I sincerely hope the Devs can explain why Rome can only available in single player

What are you talking about?
Of course it’s mentioned on the store page. What that has to do with anything? ‘Bonus’ is not a description of something unannounced and unlisted.
I’m talking about its status and relation within DLC and to 2DE in general:

PLUS 1 new longtime fan-requested civilization for use in standard Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition:

It is a bonus, something separate added alongside the DLC itself- which is a SEPARATE set of 17 civs from ancient-themed previous installment, AoE1. This is NOT expansion of 2DE, it runs off that game*
It’s not a core feature. It’s additional bonus content that made its way to the base 2DE, alongside core feature which is mentioned AoE1 civ pack.

Just because there’s ‘Rome’ in title doesn’t mean the Romans are the focus of this DLC. The focus is AoE1.

*as a separate ‘rule set’ civ overhaul, as switchable application mode from the main menu, as even a standalone product listed in the library- I don’t know the final form of this and it doesn’t matter. 99% of the content is self-contained, cohesive, and Romans are added on top and outside of that AoE1-themed experience pack.

1 Like

What do you mean, by my logic? My logic is that any civs that’s playable in AoE2 (and not RoR) should be playable in all of its game mode or not at all. I don’t want Yamato to be playable outside of RoR, it doesn’t matter whether it’s solo mode, ranked multiplayer or anything else. I’m relatively neutral about the Romans, but I think if they’re not available in ranked they shouldn’t be in solo either and it also works the other way around. Either the civ is in the game or it isn’t.

As I said, AoE2 Romans and the ways they will be made available will be a selling point for this dlc. Some people will or won’t buy the dlc because of them, for many different reasons. A major selling point isn’t a bonus.

2 Likes

As I said before, the main idea behind this DLC is a support for AOE1, it is not about adding new content to AOE2 itself at all.

And yes if the devs should remove Romans also from single player they are very welcome since I am against add them in the first place.

Anyway ranked is the most important part of the game so as long as no Romans in ranked it is ok for me.

Also we have romans in ranked (Byzantines) which is enough.

1 Like

Every single new feature is technically ‘a selling point’. And that’s another thing irrelevant to what I’m saying and said before.
If a person is only interested in the concept of playing the Roman Empire in Age of Empires 2 - this is the main and only value of this DLC and ‘core feature’. But that still doesn’t change anything, especially the reality of it being only a cherry on top, an additional feature packaged within self-contained AoE1-themed DLC.

One can gather other 7 people and keep tapping each other on the back, reinforcing themselves that this is the main focus of the DLC, but that notion is still factually simply not true, and the only thing it does is a generation of negative emotions, useless internet drama and most importantly- spread of misinformation.

This is supposed to be a forum for fans, people more knowledgeable and experienced, and when you browse it people are barely less clueless than outsiders. In the last thread I visited someone was convinced this DLC is a port of AoE1, despite the video and various descriptions of what it is. It can’t all be just blamed on the lack of reading comprehension, there’s more to it, but that’s not a place to discuss it.

1 Like

Oooh, that would be a bold choice.

Unlikely though as the Romans would appear in several campaigns (Attila and Alaric for sure) and being stuck in the Castle Age would make them too easy to beat.

Probably the reason is that they don’t want to initially piss off their multiplayer playerbase. They release the Civ and let it cook for some time and balance it and then later they enable it on multiplayer “by popular demand”.

It’s a slow boiling the frog strategy.

1 Like

If they are doing this to balance the Romans out and then let them onto ranked later, then they really should come out and say it. Leaving people in the dark when it comes to a purchase is not a good idea.

2 Likes

I’m sorry, this might sound negative but the communication between the devs and the community is like the accuracy from the arambai unit :frowning:

8 Likes

They seem to have access to Halberdier and Siege Ram in the trailer (where they fight against the Saracens). So I think they are not stuck in the CA.

1 Like

Indeed they do, forgot about that.

I dont think i have seen a much more toxic post recently. Your post doesnt make any sense. First you blame the devs for being terrible devs for launching a DLC while they lack the money, creativity, … to full make the DLC.

Then you flame against a big portion of the player base. Do you really think ranked is a small fraction, a small minority of this game? #### ### ### much be joking. That claim doesnt make sense at all.

1 Like

w-what? Are you trolling? Read what I said again and try to understand it.
I’m not accusing anyone about lack of money, I’m listing potential reasons like lack of time, money or a creative decision as a reason why it’s not 100% fully functional civilization, and at the same time saying it’s not important for the end result and these expectations.

If there is anything toxic, it’s the people that can’t read with comprehension and get upset because of that.

I don’t ‘think’ here anything- I stated the fact, obvious to anyone, that VAST majority of clients that bought 2DE, or any other AoE, bought it for single-player experience, and are not interested in ranked multiplayer.
It’s obvious for anyone that looks at sold copies, reviews, player numbers, polls, number of online matches and the general sentiment.

It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, that a civ being ranked or not is a concern for a very, very small number of people that buy these games.
Read with comprehension. And if you are going to continue to be rude and accuse me of lying and flaming or whatever- I will be forced to report you, because I’m not fond of something like that.

If MS/Devs conducted a poll among for example recipients ot AOE newsletter or something like that, and most players are in fact primarily interested in playing AoE games for ranked mode- please share these polls/articles/press releases.

The point is : it’s not ranked, because it’s not ranked. They didn’t promise they will introduce a ranked Roman Empire to 2DE, people that act that way are simply disingenuous and extremely unfair toward the developers that worked hard creating ALL other pieces of content and I’m sure work hard now.

You can participate in the culture of outrage, but that doesn’t impact the reality and facts. And certainly doesn’t make you right, even if you find other people sharing the same position.

1 Like

I don’t get it. You don’t want ROMANS in AOE2 you don’t buy the DLC. It’s optionnal. You don’t want to use ROMANS you select another CIV. It’s like an “easter egg”, no it’s not realistic, it’s just ““fun”” to fight Romans with medieval civs. Every person I know playing AOE2 is playing SP or MP unranked with friends (~15 people). We aren’t all e-sport players. Just players. I’m happy that there is a Bonus civ in AOE2 with this “AOE 1” DLC.

7 Likes

Yes, it is just that- a fun, unexpected, slightly lighthearted addition for fans to spice things up in the original game, even if the entire DLC is focused on a separate AoE1-themed content package.

People declaring it the ‘worst thing in the history of Age of Empires 2’ is simply beyond crazy.
Romans here are much closer to an official mod (a very impressive one), than a proper expansion of the 2DE offering, which obviously is focused on part of human history that came specifically after the end of the Roman Empire. Inclusion is not heresy or sacrilege, at the same time it should be obvious why it might be a questionable idea to go all in and just 100% bring Roman Empire to AoE2. If they will I might not care that much, but from a theme/historical consistency perspective - I don’t desire or need it.

The main reason this is much better than all other mods granted to players is because previously they only swapped models, textures, effects, sounds.
This is something with real functional value, that can be enjoyed for eternity by SP and MP fans alike, with (at least for now) the exclusion of ranked. That’s it.

The only thing I’d add- it’s simply sad that after all these years of pouring work and love into the support of HD and DE this is the response from the community toward the developers and (I’m sure some Microsoft execs) that support AoE and keep it fresh, interesting and alive.
Just sad - I can’t point out an RTS series that is supported and cared about even as half as AoE is. Not Dawn of War, not Empire Earth, arguably maybe not even Total War considering the games:drama ratio, not Command and Conquer, not WarCraft, not RoM, not AoM, not Battle for MIddle-Earth.

If this IP was handled by someone like EA, it would be slaughtered and left in the ditch like SimCity was after SC5 and that mobile game.

2 Likes

Can be done for trailer. Like Sicilians had HC in LOTW trailer. And Persians had EA, Chinese had B.BC in Xbox trailer.

Your logic is very confusing. If Devs feel that Rome is not a suitable civ to join in AOE2, why didn’t they design this civ from the beginning?

Spending time designing a new civ and not putting it in the ranking is actually a great and wise decision? What are you talking about?

1 Like

Interesting idea.
Maybe they want to explore the idea of having civilisations that are purposely overpowered (or underpowered).
This is a new design space that they haven’t explored yet.
Kind of like a build in handicap but while being more interesting then a normal handicap (though it can be combined with one).

A civilisation designed for casual players.

The whole confusion would probably be solved if they told us why it’s not available for ranked.
They even just added that detail in. (And I think only on the English version which makes it even worse.)

3 Likes

IDK, until we actually know what the civ bonuses are, it’s anyone’s guess. I’m open to there being some unknown but sensible reason though. TBD

This seems like the most likely scenario. At some point having to remember all the civ bonuses/build orders etc could get annoying, and even with different bonuses a lot of civs play out fairly similarly already. In principle I don’t really have a problem with limited “civs,” although I envision them as just adding more Editor content around central themes and letting creators do the rest. In this case it just comes off as skeezy because the AoE2 side is seen as getting less than a full civ, and the intentions behind it haven’t been communicated yet, but maybe they will be soon. We’ve still got a couple weeks and change.

Bad balance is a “design space” that I hope they don’t explore. There’s a ton of custom content
out there that explores this kind of niche, to put it nicely, and I’d hate for the devs to spend their time on what may essentially be a glorified mod (although it wouldn’t surprise me.) I agree that their rationale might be something like this though. But they could make OP units for the Editor/SP/Campaigns without having to make a "civ. " Or if they do decide to go this route, they should call it something other than a standard “civilization” to make it distinct from fully playable civs. Either way, if they’re fully abandoning balance for the purposes of unranked games and turning them into the Wild West, I think that’s going to be disappointing to a lot of people.

3 Likes

There could be some limitations to use them in unranked matches, like the lobby creator has to allow cheats or full tech tree mode.

AoE3 has some campaign only civilisations so they can make some designs that would not work in multiplayer.
But those civilisations are not available outside of campaigns (or the editor) at all, so not even in private lobbies.

But as you said, we don’t know until we actually see the civilisation.
I wish they would tell us why.

2 Likes

I don’t mind that idea at all, and I’ve expressed that I think it would even be a positive and efficient way to add content for underrepresented areas without adding 20+ fully new civs. But I think that “civs” should either be fully available in both ranked/unranked, or neither, or at least called something else that implies the limitation. If it’s just for single player content, or an alternate gamemode where the emphasis is on novelty rather than measured competition, balance isn’t really relevant.