia
Central Asia
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
India
Caucuses
“cHiNa”
With no repeats so far.
The Forgotten is a last-chance saloon. I don’t see that happening until they basically have run out of ideas, and use it to start picking up “stragglers” like the Thais. And at that point, if a civ misses the boat, that’s it.
I would much rather argue for the inclusion of these civ from around China now, to both make sure we have them and to put these Chronicles-esque civs where they belong.
Despite me insisting that it’d be immensely popular to do a release of a DLC like that, you can’t see it happening without any elaboration as to what’s stopping them from doing it. Maybe try harder to explain why what I’ve said is wrong rather than flatly assume it is and then dismiss it offhand?
Because doing it would rule out the regions they are pulling the civs from. As pulling civs out of an area makes a DLC set there less attractive. Say for example they had done the Georgians in a Forgotten-style DLC. That would have taken one of the main potential civs from the Caucuses out and made it a weaker idea to pitch.
So doing a “Forgotten 2” would be something for when they have run out of regions to cover.
The original Forgotten was because massive areas lacked civs, and this was trying to cram them in. It essentially was a beginning, not an end. This would be near the end.
I have been engaging honestly. But I have also been engaging in debates about this DLC for ages. There is plenty of data and answers out there already, I’m not always going to be able to make massive paragraphs to explain my position multiple times.
Okay, what? You’ve just said it’d be a way to pick up stragglers like the Thai. Okay, so Thai, Tanguts, Tibetans, three civs that could fill into a forgotten DLC immediately. Unless you think there’s like six or seven more civs we’d really like to include into a second China DLC, and that pulling Tanguts and Tibetans into a DLC with missing civs from other areas would stop them from wanting a China DLC. At that point, why not just make that DLC instead?
Now, I understand your annoyance being that you wanted this DLC to be that DLC but if this DLC totally ripped the heart out of the DLC you wanted, it’s candidate for Forgotten. If it didn’t, make that DLC, and stop trying to burn what’s already here.
Either there’s enough for a solid, engrossing DLC of what’s there or it’s a strong candidate for a Forgotten. You can’t have it both ways.
If there’s a forgotten that simply does not include these civs, as others are included instead. It’s a potential reality.
I’ve already stated that I will not.
I and many others do not want the 3K civs in the main game. I am not going to stop pursuing this goal until they are gone.
I’ve mentioned these other potential civs from around China because they are the perfect replacements, so people that paid for a 5 multiplayer civ DLC get 5 civs for multiplayer.
A total waste of energy that should be pointed at achieving what you desire and not at destroying what you hate. It will result in your goals falling short. I’m cool if they want to tweak cosmetics and rename the civs to appease a vocal minority, because the main thing I care about is good gameplay, and these civs are good gameplay. But I’ve been reasonable about it. I understand the annoyances. I’m just not going to get flak from people enjoying a game because the “um, acktually” crowd wouldn’t take a chill pill.
Honestly, my slightly bigger aim is for the 3K civs to be removed than for the civs I want to get added. But if we can get some fun civs added to the game in exchange and keep people that bought the DLC for 5 civs happy, win-win.
Wooo the vocal minority line! I’ll fill out my bingo-sheet…
Clearly there’s enough pushback going on that the devs are reaching out. That suggests this is more than just a small number of people upset with the presence of these civs. But also that sales are low enough that it’s a problem.
You’re not getting flak for enjoying a game. You’re getting flak for your arguments and position seemingly defending a DLC that a lot of people see as a lacklustre effort.
The age of empires Twitter reposted a review talking about how good the dlc is, if they were thinking of changing it they wouldnt do it I think, also khitans have almost 5 percent playrate, just in ranked, so I don’t expect the dlc to have low sales. I do think the Asian market really digged the dlc I do think they liked it.
Because precision tools are always more effective than blunt weapons.
By absolute definition. The reviews still skew positive, and yet that effect does not represent the overall tenor of discourse on the forums. You are part of a vocal minority. Enjoy the distinction. I’m still part of the most minor vocal minority. Malay is still busted.
You need to re-read my post, because you totally missed that bit. It’s from the standpoint of the devs who made something fun to play and then took it away from the average player because people like you, part of the “um, acktually” group made a stink about it. It would be a silly thing to do to appease a vocal minority and it would result in them getting flak. I hope that explains what you’ve missed.
Make Vocal minority your free space in your bingo card.
Didn’t even think to check their twitter… Wow, basically 10-1 for likes vs comments, that’s positive interaction, and I’d say the comments on the thread itself is 70-30 skew positive. Didn’t actually expect that. Honestly, like half of all the negative comments are people asking them to work on aoe3
I am offering solutions. As per the title of the thread.
1: For now. They have been steadily declining in percentage of positive ones
2: Some of the positive reviews are actually negative when mentioning the 3K civs.
3: This is just the people that bought the DLC and gave a negative review. Anyone who didn’t buy it (who normally does buy DLCs) can’t leave one.
Not gonna lie, I have seen plenty of complaints that the 3K civs are clunky and not fun on other outlets. And this is from people that like the DLC. So it’s more subjective that you find them fun.
How is “wanting Middle Ages content in a Middle Ages game” an “um akshually”? It’s the basic premise of the game.
Ah yes I saw that one. Where someone went “wow, nobody covers the Three Kingdoms period!” in an unironic way…
“Someday it’ll be 50-50 AND THEN YOU’LL ALL SEE I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG…”
Wait, someone can like something and then have critiques of it without souring completely on it? Wild. Guess that invalidates all positive reviews entirely. Wait, but that means someone could dislike something and have positive things to say about it. Welp, I guess that invalidates all negative reviews too… so… what?
Yeah, and all the people who buy and play the DLC’s, and usually don’t leave comments (undoubtably thousands) didn’t see anything negative enough to change that habit. Keep being vocal and minor.
I mean, claiming that eventually the data will agree with you while it doesn’t agree with you is textbook ignoring points. “Eventually the Berbers will have a losing record on Acropolis then all my assertions about needing to make the cavalry discount apply to their cavalry archers will make sense.”
If you wanted to have a continual, fruitful conversation, you wouldn’t have done that.
It’s more that after things have “settled” people are giving more negative than positive. A long period of time gives more accurate results than a shorter one. It’s not “gotcha-ing” to try and wait for them to skew one way. It’s gathering more data.
Do you have actual data that confirms this statement of yours, or are you just saying it? The DLC has been out for nine days. In nine days, it has seen six days with a positive rating over 50%. It’s seen three days in the last five where it had a net negative, sure, but it’s also had it’s most objectively positive day, yesterday. How are you going to ignore small sampling biases in the only three days that support your assertion?
You win by winning. Taking the path that leads to a most certain victory tends to lead to victory. You get obsessed with what victory looks like, and that’s how you convince yourself you’ve lost even when you do win.
While I’d like nothing more than to watch you lose, I really, really don’t want you to lose at my expense forgetting what a win looks like.
