Nobody really said these exact steps, so as a developer myself, I’d do the following:
fix the current patch mess IMMEDIATELY - especially the medals and drop off button problem
postpone this DLC and even split it: release 3 kingdoms as chronicles first
give us the Khitans and Jurchens, along with their own + Chinese campaigns.
That’s pretty much perfect.
I have just written a negative review on Steam for Age of Empires 2 DE. It’s sad and I would have never thought this day would come.
Super annoyed about the 3K and Heroes. Not buying the DLC if either is in ranked multiplayer.
Fucking sucks that we’ll still have to put up with that bullshit even if we don’t buy it.
They won’t postpone the DLC. The best we can hope for at this point is that they do not allow hero units in multiplayer.
It is true that people are more vocal when something goes wrong, but Chronicles has had relatively many reviews while being very well received.
That’s why I don’t believe the conspiracy theory that it sold poorly.
Current price needs to be halved honestly. Only Khitans and Jurchens are selling points but they have no campaign.
After the above changes, 10USD is acceptable.
15 bucks is acceptable if we get 2 more civs and at least 3 more campaigns. What is not acceptable, is to pump out new civs without campaigns. We’ve been campaigning for 25 years to add campaigns for every single civilisation that does not have one…we did get Persians, Britons, Lithuanians, Incas, Goths, Byzantines,
but we still need Romans, Mayans, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vikings, Slavs, Magyars and Turks (no, the last 3 cannot be seriously considered, given that Vlad Dracul is a mix with 3 civs and max 2 levels each)., as well as Celts (a 6 level Roman campaigns with 4 Roman, 2 Celt scenarios + Bannockburn to William Wallace sounds fine).
I have no issues paying 15 bucks for that. But I have issues that the decs pump out nonsensical RPG scenarios (V&V), short-lived states (3 kingdoms) as civs, and civs without new campaigns (Romans, Jurchens, Khitans), while not adding new campaigns for existing civs.
Here’s a very simple solution. At least a third of the community plays multiplayer actively. So instead of depriving us of some cool new civs by asking them to move those 3 civs to a single player game mode, just request them to rename the civs. If Tibetans were cavalry request Wei to be renamed to Tibetans, Wu to Bali, Shu to Tanguts (or something like that) and unique unit names changed accordingly. Much easier solution. Just let them release the DLC, have your favorite civ names, and let us enjoy playing those new units.
Not a solution. It’s that people don’t want them in ranked whatsoever. They can even quit the game.
I don’t see anything in this dlc for me…
Single player 99% of time, absolutely not interested in playing 3K civs at all and there is no campaign for civs i’m interested in (Jurchens and Khitanguts)
No idea how someone can design a dlc in such way
because you don’t design games to make everyone happy.
you design them to make the largest majority of people at least satisfied. Ideally providing options for as many players as you can.
Ill enjoy the campagin content, I may have wished it was seperated into a chronicles package, but ill still have fun with it. I know people who will have fun with the new civs in multiplayer who may never touch the single player.
Ill also enjoy the Khitans and Jurchens in the gengis khan campaign, getting an opportunity to replay these with new challanges.
Players who specifically don’t like the 3 kingdoms period to the point of refusing to play it but also dont play multiplayer is a very small bubble. not a significant majority of the playerbase.
But there is a playerbase in multiplayer that may not want 3K in the ranked games. You have to consider this
“annoying” players who may not like playing aginst the new civs in multiplayer is something theyll have thought of.
at the end of the day, rome had people who didnt like it, and it had people who may not have wanted it in multiplayer. Its in multiplayer, and those players either put up with it and compromissed or they quit. game devs arent going to be able to make everyone happy because everyone enjoys different things. that is not their job
Their job is to make a game fun and appealing, and if it doesnt appeal to you, dont play it.
For clarity. I think its fine to voice opinions and express disapointment in direction. Thats how Devs know what people want ideally and can then make choices on what will be the most fun for the most people. But its halriously unrealistic to assume that the game devs are going to be able to cater to every single player. its litterally impossible.
Case and point example. I like the addition of the romans into the game. We had multiple campaigns at this point where they were being “subbed in” by the Byzantines. I feel they did a good job focusing on the late Roman empire look which fits with those campaigns and the other civs that are close timeline wise (goths, huns) And In multiplayer ive enjoyed playing them.
But I know there are players who didn’t like their inclusion for insert completely valid reasons here. Those players who not have enjoyed that dlc and it makes sense they would be upset. I also think sometimes its that certain DLCs combined too many things and that meant that players who only wanted smaller parts or certain aspects got priced out of a purchase. I would have much rather just purchesed the romans for AoE2 and not picked up the re-re-release of AoE1. Likewise with chronicles, while I personally think Ill enjoy all of the content, I think most people would prefer if the 3 kingdoms was its own self contained chronicles package and then there was maybe a more developed dlc for the Khitans and Jurchens
It feels like a missed opportunity not to use Chronicles or something similar as sub-brand for specific time periods that can contain unconventional civs and different unit rosters without the need to balance them for the main game. A Three Kingdoms Chronicles could included converted versions of the other nations around China at the time. I’d actually really like that direction for the game - we’d get cool variety and there’d be loads of possibilities. Not everyone would be interested in side content like that, but doing it the current way, trying to please everyone, they’ve ended up pleasing very few.
The best decision to prevent the DLC from being a disaster at launch is to convert the 3k civs into proper medieval civs. They barely need to do anything new. The bonuses can stay. The units might need to be tweaked here and there. But otherwise, most of the work would be done, and it would make the core AOE2 fanbase happy.
The only extra thing that should be done is to rename the Khitans to Tanguts, because that’s what the civ represents. Castle + UU is Tangut, not Khitan. And, ideally, a campaign for each of them + the Chinese.
I can’t fathom pitting Liu Bei, Cao Cao or Sun Quan against BBC or hand cannoneers, who exist a thousand years apart. Nor can I imagine seeing Lu Bu one-man army wiping out swarms of infantry w/ superpowers. What should I expect next, scantily-clad female characters like Da Qiao and Xiao Qiao? That’s a big middle finger to Chinese history and deeply offensive. Keep the KOEI Dynasty Warrior shit out of AOE2!
This is what annoysme the most. I swear this feels like they are ruining the game. It’s not even a small mechanic that affects everyone like autofarms or the new dropping.
On another note, their civ designs are a mess as well.
100% should be postponed.
3K isn’t even the only problematic part—they also didn’t address the fact that Turks still have no answer to elephants, a problem that’s been waiting to be solved since 2016.
Lou Chuan is also overpowered and absolutely needs to be nerfed.
I first thought they should quickly move the 3K part into a chronicles tab.
But after taking a closer look at them, no. The 3K part is also very hurried and poorly designed. They don’t qualify as a chronicles DLC either. It needs a rework whatever route they take.
That’s a very small playerbase. Most ranked players care about civ bonuses and tech tree. Wu is a great civ for Nomad tg and hybrid maps. Shu might become the new favorite of Arabia tg flanks, should also be quite solid in some closed maps. So I don’t see why anyone would not want 3K in the ranked games. Given that Romans are a popular pick, don’t think ranked community cares much about timeline or historical accuracy.
Lmao. I’ve been reading a lot of reddit and forum discussions about this DLC but this is the most hilarious argument about what’s wrong with it.