I think if content exists it should be available in private lobbies.
You can play custom scenarios there too.
So adding a “campaign only civilisations” toggle to the lobby UI would solve that issue.
It’s like enabling handicap mode, most lobbies won’t use it.
It could become a problem if many people would start bagging the host to allow them to play the OP campaign civilisations.
I suddenly wondered if the devs maybe saw all the comments saying that crossplay between AoE1 and AoE2 could exist as long as it’s unranked and weirdly misunderstood the reason why this limitation was specified 
I wouldn’t say it’s a reasonable explanation at all, because the design of a civ, including its balance, is entirely up to the devs. Possible balance issues tend to arise later and they can then be fixed with a patch, as it has always been done.
The real reason is probably that the devs feel that the civ doesn’t fit in the AOE2 setting, but if that’s the case, then it shouldn’t have been added at all.
But yeah, without proper communication we can only make blind guesses.
according to steam there are currently 20k people in-game, and according to aoe2.net there are about 800 ranked games on-going. ranked games contain between 2 and 8 players, so that’s between 1600 and 6400 players in ranked games at the moment. so that’s just current players, but even people who play ranked will occasionally play other game modes/spectate games/wait to find a match etc.
I don’t think this qualifies as ‘a very, very small number of people’
(the big caveat of this approach is that it counts playtime not players. 10 people who play 30 minutes a day count into this as much as 1 player who plays for 5 hours)
Another approach is to look at steam achievements:
25% of players have beaten an AI at standard difficulty
50% have won as celts (ie completed the first tutorial mission)
16% have completed the tutorial campaign
so by this data most players who have started the game haven’t played it much at all…
No, it’s not to balance. The main point is to reduce controversy. They want to add Romans but know a good amount of core loyal players hate it, so they add them without ranked as a ‘shill guys it will not affect ranked’.
Then later they enable them by ‘popular demand’ when people already normalized romans in Age 2.
This doesn’t tell much because a large percentage of AoE2DE players did play AoE2HD or even the original AoE2 so why would they play the tutorial again?
With a few million copies sold on Steam alone (+MS Store +X) that is a very small number of players that stick to MP, and doubly so with the implication that rmode is the core feature that’s behind game’s success over the years.
And there are loads of additional factors I’m sure you’re aware of, like tons of people that bought the original version and its various physical re-releases, people that played HD, pirated version where stats are hard to grasp properly (piracy didn’t make MP impossible) and few others.
What you listed applies to most games that are being sold, regardless of genre, regardless even of having a MP mode at all. Most people don’t finish games, play a bit, fall off halfway etc.
Players viewing that situation through their own lens, and others in (relatively) very dedicated hardcore game circles, are having skewed view of the general market.
There’s nothing unusual about these participation Mp stats (especially in the context of one of the biggest, legendary RTS game of all time), and certainly they do not disapprove what I’ve stated before - the vast majority of people that touched AoE2 through the years, approached it primarily with singleplayer in mind, significantly less- with a plan to try to stick to MP/coop modes at all, and only a fraction- with a passion to participate in ranked games.
It’s like that in almost all balanced (content of modes) not only RTS games, but strategies in general.
Of course that greatly varies from game to game, and there are plenty of games with extremely short/uninteresting/boring/poor quality SP content (like single player campaigns in most CoDs), but AoE games were never focused or marketed primarily on MP, certainly not extreme end- ranked mode.
With the exceptions of course in the form of AoE:Online, but even there most of the content can be played alone to some point and it was (is- Celeste) a great time for players without friends, clans etc.
After that- probably III and IV are close together, because of their relatively plain and short campaigns. At least in 3(DE) there are a billion or maps to choose in the skirmish, loads of revolutions, minor civs, mercenaries, card system etc. that are a much better value. Not to mention civ number - even now updated IV is on the light side when it comes to content and felt stremlined/modernized from the beginning.
That’s obvious players of MP are the most visible and loud, but that doesn’t translate to the general preferences of people. I’ve spent a LOT of time on various modding forums, and from that perspective, circles of players interested in mod making, scenario creation and map design are not (well, have been when the game was fresh) that much smaller than a group of competitive MP fans.
It’s hard to hear or appreciate how many players just don’t care about MP at all. But they play alone or with friends, don’t argue on fan forums, don’t comment under Hera or Viper vids, don’t watch pro tournaments or any of that.
If it was even remotely true- it would be reflected in the contents Devs make. And SP campaigns, historical battles are as prominent as they’ve ever been. Even new maps can’t be pinned just on MP-focused crowd, because again- most people are casuals, and they might play said map a few times when they jump into skirmish mode.
this is what I was trying to highlight with my data:
it’s probably <10% of players who have touched multiplayer
but it’s probably > 30% of playtime that happens in multiplayer
i assume you didn’t play ranked mode? ranked mode just means that you get matched with players of equal skill. it’s very far from ‘extreme end’
When romans always start in imperial age, which also avoids them going through dark age, feudal age, castle age, then that would be a very valid reason to not allow them on the ladder.
It has literally had the opposite effect…
Not to mention, people that play ranked a lot don’t give a hoot about who or what the civs are.
Only if you accept that they designed it that way in the first place, which would still be an extremely odd design decision. There is no reason why a civ design should be completely bound by campaign related constraints.
I would be willing to buy it for one interesting civ. However I exclusively play AoE2 in ranked multiplayer and it sounds like this DLC contains literally no content for me. One civ for a different game, one civ that is banned from ranked… Somewhat disappointing after it was hyped up for months.
Maybe I’m wrong and there will be more to it? At least I hope so.
Not an expected result.
I too would do the same because I would expect the hardcore ########### #### would be pissed by the romans adition, not demanding it to be added.
It seems perfectly obvious to me why they are doing it the way they are doing it. It’s an Easter egg. A cheat code. It’s like the laser Trooper or the vdml guy. It’s a tiny little perk that they added for the sake of the larger DLC, something for people to play around with and have fun with, but not meant for serious play.
And the answer is perfectly obvious. They simply don’t fit in the time period of AOE 2. Adding them seriously would make no more sense than adding a flintlock musket to Call of Duty. It doesn’t matter if you balance it well, it simply doesn’t fit the rest of the game. It breaks the suspension of disbelief. And sure, some players could ignore that. But the thing about multi DLC properties like this is that DLC needs to make everyone happy. If it is not going to make a significant portion of the player base happy, it needs to be optional. Entirely optional, not something that you could end up being forced to play against against your will.
Is another “The Romans who fought Huns and Goths is breaking my suspension of disbelief” episode about a game where Woad Raiders can fight Samurais and Jaguarmen.
I guess the game should have all Mesoamerican civilizations just die 5 minutes into the match if fighting against European civilizations too while we are at it…
Comparing the importance of aspects of a game is not only about player numbers.
50% or people that buy a game don’t play it (I haven’t even played 50% of the games I own on steam (thanks Humble Bundle)) so we can ignore those.
Let’s say 90% of those who actually play the game are “casuals” but what percentage of streamers are “casuals”? Probably less then 50%.
So a lot of people see the game though the eyes of a “competitive” player for the first time.
It’s kinda like with endgame content in an MMO. Most people never get there but they know it exists and it motivates them to buy the game in the first place.
People want long games but then they don’t finish them.
So content should be balanced between “causal” and “competitive” players.
Therefore having 1 out of 43 civilisations only for “casual” players doesn’t look like an issue to me.
Maybe Rome has a brand new way to advance to next age which is different from other civs, I guess?
I’m curious if someone still thinks that the previous decision was a great and wise one.
I can understand their previous decision but I can see why they changed it.
Romans might get a little bit nerfed until the release.
I’m just hoping the players who don’t like them being in ranked can talk some sense into them, and in a few months when the fervor has died down they’ll quietly change their minds.
Either that or they just change the name to something else. The problem is, they’ve already basically exploited 100% of the available civs from that area in the correct time period. That area had the Franks, Goths, Burgundians, and Italians, all of which have civs now.
Maybe they could be the Corsicans? They were technically the Vandals, which haven’t been seen yet, but I imagine Corsica still had strong romanic tendencies for quite some time.