OK Gorbles, you win. AoE4 must be a roaring success, its civ design is great, and nothing should change. Any civ design closer to asymmetry from the original 8 civs would cascade the game into an abyss of unbalanced incoherence. If the game ever releases new content, it definitely should be solely the product of Relic’s imagination or AoE2’s design and certainly not related to any of the other games in the franchise, as those are abject failures. We might as well shut the forum down while we are at it, because Relic has this one under control.
7 Likes
This is a dumb reply and you can do better. Peace.
I’m not attacking the person, merely the argument. Andy knows this.
Now I am aiming at you: this argument effectively eliminates all discussions about civ designs.
When someone talks about a civ design idea from AOE2/3 there is a hidden implication of “I like this design from AOE2/3 so I want to see it in AOE4” that is so apparent that there is no need to restate it every single time. That is “preference”. It is not “I want it because AOE2/3”.
I know you enjoy forcing people to clarify every single implication which definitely contributes to constructive discussions (but not when people claim they like something about AOE4 though), but that is exactly the kind of preference you keep talking avout.
4 Likes
Only before they are added.
After they are added, it is great. Yes you are free to dislike them but that’s a personal preference.
2 Likes
You are assuming that small player base in age lll is due to civilization asymmetry which is wrong, you are not taking into account the time period, people love modeieval times that’s the reason why relic went medieval with age IV, the same happened to empire total war, I am one that never played age lll because I don’t like the time period until some time ago.
1 Like
It doesn’t eliminate anything, because my original (and pretty short) point was just trying to explain what I thought was Andy’s problem with people rejecting his preference for (more) asymmetry.
People are trying to arrive at a direction for civ design and balance in general. Maybe the answer is “more AoE II-like civs and more AoE III-like civs”. I don’t know. I think Age IV is trying to find it’s own level of asymmetry that works for Age IV specifically, personally.
Plenty of people are assuming that the relatively small player base in Age IV is due to X, Y and Z. Why are some assumptions good, but other assumptions bad?
(the answer is: because it depends on the person making them and whether or not they like the game)
You are the ten thousandth person here to attack AoE3 and champion AoE2 because of its shear numbers. This is the most trite, unthinking argument on this forum, has persisted here for years, almost always from people who later admit have never even bothered to play anything other than AoE2, and if I had a shovel and enough time, I would bury them all. Respectfully, you can do better, too.
1 Like
And the card unlock requirements, which scares away a lot of casual players back then.
Even though it was removed in DE, old players already had a bad impression on AOE3, and a DE is never going to attract new player base.
So the player base of AOE3DE is mostly the loyal (emphasis) players of old AOE3.
1 Like
I really don’t get how this, which is at the top of the post you took severe exception to, is attacking AoE III and championing AoE II.
Read it again. Or don’t. It’s evident that whatever I type will be taken a specific way, and I don’t even get how we got there. Regrettably, all that matters is that we did. So, peace. I don’t want to contribute to this back-and-forth anymore.
1 Like
The problem is that age lll have eSports and even players pro players from age lll play age IV, so I don’t see the asymmetrical problem in age lll, what I do see is lazy excuses, 1 year after release and the siege weapons have the same destruction animation, if they can’t fix that I am not going to believe that devs don’t do more asymmetry or unique units because it will harm balance, all I see here is laziness
1 Like
Best I can find so far from July last year from a tournament:
So the balance is actually pretty terrible.
However another issue is really small sample size. There just isn’t a ton of data for AoE3.
1 Like
The assumption that AoE3s smaller player base is because of civilization assymmetry or time period, doesn’t take into consideration all of the multiple other factors that could play into it. People loving the medieval period doesn’t mean that games in other periods suffer.
Often times it is a full on symphony of the game that doesn’t vibe with some players. Some get bored, some play only a part of the game, some don’t like the card system, some haven’t played the game and hate it even so, as it is in competition with other games in the series. Some don’t like the period. Some don’t like the graphics or gameplay. Some don’t like the civs or the villager gathering systems. Some simply don’t have the patience to get into the game and write it off early.
I couldn’t stand AoE3s multiplayer for a long time, I love the period however, so I gave it about 4 chances and when I really got into it, I started to like it a lot.
Any “It is because of this singular thing that I believe is important” arguments for the playerbase count is rather irrelevant, even my personal anecdote is just a drop in the ocean of arguments for or against.
1 Like
sorry you type a lot. I do my best to keep up. sometimes I read strings of paragraphs for the flavor and dont chew every word. I will chew more slowly next time
2 Likes
Did the economist or anyone else publish any analysis that would help an outsider like me understand the causes of the wide win rate?
For instance, I see that the the Russians win the most (69%) and the French win the least (27%). Those two civs were launch civs with very similar in design with regard to how we often define asymmetry here (they share almost all units and buildings – the French have just two unique units and the Russians just three). So off the bat, it is not immediately evident that a large number of unique units/buildings is the cause of the win rates being so different.
Obviously I agree that differences in units and buildings would seem a likely reason civs aren’t balanced, of course. But ultimately I would expect that good balance can be achieved even with civs that do not share units and buildings.
There’s no publicly available data on this.
There’s a few civs like Inca that are horribly balanced, but the rest seem like they’re in an alright state.
BTW I do not agree with the “new release” argument.
DEs or remakes or whatever you call it only brings back old players. Some would give it another try, but those who didn’t enjoy it 20 years ago are not likely to enjoy it now.
AOE2DE had a peak of 20k players and remained that. That is the number of the player base.
AOE3DE peaked also 20k players, which is AOE3’s own player base + AOE2 players who give it another try. But as I said the latter mostly would not remain and the number goes back to a number that makes sense, with a fixed proportion to AOE2 players for all those years.
DEs are new but they are effectively old games re-released and people are already very familiar with how they work.
The 70k players at the release of AOE4 is the true new player base for a true new release.
2 Likes
Aoe3 have been One of the best RTS ever released. Too much revolutionary for many fans of Aoe2.
With the Definitive edition It reached new horizons. It Simply Amazing under severals aspects: from graphics to campaigns, biomas, physics.
1 Like
Not that I can find. And the sample size is so small it’s maybe not super useful anyway.
It seems no fans have ever created websites to track this like they have for AoE2 and AoE4.
AoE2 winrates are very well documented though, and they’re definitely worse than AoE4 (there are 42 civs to be fair).
2 Likes
thanks, for now I will continue to point to aoe3 as an example of good, immersive design in this franchise that is both unique and balanced. we only have so many games to discuss, so please anyone out there let me know at any time if someone finds good data that I am out of my mind. I no longer play aoe3 because I enjoy aoeo more in my free time, but I sure love watching aoe3 grow, even if I do so from across the street.
1 Like
There were new players in AoE2DE and the biggest peak of players playing simultaneously was 38.5k, the daily activity I believe is also larger than previously.
So Only old players isn’t really correct.