tittle talks by itself. we getting any new civs or anything soon?
1 Like
Please no.
The current civs are already unbalanced.
Fix them first.
5 Likes
If it’s like last year, I’d expect some news at Gamescom
4 Likes
3 New civilizations per year. Lets go.
Don’t care about balance.
6 Likes
Balancing? I have been playing for 2 years and the game has always had balance problems, sincerely if you expect that one day everything will be perfect you are dreaming, we need new civilizations, I have the game will become boring, I understand that for those with little experience it can be anxious having to learn new ones but in my opinion that’s what makes the game what it is, I have over four thousand hours in my accounts and I honestly don’t agree at all with you guys just waiting for the balance this is age of empire a game set in history and people not only play for the competitive, but also to immerse themselves in the most liked civilizations set in history, even playing at high levels, I get bored if I don’t feel attached to civilizations with my soul’ that I’m playing, and for those who have to complain, the older community is important not to be missed, it’s easy not to get bored if you’ve been playing for a few months, and one more thing, if you just want the competitive, you are playing in the society of the unstoppable challenge, anxiety and problems, the story is important and play a game just to be fast and beat the enemy without enjoying what you see and feels and feels, what sense should it have? what is the ultimate goal? earn money in a tournament? bullying a friend by telling him he’s the strongest, making others feel inferior? If I were you, I’d do a cosine analysis, from this comes the toxicity, not to accept that the enemies see you lose, even if you are playing in a team, and to think that your teammate is a noob, when he is just a person with a life who is trying to have fun, games played this way cause you to lose friendships, just for the reason you don’t want to play with a person because they’re poorer than you, where are we going like this? Thanks to this game I learned English and deepened the story, when I played, I played to feel what was in the story, I documented every day and dreamed, to feel there, where you can’t anymore, the charm of a medieval town, which has been lost, the soul of the Mongols and more.
This forum was once full of history, now it’s full of complainers.
9 Likes
My read on the radio silence is that major development — such as new civs — has been quietly canceled. The lack of a roadmap, layoffs, general low numbers and disappointing release, social media emphasis on aoe2, and similar things all feel related and eerily reminiscent of late 2012 AoEO.
Obviously, I could be wrong. Fortunately, it’d be super easy for my instincts to be proven wrong. I suppose all eyes are on August, which was the month in 2022 that the new civs were announced.
(Worth mentioning: in the event I’m correct, then aoe4’s major development post-launch would have lasted for less time than even that of AoEO.)
3 Likes
That’s never going to happen, content needs to be released balanced or not balance, not many people are eSports players, any RTS will have balance issues even sc1
2 Likes
After two years my personal opinion: It has been a huge mistake to give this franchise into the Relic’s hands. Aoe4 doesn’t have soul and identity. Just Yesterday i tried my last skirmish but i was not able to complete It: zero immersion.
I don’t think i Will play AOE4 again. It would need of so many improvements and changes (to make It more similar to what AOE should be) that It should be called remake.
For me, It was a failure and i’m very sad to Say It.
6 Likes
People simply have fun with different things. I loved to play competitively because i’ve always found it very satisfying to see myself improving over short periods of time. It was the same with school, sports and now work. Doesn’t necessarily lead to toxicity although there’s likely more toxicity in the competitive than casual scene.
As for the new civs:
Tbh devs kind of need to make a decision if they want to please the casual or competitive scene because if they release 2-3 civs per year being as asymetric as ottoman and malian they will run into big balance problems sooner or later.
1 Like
Sure but satisfying is Fun? I think it’s just satisfying, which doesn’t mean having fun, but handling it like a drug.
1 Like
That’s also my impression. Competitive is actually quite chilled and you sometimes end up having a talk with your opponent at the end of the game.
I correct myself, on the point of view that the competitive is less toxic for people’s maturity, I agree, it’s simply the goal of trying to win, if you play in a team some toxicity can happen, certainly in 1v1 there is none it’s a lot, even if I happened to find it
1 Like
I think that fun during match time of a competitive match is very limited since it’s lots of stress, also you don’t want to lose so you can become nervous quickly if your about to bottle an advantagous position.
Compare it to climbing a mountain with a bicycle. It’s a pain in the ass for hours but the breathtaking view from the summit makes up for it. Or a math excercise. When you start it means putting effort into it so your not really motivated. But once you’ve solved some equations and used some tricks here and there you start to have fun.
There’s also some strategical/tactical adaption, little twerks here and there which don’t mean lots of effort but can have a big impact. And having figured that out and executing it means fun. What’s also fun to me is thinking about what went wrong during a match I’ve lost during a walk outside afterwards. But yeah when playing competitively I’d say that fun mainly comes aftwarwards while when playing casually fun is all around while playing
@FloosWorld Yeah I’ve always thought that the AoE4 (probably all games of the series) has a very humble community, which might also be due to the high average age of the playerbase. SC2 is way more toxic in that regard.
1 Like
Yes, first they balance them and then they put civs in October…
Difficult, they didn’t do it last year…I don’t think they will do it now…it will be 2 civs (I hope they at least come with new campaigns) and be thankful…
Yes, at least AoEO was supported with 4 civs until October 2012…with AoE 4 we are almost 2 years into the game with only 2 new civs and no new campaigns…
Yes, I haven’t played it since January…if it doesn’t make a strong improvement by October (two good civs and campaigns), I’ll give up on the game…now I’m giving Sudden Strike 4 more…
There’s a huge number of players who play ranked and want a balanced game.
24585 players for 1v1
43244 players playing team ranked
So you are saying balancing doesn’t matter at all, noone would care?
Get out of your fairyland bubble…
That there will always be balance problems is a fact, you are right.
But if there are tons of SEVERE problems and idiotic and boring meta, they should be addressed before more content is added.
A lot of things CAN be fixed and improved, but are unaddressed until now.
TCs are one of them.
Units getting stuck on attacking buildings are another.
Shit unit pathing is another.
Age2 heavy cav (for 4 civs [malian and mongols having slightly weaker and cheaper ones] ) being super dominating in the current meta, especially in team ranked, is a FACT.
This has to be addressed.
Same as heavy age3 units of fast castle complety dominating age2 light units, is a fact.
We don’t need more civs, units or other content to further screw around with balance before this is finally taken care of.
We can have more civs, if Relic puts more effort into balancing the game.
Then, we will have more civs and balancing will be improved by a lot.
Current balance patches and updates are way too slow to address many existing issues. I think that is the main problem.
2 Likes
100% agree.
The problem is not new civs, the problem is the balancing and reworking of the game being ############# to almost being nonexistent.
With a normal (!) pace of updates and actual work done in fixing the game, we could have some new civs also.
1 Like
People who wants new civs doesn’t understand that after 3 months they will want more, after 6 , they will want more. Don’t get me wrong, I want new civs, but if every civ is flat and get boring in 1-2 months you will stop play the game if they don’t come up with new civs.
If they work on the current ones on the other hand, before releasing new, so you can have much more fun playin your favorite civilization, I think will be the best.
No one would stick to something unfinished.
And also, what do you think would new civs have unique ?
Basically spearman, horseman, archer, no matter what name it is, this is the playstyle of all civilizations.
You can put egypt, babylon or whatever, result will be the same.
Same units, same game, without much replayability.
Only few stats and looks will be different.
1 Like
A lot of players? really?
Lest see, according to steam spy, Age Iv has aprox 2 000 000 - 5 000 000 owners and you say that around 25000 play ranked, lest use 2 000 000 owners, that’s like 1.5% of players, WOW!
So you are saying that relic should care for the 1.5% of players? where are the rest? why so many people stopped playing ranked? of those that play ranked all care for 100% balance? I don’t think so.
That’s the reason why Microsoft will release more civs becase numbers matter a lot, not a single RTS game is 100% balanced and that’s ok. Again, I am not against competitive, I am a competitive player but Esports is a small % of players, a game needs to be fun and immersive to attract new players, a lot of people don’t even care about ranked and they play against AI or some friends, that’s why age 2 has a lot of players, it has a good amount of single player content, quality campaign, game modes and maps.
Do you know that most people that play sc2 today are in arcade mode?
So according to Carry_Potter_woll we will never have more civs because game needs to be 100% balanced lol.
Can you guys see how harmful are esports players to a game? they don’t want anyone to have fun even if they are a minority, they will play with boxes as trees if that gives them an advantage.
6 Likes
That potter dude is a troll anyway. All his posts are about complaining. Sometimes he said he’s not playing aoe4, sometimes he does. Overall there is a diffence about 7 % from best to worst civ. Sure, some civs have bad stats vs other civs but overall the balance is not that bad I think.
5 Likes