Mods often have a lesser playerbase than the base game, and get no official branding. This is way beyond a mod.
But hey, if you think you can do better, show it. Make a mod and have MS recognize it as an official expansion.
1 Like
I think we canāt know. Maybe if ES survived, they would have got time to see how AoE2 kept a solid player base, that there was a demand for more and done something about it.
2 Likes
I have nothing against the ES devs, but to say the FE team has not done stellar work, is either trolling, or lack of awareness.
Most RTS games, by BIG DEVS and PUBLISHERS like Blizzard and EA, are left broken and unfinished forever, and they hamper down any modding effort to fix those games, on purpose.
MS has embraced FE, which was not only a great business move, but also earned them points with the AoE playerbase.
The FE devs have, so far, done wonders to the game. I wish Starcraft or C&C had officially recognized and supported mods like AoE2 has.
Being ājust moddersā is better than being developers, these days, since modders actually fix and expand games, while devs are not able to.
1 Like
I can seem many players dont like it to face the tower rush, because it is annoying and messy to play against. But i do think it is just a valid strat for some civs. Pre DE this strat was too common, so i agree with a small nerf. But nowadays it is pretty much an uncommon strat, only executed by Incans. So this strat is already pretty uncommon. Most civs dont really opt for this strategy at all. So i dont think we really need to nerf this strat fully into the ground.
If it was a new game and this wasnt meant to be a strategy, then i would agree with nerfing this strategy into the ground. But AoE II was first released 20 years ago. Trushing is become an accepted strategy in this time frame. Just deal with the strategy. As long as a strategy isnt OP, nothing is wrong with the strategy. And i dont think that this strategy is OP.
I donāt really like the fact that people brings the argument that āit has been like that for 20 years, so it should remains like thatā. The way people play a game has changed. 20 years ago , 99% wants to play for fun and 1% tryhard. Now itās kinda the opposite. e-sport āfaultā in my opinion. 5 years ago (nearly) nobody drushed and (nearly) nobody trush. Then both these strats became common (until trush nerf).
Trush is super oppressive for new player. It took me a while to respond correctly to it. When you know it exist and when your understood the basic to survive, itās not OP, i agree. But i donāt think itās 100% personal) that fighting with tower and vills is normal.
This rule should apply to every multiplayer game: Cheesy play should be an rare option, not the most efficient way to play. and for incas, I think itās the most efficient way to play them. They got low winrate on maps with low tower rush potential.(itās strange that they get a good winrate in arena - due to cheaper castle i supposed?)
True, those devs made the game, but then abandoned doing updates after the released Age of Conquerors. and they didnāt do much to get the pro scene going either
These devs? they continue to support the game, giving us balance patches and hotfixes and working on fixing problems. they also continue to promote the competitive scene and have overseen the GROWTH of a game 20 years old.
according to you, some of their changes have been good, some havenāt, but overall their changes have largely done the job.
and fixes and promotion of the game for growth and balance changes but yeah, whatever you say.
also the fundamentals of the game are what kept it popular, why would you change a working formula?
look at how many people are unhappy with the new civs that have aoe3 style bonuses. the moment they step away from the fundamentals and people are up in arms. that is pretty telling.
2 Likes
My main problem with their trush is that the blacksmith upgrades for vilagers in Feudal are proportionally stronger than similiar armor/attack bonuses for other units. I mean doubling melee armor and adding +50% pierce armor on top of +33% attack for just 250 food (and Iām ignoring the fact that it also helps your m@a/eagles/spears) is too much in my opinion.
Imagine a civ, that would have Castle age tech for knights giving them +2/+1 armor and +3 attack for 300f/375g (5 knights), meaning you would end up with 6/5 armor and 15 attack after blacksmith upgrades. Although not perfect, I think this visualises the Incan vill strenght the best compared to regular vills.
On the other hand, I like it as a defensive bonus, basically countering fletching or armor for scouts/m@a.
1 Like
Minus the fact that you use your vill - i.e collector of resource - trained on a single building and without an attack stance. The comparison is quite bad in my opinion. Especially the lack of attack stance. With an attack stance, it would be the most OP strat in feudal, iām 100% sure.
The main problem is when an Ican vill figth other vills : a vill with loom kill another vill in 20 hit (3 attack - 1 armor and 40 hp). But it takes 40 hits to kill a incan vill (3 attack -2 armor). In the other hand, the attack upgrade allow an incan vill to kill another vill in 14 hits. A full upgraded incan vill nearly win a 1v2. and he will kill one of them, while the last one remains with low HP. yes it cost you a lot of your eco to aggro with vills but your oponnent have to figth with twice the amount of vill to win a figth. And iām taking into account the fact that ican player eco is less vulnerable to counter attack and resist/destroy tower faster than regular vills.
I still think a free armor bonus in castle and imp would be better, with something to compensate.
At least remove attack upgrade - to make it less oppressive mid feudal age
1 Like
They arenāt mediocre, they are a great civilisation and the best of the Mesoamerican civs.
1 Like
youāre kidding right?
The comparisson was meant to reflect the Inca vill vs regular vill fight not neccessarilly vs Feudal millitary. Neither does have an attack stance, so they are equal in that sense, same as the Super knight vs knight in both having an attack stance.
What I meant to say, is that if you get into a fight with an Inca vill, youād get destroyed pretty badly, similiarly to the Super knight vs regular knight (11 hits vs 20 hits).
1 Like
Nope, they have a wider tech tree than the Aztecs and the Mayans and all their bonuses are incredibly useful.
1 Like
and the mayans bonuses arenāt useful? on top of having the best eagles and one of the best unique units in the game? and cheaper archers.
pro play puts the Incas as a middle of the road civ and the worst of the Meso civs.
food for thought
1 Like
I donāt think none of the Incan bonuses (asuming they donāt abuse their trush) are stronger than any of the following: faster millitary training; more carry capacity (even with the recent nerf); longer lasting res; cheaper archers. And a wider tech tree is not a guarantee of quality, just look at pre-DE Saracens or nowadays Spanish.
also this. about half the top civs have narrow trees and are very specialized, including Mayans, Franks, Huns, and Aztecs
2 Likes
You are just focusing on pro players. Games against the AI goes into the late game most of the time and the Incas are much better in that case than Mayans and Aztecs. Rushing isnāt everything. And their slingers counter jaguar warriors.
you donāt determine civ strength against the AI. and games against the AI can also end very early, the AI is actually not very good against rushes
except Aztecs rarely go Jags.
2 Likes
The extreme AI is.
Almost everyone plays against the AI on occasion, either to practice or because they are afraid of playing multi-player.
actually its not. its one of the recommended ways to beat it.
thats true but they arenāt making balance changes based on play against an AI that caps out at around 1k ELO.
2 Likes
Well itās more easy to defeat them with a rush than waiting for late game.
Yes but you make balance around multiplayer. Otherwise they wouldnāt change anything at allā¦
1 Like