I’ve seen a lot of discussions about limiting Civs in the future, mostly from ranked players. While I disagree with them, I do understand their problems with how bloated the civ selection is becoming and how hard it is to balance the game.
So I wonder how people would feel about Single Player Civs. As in Civs that have campaigns and can be used for Skirmish, Scenario Editor and Unranked MP. But aren’t selectable in Ranked Ladder, similar to how Romans were originally supposed to be. This would give Campaign players more content without disrupting the balance in the Ranked Ladder.
Vote below if you agree or not. I’m genuinely curious to see if this be a well received compromise.
We already have that, it’s called Chronicles. This concept could be expanded in the future to other “Spin off” games. Something the 3 Kingdoms should have been.
I would prefer no further multiplayer civs. but every new DLC that gets added before fundamental issues in the game get fixed is another slap in the face of the fanbase
It must be because they think that us multiplayer ranked players would not buy that dlc if it wont affect multiplayer. Maybe its better if we just slowly leave the game if it continues.
I think there is a large group (not necessarily the majority) or ranked players that do want new civs regularly because else there isn’t really anything new to learn. Most competitive games have a regular influx of new content like new champions, maps, weapons, skills and so on to keep things interesting. A game can’t really grow in popularity if there is nothing new, people will eventually get bored of it.
Every time there are new civs it’s an exciting time where people can go out and try new strategies instead of just repeating the same build orders every single match for years.
But at the end of the day the opinion of the player base doesn’t really matter. We vote with our wallets and DLC with ranked civs just sell better then the ones without.
Don’t the statistics show that ranked players are a minority anyways? Yeah, there was loud backlash towards unranked Rome, but I consider it a special case because a) Return of Rome had a bunch of other issues, and b) Romeaboos exist in every historical RTS community
Yet there was no audible backlash towards lack of Chronicles civs in ranked from them. 3K civs in ranked were viewed either ambivalently or negatively. Rome does seem to be a special case.
Adding new civs is nothing more than chasing a dopamine hit for those who aren’t satisfied even with 50+ civs.
They get a new civ, play excitedly for a few weeks, then get bored. Their map filling desire kicks in again, and they wait for the next new civ for another dopamine hit.
Usually its those who buy a dlc asap so they can abuse the bonkers stuff until nerf. I always wait before buying so i don’t get scammed by bad dlcs in other games, but here I get in multiplayer even if i don’t buy it.
While I agree somewhat, the types of Civs I’m referring to in this poll are medevial ones. So essentially any civ that existed from around the events surrounding the collapse of the Western Roman Empire up to early Colonial Times.
These would still be considered part of the regular game, but wouldn’t be available in ranked ladder. They can also just do more gimmicky stuff if they make civs like this.
Otherwise there’s no reason one side of the community has to suffer just because that primary monetisation method of this game is flawed and outdated.
I think most of the people you describe(and not just in reddit) don’t care or don’t know if the 3K factions are real civs or not, they don’t care if those are outside of the timeframe and they don’t care if heroes were not a thing outside of campaigns for 25 years of this game.
Perhaps we should stop adding new civs to the main game and instead create a side-branch and add all the edgy / forgotten / missing medieval civs to that side game. Even if the side game got banned in a few countries for whatever reason the main game would still be available to play. Moreover we could even incorporate some AoE 3 or AoE 4 features into that side game.
I voted yes, but I don’t think this is a great solution, personally. I think a better solution would be a civbuilder DLC – one that adds the ability to create new civs (without replacing existing ones) in a way that is compatible with all game modes except ranked multiplayer. I’m thinking a cross between a more advanced version of the Krakenmeister civbuilder and the WarCraft III unit editor, including the ability to create new bonuses, unique units, etc. rather than just combine existing ones in new ways.
The DLC could also come with some example civs, new graphics to be used for unique units, and campaigns/historical battles that demonstrate the possible ways it can be used.
I realise I’m suggesting something wildly different from the original idea here. It seems to me that the kind of people who want more civs but don’t care about competitive balance are never really going to be satisfied with the rate official civs are added, and some of them like to design their own civs, so this seems to me like it would be more likely to satisfy them if executed well.