What is wanted and what is actually needed are two different things.
When you know, you know.
Sir, r/Im14AndThisDeep is on a different website.
1 Like
Still deeper than a mindless, map-filling desire.
Nothing will never be as shallow as your attempts to do some sort of stupid historical revisionism. It is well known that the first three DLCs were nearly universally loved and the game itself was in its best state on between post-DoI and pre-RoR. This is not arguable, this is objective fact. That’s why said DLCs are part of the base game now.
The downward spiral of quality only began when they began experimenting with things that didn’t need experimention, even the latest DLC is a victim of that because if has remnants of 3Ks design in its campaign, which is why said campaign has been so vehemently criticised.
doing what some people ask for is a bad thing if it goes directly against what was promised to way more people and is forced upon all of them.
considering how quickly the first DLC was released I find that highly unlikely.
the first DLC (Sicilians and Burgundians) received widespread criticism for using single use techs (especially The Button)
DoI already received lots of criticism for introducing units like the shwarma rider and other dumb gimmicks.
They never “promised” it. It was kind of the opposite. Assuming that most people would want more content the brought the “bad news” that they are not planning to make new content.
Only a very small portion of the player base that likes playing ranked but hates learning new civilisations doesn’t want DLC. Everyone how just plays single player or just vs. AI with their friends can simply just not buy the DLC and has no negative effects from them other then having to look 1 second more before finding the civ they want to play.
Not even the majority of ranked players hate that there are new civs. I bet most people would have been bored of the game by now if they never made and DLC.
It took over a year. The game released in 2019 and the first DLC released in 2021. The DLC wasn’t particularly big so they definitely didn’t need all the time to make it. They were working on AoE3DE and decided to make AoE2DE DLC again because people asked them to.
They were clearly inspired by AoE3 which they were just working on. So they tried out if the AoE2 community would like similar mechanics too but they didn’t. Sometimes developers have to take a risk. AoE2 as it is wouldn’t exist if the developers didn’t make some decisions that made it clearly different compared to AoE1.
1 Like
it’s a statement they made when advertising for the game. if you don’t like the word “promise” suggest a different one. As a consumer I should be able to trust statements that are made during promotion of the game.
how can you even believe this yourself? It is so obviously false. I have played with noob friends, and the first thing they say when I try to get them to play ranked (or even against AI) is “I will never get into this game, because there are too many civs” or “just tell me what civ to pick, I don’t know which one”. And then, when we play, the first thing they do is pause the game so they can check what the enemy civs (or their own when picking random) do.
now compare that to the time between other DLC (not counting chornicles which was made by the capture age team). it takes them at least 6 months to make DLC, so it took them just over 6 months to break their promise statement.
no main-line DLC has been particularly big. Why do you think that the first DLC would take any less time than eg Dawn of the Dukes or Dynasties of India? (If anything the first DLC would take the longest to develop)
where were the people asking them to do this? there were already lots of voices about too many civs, and civ bloat.
It seems more likely to me that some suit got greedy and called for more income.
But more importantly: None of this would be an issue, if they simply allowed playing with older datasets like they did with aoe2HD. Or at least give some form of ranked play to lobbies, where we can play with mods. then they could add Polynesians, The Duchy of LittleFarthingdon, Martians, and Jedi and it wouldn’t bother anyone.
Right now anyone who wants to play even aoe2 matches is forced to play against these stupid new civs additions, because Ranked Queue is the only practical option.
2 Likes
The fact that you lump the Polynesians, a real, diverse culture with historical significance, in with a bunch of fiction is extremely offensive and out of touch. I get you think that they’re a ridiculous choice, but imagine people from Polynesia reading that part of your comment.
4 Likes
Unless the DLC comes with a rework that changes a non-DLC civ significantly – something which every DLC that adds new standard game civs has done since DoI.
1 Like
Why keep insisting on the same points again and again?, clearly there are enough people who like the new content or otherwise they would have stopped doing a long time ago, they are not going to keep DLC if no one if buying them. Why are you so invested in hating the game?
If you accuse people of falseness, where do you have the poll that states your arguments are validated?, “just my noob friends” is not representative enough
We are not a loud minority.
Having fewer but well-crafted and distinct civs would be much better than a gazillion clunkily crafted, unfitting civs with dozens of overlapping bonuses and identities.
They are no longer enriching the game by adding more civs. They are stripping civ bonuses, diluting their uniqueness, and introducing more and more questionable mechanics. They are essentially creating one civ at the expense of damaging multiple others.
1 Like
I said “bad news”. More like calming down expectations.
People would probably say that if there were half as many civs or even 1/3 as many. Above a certain number it becomes hard too choose. I mean even if they want to pick up Star Craft 2 some people struggle to choose between 3 civilisations.
Also if the civs are in a DLC you can’t choose them anyway so, doesn’t that make the choice easier.
There are clear size differences. Dawn of the Dukes or Lords of the West just added 2 civs to existing architecture sets and had barely any changes to existing civs (just Winged Hussars for Lithuanians).
Dynasties of India and The Last Chiefs introduced 3 new civs with 2 new regional units and heavily reworked an existing civ.
The Mountain Royals is kind of inbetween, only 2 new civs, medium rework the the Persians but 2 new regional buildings.
The 3 Kingdoms introduced the most new civs and new regional units, and also reworked the largest number of old civs in one DLC.
V&V is the smallest DLC but it’s so different that I wouldn’t count it as a regular DLC, the same way Chronicles is definitely different.
Here, Reddit, Social Media and the official surveys they are doing. And in the end the people that buy the DLC.
If I’m a farmer planting more apple trees because people want to buy apples, am I greedy?
Corporations exist to make money. It’s greedy if they try to minimize the effort and use dark patterns to get people to spend money. Not when they make normal content, or even more content then people asked for.
If the DLC civs where noticeably stronger then normal civs, and not just for 1 week, then I could argue it’s greedy. But in reality they are just not perfectly balanced on release, half the time they are even underpowered. So not like it’s pay to win unless you only ever play in the 1 week after a new DLC release. But then how do you get practice in-between DLC releases? All civs from the current DLC are all really bad right now, besides the Tupi which are just average.
1 Like
i went for an escalation of absurdity:
-real, but not big enough for the game
-real place, but not a real duchy. ie historical fiction
-martians, science fiction
-Jedi, just fiction, no science
even if just 10% of the player base likes and buys the DLC, that’s still profit. It comes at the cost of the enjoyment of the remaining 90%.
I love(d) this game. I am invested in stopping it being taken away from me/restoring what was taken away.
“only some people who play ranked don’t want new civs”, can be disproven by a single counter example of a person who doesn’t play ranked. it doesn’t require a poll.
“bad news” is not a good term for it:
- first of all it is subjective
- second, news are about things that have happened, not predictions for the future
that’s a fair point, but in general this was not an issue with aoe2 back in aoc or voobly days.
they are minor compared to the big expansions we had (AoC, forgotten). But the point is: the time between DLC doesn’t seem to correspond to the size of the DLC. It looks like they said “no more new civs” and started working on new civs within months. Just another case of their blatant lies.
seems to me that the voices for “there are enough civs” and those for “we want more civs” seem to be about equal.
the results of which they never seem to publish?
if you are planting more apple trees on your land, no.
if you are taking away land from your neighbours to do so, yes.
you are comparing apples and oranges aoe2.
so exactly what happenend?
effort reductions:
- barely any new architecture sets until the outcry became too loud
- less and less content in each DLC per $
- recycled community content (V&V!!)
Return of Rome having no aoe2 multiplayer content at launch, then adding Romans to ranked so that people need to buy it if they don’t want a competitve disadvantage.
Nobody asked for the bastard mode of Return of Rome, nobody asked for single use unique techs, nobody asked for magic shields and auras, nobody asked for 3 Kingdoms.
as if they ever managed to hotfix stuff within one week.
So you got no real info to back your claims then, just your opinion and superficial perception, Got it!!
The game is never going to be whatever you desire no matter how much you insist, and the game you seem to love is still there, the “HD version” where they were more conservative. You really need to assume that “DE” is another game with another design philosophy for a newer generation or you are going to keep getting dissatisfied
a statement of “all X do Y”, just needs a single counter example to be disproven. That’s basic logic.
a bait and switch like that deserves a refund
Since when “only some” equals “all”?
so? why don’t you refund them? do you really hope and expect they will revert all those changes?
The latest DLC had more content then previous ones.
Yes the price was increasing but that’s more of a general thing that is happening for all kinds of games.
I agree that this one was greedy. That’s why I never bought it.
I agree that this one was a bad move. They should make the Romans a standalone DLC or bundle them with some other DLC that has only AoE2 content.
I’m nobody?
1 Like
This is the original quote
This means all players who aren’t part of “very small portion of player base that likes playing ranked but hates learning new civs”, want DLC (or are at least ambivalent about it)
A single counter example is enough to show that this statement isn’t true.
it had less content than 3K, while costing the same (3civs and 3 campaigns, vs 5civs and 3 campaigns)
It has about the same content as DoI, which was half price compared to last chieftains.
why do you write stuff like this, if it’s just objectively untrue?
you asked for these? where?
Did you really want Return of Rome bundled into aoe2? woudln’t you have preferred it if it was standalone?
Did you ask for game-breaking techs liks flemish revolution?
Did you ask for magic shields and auras?
Did you ask for 3 kingdoms in aoe2?
I Want to ensure as a crafter I’m making civs people consider correct and worth learning to mod for. Help me so I don’t fail and become forced to be hated for no reason