JUNE 2022 PUP - Release Notes

patch sumed up in a sentance.
Rip China… that is all

1 Like

You are not aware that the developers made an update for PUP?
Chinese (CHI)

  • The Imperial Academy Landmark can now train Imperial Officials.
    • Developer Note: This change allows China to train additional villagers at the town center, giving them access to more strategic paths early in the game.

This basically gives China 3 more villagers in feudal since they can build Imperial Officials from the Imperial Academy instead of the TC. This change is huge and will make China much stronger in the early game. I suspect that China will be at least A tier after this change.

Bro this guy is 20-30k ranked teamgames only player.
Biggest crybaby on entire forum since december without a single valuable post/comment.

No reason to respond to him or even worse to discuss with him.

I love the change but at the same time bit worried about it, because with the change it increases IA value and makes it necessary for china to always open with it.

IA was already decent economic boost for china and now technically means 6 more villagers if all IO’s are trained from the academy. Wouldn’t be surprising if china moved to fast feudal with IA and skippin IO in dark age to have much better economic standing in feudal

1 Like

I forgot to write it in my suggestion, but the idea was you need to research a technology first and the technology would have to be in Age 2 or 3. That way Chinese doesn’t get to automatically collect tax via supervision early on.

Otherwise yes, Chinese would get a crazy economic start from the fast gold collection in Age I and II, but that wasn’t then intention. I simply want Chinese to be able to gather tax from far away places when your IO cannot walk between TC and buildings anymore.

Alternatively if you’re opening up BBQ DEFENSIVELY, yes u get a passive tower but no benefits toward your clearly boom/timing macro; meanwhile Opening Imperial Academy having to add a tower and or barracks is CHEEAP while keeping your landmark eco bonus! Mind you most other civs get immediate benefits from their landmark.

I lean probably towards rushing both out or have to see how things go with timings

China can only gain advantages in the age of empires, however, it often has to face opponents with a certain number of troops, not to mention a large number of fortresses and arrow towers, China needs a unit that can break the balance, not simply use more than the opponent. Need more troops to press over.

From the original design, we can see that the developers have something to break the deadlock for imperial China: the Palace spy, Nest of Bees, the infamous Fire Lancer, the 12-range bomber and the grenadier. However, these things are big Part of it was NERF because of the protests from TG players. Now China is slightly buffed in the feudal era, but it has lost more advantages in the imperial era.

The design of Chinese civilization has now deviated from the original plan, with the most complex system, weak feudal era, but nothing to break the deadlock in the imperial era. Developers need to re-examine the setting of Chinese civilization, not just to please TG and pure NERF everything.

3 Likes

Are you really throwing up the image sizes I found as an argument? Do the other way around and find me a large screenshot of the AoE 4 knight icon so they are both large. Better? No, I didn’t think so.

Icons should tell you how your hard earned resources are invested in a better unit. 1, 2 or 3 dots on top of the icon while keeping the rest identical is a very lazy way of doing it. Same goes for blacksmith techs and everything else. In AoE 2, even in a 32x32 icon, I can tell how a Paladin is more badass than a Cavalier and more badass than a Knight. Spectacle, man. RTS games need spectacle because you’re not racing cars at 200mph or blowing ■■■■ up. Even a damn icon goes a long way.

To this day I don’t know if the food tech upgrades affect only farms, because the icon is a frickin’ sickle and its description doesn’t clarify if it affects ALL food sources or just farms (and I honestly don’t have time to do a ‘Spirit of the Law’ analysis of collection times). How “Horticulture” or “Fertilization” make me gather food faster from a boar? Let’s just be objective for a moment and accept that is a terrible UI issue right there.

In AoE 2, Mill upgrades pertain only to farm improvements and the icons and names make that extremely clear. You can easily tell at a glance (visually and by name) how a horse collar, heavy plow or crop rotation would improve farming and JUST farming.

Well said.

Can tell you now that China has not been more broken than it ever was in TG’s.(meme)

I have +65% winrate with super one dimensional play. Like devs wanted to remove one dimensional play yet its most effective way to play and no reason to play clunky slow moving siege when player can just smash things with more broken units that is lancers/knights.

Ofc if game drags on into late game I add something else to break deadlock in situations where there is choke point like mountain pass but otherwise. Cant be arsed to even touch china unique things and fun fact. If I played as french I would probably have +20% winrate added to this

You’re . . . missing my point. I’m not saying the Age IV icon scaled-up looks as “badass” as the other icon. I’m saying the other icon will never look like that in a game. It won’t look that crisp. You won’t see all the detail in it.

Beyond that, what you’re describing is preference. I prefer utility over whatever measure of “badass” people find icons. But I don’t disparage those that prefer a different look and feel. I don’t put people down because they don’t agree with me. And please spare me the protestations, we were both active in the other thread :slightly_smiling_face:

It’s hard, right? To have constructive conversations about something we care about. But try and assume the best of the other person’s argument, instead of rushing to assume things like I was trying to claim the Age IV icon would be acceptable to you if it were larger. I understand your issues with the icon design (fundamentally). I just disagree.

I’ve never personally had a major issue with the UI communicating information, but I do know people have in general. However, this isn’t the icons. Criticism around the icons mostly relates to “feel” (like you seeing icons from other games as badass, but not the games in Age IV as the same). Criticism around UI information tends to relate to the unit stat cards and what impact they have on gameplay. And it’s valid, for sure.

It stops being personal preference when the icons and the UI affect the gameplay. Plenty of people have said that blacksmith upgrades all look the same and they realize they’ve been clicking on melee upgrades while having only archers on the field.

Or the fact that the sickle with dots doesn’t leave clear if it affects only farms or all food sources. Better visual representation would go a long way. It’s not only “badass” units. You tend to keep focusing on one aspect that favors your argument while conveniently not addressing others (e.g. two images of different sizes I happened to find or the use of the “badass” term).

I try to not put people down either but sometimes evidence just piles up and it’s hard to have mature conversations with people who will manipulate information, ignore parts of it or twist facts just to come up on top (not referring explicitly about you). You be the own judge of the way you counteract arguments.

I find it very tiring that we entered this cycle of constructive/destructive balance changes all the while other parts of the game remain so neglected. People are mentioning China above so let’s forget about UI and talk about how tax gold in buildings far away from your TC or landmark go to waste. Why was that never accounted for when designing the civ? That’s a “let’s do this now and figure the rest later” mindset. Or the almost impossibility to hit Tier 3 golden age with the Abbasid. Why is there no tech to include far away mining camps or towers?

There are oh so many things about the game that I could sit down with the devs and go one by one explaining why it made no sense to change (China in PUP) or that they have completely forgotten about (siege clipping terrain). That’s not even touching core mechanics, but just things that after so many months after release make the game feel so lackluster.

3 Likes

what

In what universe does inmersion have anything to do with gameplay ?

Inmersion is inside of graphic , you could have the worst gameplay but the best graphic and inmersion .
It does not corralate at all.

Have you hear “immersive gameplay”? You don’t know what you are talking about boy

ah we were talking about that , i thought we were talking about graphical inmersion , sorry my bad lol

they both share the same impact

The same could be said of an absolute newcomer to AoE II. I’m not being facetious. It’s just we’ve had twenty years (or more) to internalise what AoE II looks like. It’s one of the best-known classic RTS games on the market. And if people want to talk AoE III, well, that’s no spring chicken either.

It’s very hard to separate out “this is intuitive” from “I’m used to this” when we’ve had that amount of time to familiarise ourselves with what the icons convey.

But to go back to your original point, your claim was it was “badass”. It was nothing to do with affecting gameplay (beyond immersion, which obviously does). It has nothing to do with communicating anything but a subjective artistic preference for style (the importance of which will vary between players).

What have I not addressed, exactly?

I don’t care who you’re explicitly referring to or not. Why does it have to be explicit? It’s pretty clear from the linked post the poster(s) you’re referring to, right? At least own your commentary if you’re going to type it out for the benefit of other forumgoers, c’mon. I can handle a bit of shade, it’s the weaseling around that gets my back up. Moreso considering your former emphasis on politeness, which I still haven’t forgotten. It raises a red flag, whereby you feel your posts deserve polite disagreement, but you can go to town on people you find yourself frustrated with. It’s not like you have a monopoly on feeling frustrated, right? :sweat_smile:

If you’re frustrated with my arguments, tell me how and why. I work pretty literally, because the Internet is trash and it’s easy to misinterpret folks. This can cause problems, for sure. But I find it works out better (for me) than trying to assume things about people I don’t know.

Believe the best in the people you argue with, or do everyone a favour and don’t bother. That’s how I approach things. Sounds a bit preachy to type it out though hah.

And yet you have specific balance commentary, right? This reads like a gotcha, I admit. But you have posted balance criticism, so I’m trying to work out your priorities here. If it’s as simple as “sure I have balance opinions, but I’d rather they do more work with the UI” then that’s absolutely fair enough.


I have no idea what to edit in this to make it acceptable for some folks. Sorry.

Immersive experience? As long as AOE2 doesn’t have exclusive civilization unit skins, I won’t have an immersive experience in AOE2. When every civilization uses the European knight icon, players have no immersive experience at all. Stop constantly touting everything about AOE2, and Stop trying to make AOE4 the same as AOE2!

1 Like

Relax it will never happen.

But if you really want, you can create urself, cause mods available for any visual changes

I like aoe 3 icons and for upgrades but I know they are too confusing at first because they have the same color tone for armory techs and some techs but still comparing that to aoe 4 feel like a downgrade. Thats how bad the icons are in aoe 4.

he has a point. aoe 4 icons are bland.

yup just as a example how basic thing that the game need polish are left unfixed. It’s not a change of priorities.