Interesting. Did it work the way I suggested? What does “very little success” mean?
(I confess I never got into Empire Earth – to me it felt like a poor man’s AoE, much too unfocussed.)
It was similar to kraken tool you could mix and match units bonusus and make custom civis.All it did was people making op civis which was funny to play with.
2 Likes
That’s the difference between like, the hard core fans of the game such as the ones who engage in online communities like this forum and the casual fans who just play the game occasionally.
The latter don’t really care that much about thematics other than being weirded out by the strange looking Civs in the china DLC.
They are very good games, except EE3…that game was a weird mix between Rise of Nations and Warcraft/Age of Empires 3 with only 5 ages and atrocious goofy dialogues like “i’m behind you…behind you, but a little certain” or “i’m like a camel fart, fast and loudly”…
I mean I assume it’d be for unranked or even singleplayer-only so it doesn’t matter much if someone designs OP stuff.
1 Like
I think it’s good to have that option (especially if there are some rules for it, like in the civ builder tournament a while back). I think there are enough AoE2 players who want to design balanced civs that it wouldn’t just get used for that. The main problem I can see is that if it’s easy to use and easy to share civs, it would be hard to sift through the many bad civ designs to find the good ones. (This was the case with the Krakenmeister mods.)
Perish the thought!
1 Like
This should be emphasized HEAVILY!
As an aside if it doesn’t do the work of making new effects like say you want an archer that has a forked attack that strikes 3 different units? The game won’t obey your request
It likely can’t create new UUs from scratch and many of us aren’t ordained with art skills. And anyone coy who thinks they can use AI to make a new unit model… first of all shame on you and secondly it can’t and it’ll look godawful!
So it will be mostly rehashed powers and uus. Sad
It should be like the Mii Maker, a menu with a ton of customization options.
Make them OP or painfully weak in the current meta so people won’t rally to push them into ranked like they did for the Romans.
Like the Ethereal Crossbow in Heretic? That’s an oddly specific requirement – I wouldn’t think that would even work well in an RTS. Also what would that represent historically?
When I say “create new unique units” I’m imagining that you could make a new unit in the sense that it wouldn’t overwrite an existing unit and you could set its stats and graphics freely. This was possible (and very user-friendly) in the WarCraft III editor, if you ever used that.
Like on the Wii? How would that work in AoE2, with its prerendered 2D graphics?
1 Like
Something with multi directional firing. The multi launch point organ gun with like 6 different bullet launch points would probably have this sort of mutli split shot effect?
Or a dude throwing something that splits. I always felt bolas should chain out from the target and hit 2 nearby units with the rocks detaching from the rope
Pretty sure that we have an organ gun already, that an organ gun is not an archer, and that 6 ≠ 3.
1 Like
That or some sort of spread weapon or disc or ricochet that chains to multiple targets could work. Just something we can say “look at us devs we did something you couldn’t!”
there are two ways of doing this:
area of effect damage (eg scorpion bolts or mangonel shots), which make sense
or a projectile that magically retargets after hitting something, which feels like magic and doesn’t really fit in aoe2.
that’s not how software engineering works? the devs would have to implement this into any editor we use in the first place.
But what would happen if part of the community requested the inclusion of a certain civ in ranked, but another part objected, whether for gameplay or thematic reasons? In this new AVT’s sacred ranked system, which civs would be allowed to enter? Some? None? And who would decide this: the players or the devs?
I’m not against this idea. But (as everyone knows) I’d like to see more African civs added, and given that the editor’s material is scarce and inadequate to represent them, many new units and architectural sets would be needed to make them even minimally similar to the current ones. And, if they did that minimum, why not also add animals, trees, flags, and other objects, since other regions already have them? Which leads us to the question of whether it wouldn’t be easier to just make a normal DLC.
And if the idea is for each DLC to bring editor material from a specific region, I fear that some greedy suit might thinking of sprinkling this material between the DLCs to ensure that those who want to complete their collection of editor objects buy several DLCs and not just the one of their immediate interest.
Wouldn’t it be easier for all the devs to just establish a final limit on how many civs the game will have, and then, with the collaboration of the community, choose which ones to include? I believe that there aren’t many more civs needed to complete the world map, anyway.
I am 100% behind separating SP and MP civs. The ranked multiplayer should have a fixed number of semi-rigid rules, while SP campaign section should be a place for experimentation and creativity.
1 Like
So what big goals can we even work towards?
we can make mods. that’s it
I’m not sure why you’d care what the devs think of you, but if that’s your aim, you’d be better off modding an open source game with no DRM. (I’m thinking of something like GZDoom, which is a heavily modded version of the Doom engine with lots of extra features – but that was possible because the Doom engine source code was released with a free license.)
All sorts of things. Do you really think the only possible goal in life is to mod a game in a way that wasn’t intended?
Sure, my suggestion wouldn’t provide everything that every player could possibly want with the exact details they want, but neither could anything.
I don’t really know what this has to do with my suggestion. I’m suggesting one DLC with a more powerful editor, and some campaigns demonstrating what that editor can do. I’m not suggesting a drip-feed of object-only DLCs. Currently new objects don’t even require DLCs (e.g. in the scenario editor I can place unique units from the Alexander DLC even though I don’t own it).
Probably not. Some people want no limit to the number of civs, some people want only a small number of specific civs but they don’t agree with each other about which ones, some people want existing civs to be split into more granular entities, some people want existing civs to remain as they are, some people want some existing civs to be reverted to how they used to be, some people want no more civs, some people want fewer civs, etc. Also some people (including myself) would disagree about the idea of needing “to complete the world map”, and there are other reasons for wanting (or not wanting) certain civs to be added.
1 Like
Well, the steam rating for the 3K DLC is still 48% based on both the ahistorical campaigns and the civs included.
Yes, the TLChieftains DLC also is at 48% but it was because of the campaigns’ AI and then the botched up balance of the civs. Not about the civs themselves.
Also, from my own anecdotal evidence, the majority of casters and proplayers do not like the 3K civs.
So in conclusion, Reddit does not represent reality. No surprise there!
1 Like