That’s true…
[quote=“CoffeeKitten305, post:125, topic:245797, full:true”]
Europe needs a break. For at least 10 ############## [/quote]
Except for RoR xd…
[quote=“CoffeeKitten305, post:125, topic:245797, full:true”]
Europe needs a break. For at least 10 ############## [/quote]
By the time we reach that amount most of the people asking or rejecting europe will be retired from the game.
Paranoid censor strikes again.
1 Like
Other user is a bit vague. I’ve talked a lot in this thread white WhiteMagick so I thought you were referring to me.
Any company in the world, doesn’t go by representation or importance, is only goes by what sales.
Representation is subjective, because how are you going to split the criterias? Juggernaut8704’s representation list specifically make “Europe, Eastern and Eurasia”, why not add the ‘Eurasia’ part into Asia? Since it’s basically ###### + #### which are Asia. So he can inflate Eastern Europe’s numbers a bit more. Or split Eastern Europe and Balkans since they are very culturally different. Again, numbers. So representation is subjective because the way you make your boxes is subjective and says more about your knowledge in the field than the data you are listing itself.
Importance is again subjective. Is Britain ruled the waves and Mongols had the largest continental Empire. But important simply means of great significance or value. This is not semantic, just saying that “important” is inherently subjective. Was gold important to the first nations? no. Was gold important to the Europeans? yes. Was gold important? yes, no? to whom? Saying “this is important” only says “I care about this”. People to this day argue whether minor European civs or African civs are more important. Which is an argument that will go nowhere because there is no set in stone way to determine who is more important.
But there is one thing that matters, one thing that is important if you will, sales. Sales on the other hand are not subjective, it’s objectively measured by how much money you make with a certain DLC. And this isn’t a Microsoft thing, it’s a business thing. Why is Western Europe so populated to the point where we have the Burgundians & Sicillians basically France & Italy having 2 civs? Because a lot of buyers are from US or Western Europe and they want to play with their civs. Why were Koreans added in the Conquerors DLC? Because a lot of Koreans play RTS games and the devs wanted the game to become popular in Korea. Why were the Vietnamese added in both AoE2 and AoE2 RoR, because AoE is very popular in Vietnam and they wanted to capitalize on this.
Most players are from Europe, so AoE2 simply focused on Europe. Simple as that.
Why? because it sells.
The vast majority of players is not the forum dweller, the vast majority of players is the casual player.
6 Likes
Koreans already appear in AoE 1/RoR like Choson, so it’s not news… they are only missing in AoE 3 and AoE 4 as playable civs…
1 Like
There was an interview with AoE2’s creator. He said he didn’t want to add the Koreans in the Conquerors because they were not conquerors, but Microsoft forced him to because RTS games were popular in Korea and that could translate to more sales in Korea.
1 Like
I am a bit confused. Would you be so kind as to explain the picture you posted, please? What are we seeing?
That’s an exceedingly overly simplistic way of looking at things.
For example: I am in Europe, and I don’t want to see any more Europe-focused DLCs until the rest of the world gets many more civs first.
4 Likes
America has more players than Europe. Let’s have more American Civs.
You discarded history stats to take modern sales into account. Now don’t again rely on history to cover up. Don’t assume Americans want European civs.
Temudhun is from France, Szaladon is from Switzerland, TungstenBoar is from Argentina, Stereoquasar is from Bangladesh, Akoskaa is from Hungary, Mahazona from Sri Lanka, Mutylator from Poland, Apocalypso from US, Me(Juggernaut) from Odisha, Kandanat is from Kerala and the OP of this thread Eldee. There is one thing in common we want African Civ. Do you see any African Nation in your list of Playerbase? Do you think our nationalities matter for our preferences?
9 Likes
A wise fellow already guessed what he is going to use the data for when he first asked for it in forum.
1 Like
Because the website I referred to, uses this classification of regions:
They must have thought through this.
It’s a website that counts people groups.
Their definition of a people group is as follows:
“For evangelization purposes, a people group is the largest group within which the Gospel can spread as a church planting movement without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance”
In terms of “sales"I think microsoft don’t need to rely on aoe2 for money. I mean… not at this point (release civs just for the “potentially” locals buyers)DLC’s price already takes care of it enough. It’s not an” AAA plan" game with millions of gamers to convert all over the world.
i mean if you instead counted over representation as the multiplier between population and civs then western asia would be about 300% while europe is about 250ish% and eastasia would be about 50%
also to get such representation to be equal you would have to start splitting japanese, chinese and koreans, simply isnt a lot of other options left in east asia. like is france not worthy to be added because china alone has the population of europe? idk that seems like a silly way of looking at things.
not saying you couldn’t argue for more representation of other places but idk it seems a bit silly to equate population of an entire region to deserved representation, europe simply had more mid sized countried than east asia did.
1 Like
That is why I have shared a second method of comparison that is perhaps better than population.
Yes, you, but as pointed out, the vast majority of players is not the forum dweller, the vast majority of players is the casual player.
Nice try but modern Americans are of European descent.
I didn’t discard history stats, I discarded representation stats, not the same thing. On average, buyers are from US or Western Europe and they want to play with their civs.
As pointed, you, you particulary? no. But you don’t account for all sales.
So essentially religion?
I mean it tries to be religion, but it’s not that either, you have Orthodox & Catholic in Eastern Europe where, let’s just say spreading without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance is absolutely not the case for what it happened in Eastern Europe between the Orthodox & Catholic.
On the other hand, The Ottomans and North Africa would perfectly fit spreading without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance, who are in different groups. But not the Ottomans and Persia, who are in the same group. All the Northern states of West Africa and East Africa would much rather fit North Africa by this definition. And India with Pakistan & Bangladesh, yeah, not even going there.
If that’s their definition of a people group, the map breaks a lot of their definitions.
1 Like
See that’s what you are doing again.
You just discarded history. Now you are using it to your convenience. Use sales data then use selectively the history that suits your explanation.
What map you are talking about? Did you even check the website? It is the definition of people group not the definition of region. There are large number of people groups in each region.
2 Likes
I just discarded representation stats. Representation stats is not history.
You just classified Bohemians as Eastern European even though most historians classify them as Western and Czechia itself today is classified as Western. Huns as Eastern European even though they are Asians, might as well classify the Mongols as Eastern European since they came to Eastern Europe, and Georgians with Armenians again as Eastern European for some reason to inflate the number from 6 civs to 10 civs.
So don’t talk about discarding history.
I talk about the map you from the website of course based on the definition provided by you.
1 Like
I would disagree with this method of determining a people group. It’s based on religious utility.
1 Like
Because all the individual people groups in Bohemia have been counted in that particular region of the Map.
1 Like
In the map that I just explained previously why it breaks a lot of their own definitions.
No, it’s not religion, on a site literally called “https://joshuaproject.net/” lmafo.
1 Like