Because nearly everyone understood “split” as in the treatment Indians got three years ago, which technically is correct.
But I get what you want to say.
Masmorra is a paid shill, I don’t trust anything he says.
He’s just doing damage control for World’s Edge here.
2 Likes
I’m confused. Essentially the same thing happened with Indians and Chinese:
- Dynasties of India: Indians got a major rework, with a new unique unit, a new regional unit, some changes to their bonuses, and a new name. Three new civs, which would previously have been represented by Indians, were added.
- Three Kingdoms: Chinese got a major rework, with a new unique unit, three new regional units, and some changes to their bonuses and unique techs. Four new civs, which would previously have been represented by Chinese, were added.
Yes, the details are slightly different – it’s inevitable that they would be – but the overall process is the same. What am I missing here?
4 Likes
Indians were renamed into Hindustanis, their original UU was removed from their tech tree and given as a regional unit to Bengalis, Dravidians and Gurjaras. Instead, they now have the Ghulam. On top of that, all Indian civs now have the Siege Elephant instead of Ram.
As for 3K, Chinese indeed got a rework by adding a new UU to their tech tree as well as new regional units that are also partly shared by Vietnamese, Koreans, Khitans and Jurchens.
So you have any proof of him being a “shill”? Other than because his insider source is correct?
Most people who sees “five new civs” and “no Chinese split” would think “five new civs not overlapping with Chinese”
NOT “three of them overlapping with Chinese and the original Chinese remaining the same”
If there is anything still functional in WE was the legal and PR (not for communicating but “false” advertising). They would carefully choose words that sit on the fine line with just enough ambiguity so that it misleads enough people.
If they were very confident about the decision, both morally and practically, they’d be much clearer.
They could directly say “we were adding powerful factions within China” like they proudly announced “variants” in AOE4. Why don’t they? Because they know it would irritate people.
Defending them because “they didn’t literally say that” is only going to encourage more deceptions and mislead more people. Because they would never lie in front of the public (unless they made a mistake), but make sure you think one way and they could retrospectively interpret it in another way.
8 Likes
Fair enough, I was talking from the Multiplayer side of things where most people from various sub-communities I interact with don’t see 3K as a DoI-type of split.
Yes, obviously I know all that. What makes the Indians rework and civ additions a “split” but the Chinese rework and civ additions not a “split”? Just the elephant archer? But that’s a minor detail in the broader context of two very similar processes.
2 Likes
Basically splitting the big Indian umbrella into dozens smaller ones + renaming the original umbrella.
In context of the Chinese, you could rather call them split if they were further divided into the various Chinese Dynasties such as Jin or Song with one of them inheriting the Chinese civ boni.
The Wei, Wu and Shu are from a different era and should be treated like Romans + Italians (or Aztecs + Mexicans in AoE 3).
Renaming a civ is not the same as splitting it. A “civilization split”, although it can bring gameplay changes, is mostly about themes and history rather than gameplay, because the original civ won’t have it’s bonuses split off into separate civs.
For example, the Bengalis are a split off the Indians not because they have elephant archers now, but because they used to be included within the Indian civ, and now that it’s been removed, they get their own civ. What I mean by that is, if one had to make a campaign scenario that took place in Bengal, the most correct civ choice would have been the Indians. Now that’s not the case because the Indians were split. And on the gameplay side, the Hindustanis are pretty much a rework of the Indians, because they keep most of their bonuses, which were not shared at all with the other new civs.
For this reason the 3K civs are a split off the Chinese: they would have been covered by the Chinese civ, and now they’re not. To make things weirder, the Chinese haven’t been renamed, so these Chinese warlords have their own “civilizations” while simultaneously not being “Chinese”, even though they actually are Chinese.
Would you look at that, the Jin (Jurchens) are in the game. So, is it a split?
A better treatment would be to not add civilizations from a different era to the base game. Besides, there’s not enough differences between the extremely short-lived 3K and Chinese, let alone amongst the 3K themselves, to justify them being separate civilizations, unlike the Romans from 400 AD vs the Italians from 1400 AD.
5 Likes
Fair point. However, this is still not a DoI-type split.
Worse. The only difference is that they didn’t know what to do with the original Chinese. Because they didn’t spend the tiniest effort thinking about the consistency.
In effect it was the same Indian split with worse consistency in the game overall and worse distinguishability among themselves:
Wu is Southern Han+minorities (questionable because the units were terribly generic)
Wei is Northern Chinese minorities (much more than they were Wei)
Shu is Southeastern Han+minorities
Chinese could be any period of the “core” “central” Chinese “proper”
I would say “Hindustani” was also a whacky name because it refers to the region not the culture. But it was still acceptable because they avoided using dynasties or polities as “civs”.
And they said they were “taking notes” (another attempt to mislead the audience——don’t tell me they said it casually without hinting towards anything specific) though they did not.
If anything differentiates it from DOI, it was much less thought and much worse naming, and that is not turning things in WE’s favor.
But they tried to frame it like “we were adding five civs related to but outside China, and that stirred much more hype than the final announcement of 3K. I don’t think they were unaware.
5 Likes
Tbh I still wonder what they meant. I can only assume they referred to Persians getting their rework.
They were likely planning a “real” East Asian dlc with Khitans, Jurchens, etc. that were all “Chinese” in the campaigns were split out and Xianbei and Yue etc. were added. Until some management kicked in and forced a 3K
3 Likes
But wasn’t the “taking notes” bit on a roadmap for 2023?
The planning should take quite long.
And I didn’t mean they already had that plan in 2023, but they may had an original idea of following DOI, even did some initial work, before WE management kicked in
It’s possible the Mountain Royals DLC was going to be larger.
The Qizilbash is the only scenario unit in the game with a elite upgrade, and the Qizilbash players (Tatars) can make Caravanserais. I feel like that whole DLC and update was originally planned to be much more, but for some reason got scaled back.
6 Likes
Yep and that’s literally why this “misunderstanding” angle doesn’t hold any water.
Split, causes one thing to become multiple things.
Rename causes something, previously referred by some name or designation, now to be referred to by another.
Indians and Chinese were both split.
Only indians renamed.
Three months ago everybody knew the difference between re-naming and being split. but now that corporate daddy needs it’s white knights to save it from the meaning of words, now split suddenly means re-name so now the defenders can act confused why we’re trying to intentionally misunderstand what cysion said.
these are kindergarten level words, intentionally being revisionistically redefined to aid the deceit of mega-corporation.
The exact same thing happened with V&V when suddenly people figured out how to conjure up a new bespoke industry incongruous definition of “campaign” so MS didn’t deceive us.
We had one indian civ, we now have 4.
We had one chinese civ, we now have 4.
What the old and new names were, weren’t, are, aren’t, could have been, should have been, may yet someday be, is all entirely irrevelant.
“we are not splitting chinese”
There are now 4 chinese, because it was split.
9 Likes
Budget constraints or the actual world politics at that time could be a reason.Azerbaijan invaded armenia.Or it could just be a design choice similar to how khitans have tangut elements incorporated to the civi.
Bruh, these some big accusations. Consider the fact that some people enjoy the 3k DLC and might just defend the DLC they enjoy regardless of which corp it comes from. Thus to say it’s intentional deceit is groundless as there is no evidence to support this and there is actually more evidence against what you’re saying. Though I dislike it myself, I don’t think people are intentionally being deceptive in order to construct an argument defending the DLC.
2 Likes