Yeah obviously if you look at all the civs being played over all the maps available there is more than 5 picks. Especially if you look at current games. Not everyone is picking civ but a majority of players are, especially in my rank and above. Also for example on water maps Vikings and Italians are some of the best picks while on other maps there are better options. If you want me to further clarify what i meant was there are 5 or even less civs that are top tier meta civs per each map. But still at the end of the day if you count them all there are less than 10 top tier civs to pick in total on every single map. It doesnt matter that there are some players like me who go random or players who are content with not picking the top tier civs in order to play their favorite civs who are currently still playing. What matter is that the players picking the civs are at an advantage to everyone else. Even at HC3 where a civ could only be picked once forcing the players to pick different civs than the top tier civs on every map there was only about 10 civs that got picked most of the time. Mayans and Persians both got picked like 25 times. Chinese picked 15 times and they won 14 out of 15. I dont remember anyone even using Chinese monks to convert siege either so the minor nerf they got by having redemption taken away pretty much did nothing to stop Chinese. And you said âplaying random civ is goofy (again, if youâre not confident and skilled enough)â so only a person who is more skilled than their opponent can justify going random civ. But since you canât see your opponents ranking in game and since the matches are usually against players of your elo than you can never justify going random civ because you can never be confident that your skills are much better than your opponents. Everyone in the world has someone who is better than them. So with that logic the only person in the world who can confidently go random civ is Viper but even he started picking civs. If you say you dont understand again I am not even going to try to explain it further because it just keeps going over your head.
And yes ill say it again I bought DE because it was advertised to me as aoe 2 but with better graphics. If I had known about the hidden civ picking and random maps I would never have bought it. I can live with all the bugs and wait for them to get fixed but fundamentally changing the way we played the game is not something I can live with and frankly I wish I could get my money back until I see that random civ picking is not an option in ranked games anymore. There is nothing impressive about memorizing a few build orders for the best civs in the game and doing them all day long against players who are much better than you but prefer to go random civ instead. We will see true skill and ability to create strategies once and if ever random picks are mandatory in ranked games.
I understand that you donât like the fact that AoE2 has a metagame, but this is just unavoidable. And the reality is that the metagame has never been so âhealthyâ than it is on DE now.
What seems is that you present it as a issue. The HC3 tournament that you said, people were competing for thousands of dollars on those games, why wouldnât they always try to seek using the civs with the best tools for each situation? Thatâs the best way to win, of course people will opt for the strongest settings. Honestly having a metagame is not a issue, because in the end winning it still about the best display of skill within the game.
So, deliberately adhering to suboptimal strategies or even giving up on having one (pretty much whatâs going random on a non-mandatory random setting is about) puts you at disadvantage. Whatâs the problem here??
This. Thatâs exactly why itâs nothing but goofy and why your experience of purposefully going random on the ranked matchmaking is disappointing for you when you approach it as valid to win on that setting. You explained in the best possible way.
Trouble is thatâŠ
⊠What you often do here on the forums is bash on the game and on the playerbase, trying to blame them for you not knowing how to overcome strategies and playstyles, or making bad decisions while playing the ranked mode and portraying both as flawed for not corresponding your expectations, when in reality none ever proposed to please your most desired wishes about how the game should be played according to your taste. And this is just not cool. Some of your criticism is indeed valid and even intones with the community, but most of the times is just nonsensical and awful.
If anything it should give us all a lesson about spending our money and setting expectations more carefully.
Omg I have no idea how much more clearly I can keep saying the same thing. You keep misunderstanding me. I AM NOT MAD BECAUSE AOE 2 HAS A META GAME! THAT WOULD BE INSANE! I AM MAD BECAUSE THE NEW DE GAME LETS YOU SECRETLY PICK A CIV SO NOW PEOPLE KEEP PLAYING THE SAME EXACT CIVS THAT ARE OP!
In the old game we used to just go random and we would come up with the strats we are going to use during dark age. If you got a top tier civ of course you would pick going for a meta strat. This is not the issue. The issue is in the old game such top tier civs came once in every 10 games or so and during the rest of them you guys played a variety of mix of civs. It was way more interesting and way more focused on skill.
And yes at the source of all my frustration with this game has been people picking their civs. I will say it one last time!
Random civs produced more fun and interesting games. We used to play random civ with picked maps not random maps and picked civs. This changed everything from being more strategical thinking based to being more about strategy execution. All you have to do to win is pick a top tier civ and execute the meta strat. How is that more fun than going random civ? I dont get it? And losing to players who do the same strat all freaking day is extremely frustrating. Hence why I am going back to aoe 2 with old graphics because I cant put up with this garbage civ picking game mode. Dont you think I could easily pick Persians all freaking day and win every single game if I wanted to? I think thats stupid. Its not fun to play that way and its not fun to play against someone who does that. I am just done with civ pickers. I am automatically pissed off when playing against civ pickers and I am done trying to explain this to you anymore.
How dare they?! Allowing people free choice and shit like that. Being able to ban maps and then pick civs to match the chosen map. Completly ludicrous.
Go and play HD with its cancer graphics and laggy servers and you will see that the future is now old man!
Jokes aside; donât like it, donât play it. Also please stop raising such a ruckus about this. Especially AoE2 players should know how Doomsayers have never been right about this game.
This is why I had to take a break from this forum. When someone voices his concerns, because the game has imposed a new method where players have no controll over game settings and the game does not respect or even allow what the game evolved to be in the past. That person gets harrassed with one irrelevant comment after another.
Instead of thinking about how we can make this game welcoming for all playstyles, these players think it is more reasonable to force others to change into a less preferred way or move to another playform.
You canât call this a definitive edition. The game is flawed at bringing all the different communities together and there either needs to be an integration or a seperate method of ranked play.
Just by saying DE i feel some DC
Toxic
Why?
This game is for and designed to people who loves it, not the people that love to win.
If you do not understand that go play leage of legends.
By the way, i agree and like more that the civs are just random maintaining the ban map like it is now.
But this guy just hate this game and does not enjoy it at all, and its expressions are just way exaggerated and really does not change much as he said, if you are a good player you can compete against any civ, there is not much of a difference between them. Even that difference you can see it with two noobs playing not two good players.
Also maps are really important now as it always was, its just a different approach of strategy and i thinks is not bad even though i like more the random civs but it does not make much difference, at the end of the day if you are good you compete against any civ.
Disagree wholeheartedly. Voobly is the mechanically superior game in every facet with the exception of the server. DE is mechanically clunky, lacks a community the way msn/igz/voobly historically have, robs people of choice in areas they want it (map selection) and hamstrings itself by obscuring information of othersâ choices (i.e. not seeing whether your opponent is going random or picking civ).
Itâs as if the devs for DE spent zero time analyzing the beautiful evolution of this 20yr old game and decided to start over with no insight as to what the existing player community (who kept the game alive all this time) actually likes. If the original AoK platform from the msn zone days was designed like this, the game would have died off 15 years ago.
Also the new graphics are terrible. Canât wait for a mod that brings a classic view back to the game.
Voobly is not even a game, just another platform, most of the improvements there were done by fans and the community.
Mechanically DE in terms of features, API, graphics is superior to the old UP, 1.0e and 1.0c.
Then again the game offers steam which is a way more complete social media with even voice chat options, xbox live has also its own social app, we are so used to the past that we canât accept that new games from the last 10 years have been missing such social aspects, having a general chat would imply having real humans as moderators, because you know how good the users behave, in voobly all those mods are volunteers, on this app they would need to get paid, are you going to pay for that? See what happened to the profanity filter⊠for proper moderation it needs humans, i understand their decision now.
Youâre right; Voobly is just a platform. It is a platform made better by the close-knit community which no longer exists exists on Steam. Steam is just a bunch of people separately staring at the waiting screen of a needlessly full-screen program which you are not allowed to navigate away from without losing your spot in the queue. Built-in voice chat for friends on SteamâŠwho cares? Youâre not going to make new friends because the lobbies arenât conducive to it. Besides, there are a million independent programs out there that do voice chat and do it better. Voobly doesnât need voice chat because everyone can access it through discord, skype, you name it.
As far as the game itself is concerned, idk how you can say with a straight face that DE is mechanically superior. It has some QoL enhancements that are fine but 0% of good players ever felt were vital, and along with those features we got a game that every seasoned player would describe as âclunkyâ. Remaking this game was completely unnecessary, but if theyâre going to do it, at least make it in a way that doesnât feel like classic AoC played while wearing winter gloves.
Well you and everyone else here convinced me to play on voobly instead of HD. Also after playing a few games on HD i realized that I cant live without rotating gates anymore and I know that you can do that on voobly. I need my quick walls haha. By the way the old game is great. I literally cant remember the last time I had so much fun playing and being relaxed during a game even if im losing. There is nothing to complain about, its just good old age of empires 2.
I donât think itâs fair to complain about starcitizen as Iâve never played another âgameâ like it. They didnât realize the can of worms they opened when they said âWe want to be able to get in a ship, fly it across the system land it and get out into the most incredibly details worlds youâve ever seenâ. But you can absolutely do that. The level of detail on planets and in the ships is awesome. The ability to fly the ships anywhere with a crew and do pretty cool things are like no other game Iâve played before. A game like this is always evolving and it would take over 10 years to build it. You have to get money somehow.
Yeah but I been waiting for years to buy star citizen. I am afraid to buy a game that might never get released. Or take so long to make that by the time its released they start making a definite version a year later or two later. Yeah obviously it is a hard task to do but now that No mans sky is fully released been updated to take away all the flaws from its initial release (again so common now a days) it has no bugs during intended play (i have like 100 hours in the game didnt notice any bugs) and although the number of planet types are limited the combination of possible planets is insane. They have like 18 quintillion (2^64) planets in no mans sky. I just did the math on a calculator and thats exactly 584,868,233,155 years to explore every single planet if you were to visit each one for 1 second. Lmao thats like 579 billion years longer than the amount of time the sun has left before it dies. So yeah if no mans sky can do it so can star citizen.
Not to get too off topic but yeah I mean there are plenty of early access titles Iâm waiting for released but if you really like a particular genre itâs easier to justify to help support the team by purchasing said thing.
I do miss the AoE days where you got 1 or 2 patches and you were happy with it but lets be honest those were simpler times. And software development has come a very long way since then. As a developer myself, a software project is never really âdoneâ. Itâs like anything else.
edit Oh yeah and No Mans Sky biggest problem was NOT releasing it as an early access title. It was sold to everyone as a AAA title at the AAA price point. It was supposed to be a finished product. While the game today is okay, it was a real mess when they launched that under false pretense.
You missed the whole point of why people are responding like this.
Because this forum has recently found interest in posting âDE sucks, donât buy itâ topics while the problems are being solved in each patch.
Yes, we get new problems too, but they usually get fixed.
Iâm not saying DE is perfect, it has serious annoying things. I got pissed off by the game today even. But you always see they are taking the feedback and improving the game.
The game is flawed, but itâs way superior to HD.
Compared to AoC, Iâd say itâs better, but thatâs debatable since AoC works mostly fine.
Quoting a bug thatâs being tracked, nice.
People shouldnât have freedom because you donât like itâŠ
I call that bad reasoning.
No oneâs gonna flag your comments for having a different opinion.
No, not really. The game is still flawed and has annoying bugs, but no.
No one says AoC is bad, itâs in fact great. But DE has evolved past Voobly and HD and it has way better features. But I agree that the bugs get annoying in DE. Not a new thing tho.
Um we had freedom this entire time for 20 years even more freedom than now. We had the freedom to go any map we want or mega random, the freedom to pick a civ, the freedom to set literally thousands of different match combinations. And with that freedom do you know what over half the community did? They played random civ arabia all day because its superior. Then the rest played arena, BF, nomad random civ. Now DE is taking that freedom of choice away and forcing us all to play random map pool hidden civ pick games. What if I dont want to play with hidden picked civs? Where is my freedom?
And this made FE think most people want these maps to be in ranked.
I donât see too much issues with that. However FE should try to appeal to the most players it can.
Man dont put attention to fanboys clowns like him. Defending this misery of game.
Micro$oft fault and very like to how is the bad mostly ofvIndustry today.