This is my First post so please forgive me if its not that good. But i dont see why people think the new sicillian and burgundian technoligies would break the game i think its an refreshing sight of well 10$ but something that was missing for a long time, And even against the Dev who said “they wouldt put new civs in”
i think we should just all calm down a bit and look how it folds out when the dlc comes out i dont think neither of the new stuff is broken and people shouldt get so mad at it
“For now”
Tbf, it is broken, but this always was the case (since AOC) and they were nerfed
So, I don’t see a problem with it being BOA (Broken on Arrival)
and people just respect that BOA is a thing but it dont inherantly break everthing since ms with soon enough adress it
plus i dont think that much is clear when it comes to the tech tree
There are tons of legitimate questions and concerns to have regarding that DLC, but half the player base reacted as if they made two civs with nukes. The percentage of people who actually read the disclaimer (or remembered about it for more than 2 seconds) must be staggeringly low.
yeah, just wait for february, threads will be really fun then.
Feedback like “those UTs look too much like AoE3” is perfectly fine but a full caps rant about how the DLC will 100% kill multiplayer and let people with the new civs win all the time just can’t be taken seriously.
My boy go to the report a bug forums right next to this one, you will find almost the same number of post, despite that here we have like 50 balance suggestion per week.
The game is not even in a good condition to add more stuff without even fixing critical issues, the source code of the game is really old any slight modification will cause several bugs, the new aoe3 functions will introduce more bugs, the also daily free civ rotation will cause issues for MP, just look at the complains for the simply UI latest changes and that was only visual, can’t imagine how much it will break the game now.
This is not negativity just for fun it is in fact a real and well documented complain, none of their patches have been free of bugs.
That is about performance, if we talk about balance, let me tell you we just had 11 months of INDIANS and KHMER domination in all team games, releasing broken civs that will get fixed eventually sounds not that bad right? well the khmer farming bonus wasn’t really changed until last month, so that was 11 months, imperial camel has been broken since 4-5 years ago probably more if we count the hd, so with that evidence giving 5 broken bonuses and nerfing 3 will keep 2 OP bonuses for those civs that will change the balance civ.
On HD or voobly you were not able to pick civs without your enemy knowing it for ranked matches, but guess what here on DE you can pick your civ and your enemy can’t do nothing about it, if you don’t own the dlc you are not going to be able to mirror it, so this will have a negative impact in ranked games.
Campaigns are somewhat entertaining for one maybe two times and that’s it, the players affected by those changes are effectively those who play the most the game.
Look at the 2 new civs, they are a french town and a barbaric small town that was in italy, the work behind those 2 civs by just changing the krepost and the castles a bit, is not worth the name of an expansion.
And to finish this explanation, they said the first official expansion, meaning there will be more!!!
Burgundians were not Franks, and Normans were neither “barbaric” nor a small town in Sicily.
The Normans extended the Kingdom of Sicily to it’s greatest ever projection of power, and brought a lot of french High Society norms and customs to both Sicily and England.
You are just mad because the game is not going to be stale and predictable forever, at this point.
Calling the Normans a “a barbaric small town that was in italy” just shows a great ignorance of the Middle Ages.
I am talking with little respect for those 2 civs because they were not big or important at all, the game doesn’t include all countries, get it over it has to be relevant empires, there were already a lot of historic inconsistency in civs like incas, so don’t come to me pretending to know something you don’t, cause this game lost the historic accuracy long long time ago.
For the Middle Ages? They were massively important!
Normans and Burgundians were so relevant, even the pre-Ottoman Turks recognized them.
Normans were one of the main people fighting the Crusades, even.
Physician, heal thyself.
This is not you 1999 game anymore, adapt or lose your precious ELO.
Instead of being a “forum warrior”, why do you not just accept that most people want more civs, and that it will be good for the game?
September 30th 1999, exactly
exactly, this game has never put historical accuracy first, and always put game-play, enjoyment, and balance over historical accuracy.
its not about being a forum warrior proclaiming everything will be get more broken. I just think its alot to soak in and firstly let it play it out before discussing the dangerous concequences of knights return 50% of their gold when fallen
for me its just that people should just chill first and not be to over aware of what will break the game further since we dont have evidence of it neither did it release yet
thats what they always aimed for seeing from there progress in the hd dlcs
That’s just toxic behavior
Real gamer here wants us to play real games
Some People have their Toxic sides one currently still banned as also they have their right to comment and discuss here
Yes, but they can be respectful and not attack an entire community for the sake of their community’s issues
true as some purposly do it, and other just try to stand a point
listen i just Think everyone should be allowed to talk freely here, just calm down with all the threads that new mechanics from a 10$ dlc will destroy everything
Same here, but only respectfully