remain decency thats what im all about as some people ramble over stuff thats not even that complex as they think it would ruin aoe2 de
1 Like
I gave reasons based on facts, what are you giving to demonstrate that things wont be broken? like i said go to the report bug forum to see how bad the game is.
The other guy is attacking everyone who dislikes the announcement by whatever reason, pretending to make less their argument with silly answers, he is not even showing respect to the other forum users.
Yeah man lets chill, i have been chilling for more than a month now with the anniversary patch broken and sadly i remember every single bug introduced with every patch, but then again i donât know what i am talking about i must be crazy or inventing things.
1 Like
No, you just posted a lot of conjecture, with no evidence, and asked everyone to take your word on it.
We know nothing about the civ Tech Trees, or other changes the DLC may bring to the game.
3 Likes
There are situations that some civs perform better than others. Certain contexts that are important, however the game is neither borken nor particularly unbalanced in general. You have to factor in soo many player variables (skill level, playstyle, counters etc). Some people that create these â50 threadsâ of unbalance, arenât necessarily in a position where their criticisms are founded from a good place.
The new DLC is fresh and a new change of pace. Their UT, UU and bonuses are revealed, literally nothing else. Not even their team bonus, which means we know very little about their strengths and weaknesses. Shouting broken like it was a fact, is not necessary as there is too little info.
Balancing will continue, content will be produced and bug fixing will continue. This is a great announcement from the team, as this ultimately means that the game will be given continued support.
3 Likes
I mean, in this game something like fervor was broken. I can only hope there wonât be any game-breaking bugs.
To tell the truth I would rather see new DLC for AOE 3. I think there are a few options that could work for AOE 3.
AoE3 is sadly not proffitable enough to make DLC for.
AoE3 DE launched a month ago, and it already descended to 3 digits playerbase, despite getting almost weekly patches.
It is a dead game.
They should have launched it with a few more civs already, since they already had Berber and Ethiopian units.
It does not help that they shipped both AOE 1 and AOE 3 in a very buggy state at launch. I loved the original AOE 3 and the Wars Of Liberty mod. I just wish AOE 3 DE was shown a little more love by the devs and the AOE community.
AoE3 doesnât get a lot of love from the AoE Community in general, and for very good reason, it just isnât a very good AoE game.
2 Likes
For me, it is largely a point of principle that I think an e-sports game should provide a level playing field for all players, so having civs as extra content doesnât fit with that. It doesnât matter whether the new civs are broken or not, the mere possibility that the result of ranked games can be impacted by spending money makes me unhappy.
Having campaigns as paid DLC is fine. Cosmetic items would also be fine, but I can see that itâs a problem how to incorporate those things into AoE. Iâd prefer it if a way could have been devised to have appealing paid DLC that doesnât affect the outcome of ranked games.
Having said that, Iâll personally buy the DLC to support ongoing development of the game. The game is still very cheap, and ÂŁ8 to keep up with the game after over a year is very cheap compared to, for example, Assetto Corsa Competizione, which has had 3 DLCs at a total cost of ÂŁ38.47 released over the same period of time.
1 Like
A bad player wonât win against a better player just because he has access to some civs the other doesnât, especially considering that those new civs will be constantly tweaked and balanced with an active dev team those DLCs fund.
2 Likes
I didnât say they would, but the civ has an impact. If itâs a 1000 ELO difference, sure, the civs wonât matter. Can the civs swing a 1 ELO difference? 10 ELO difference? There is clearly some impact, but as I said, itâs largely a point of principle.
People who didnât buy the DLC will probably still be able to look up the tech trees of civs they donât, just not able to pick them.
A Burgundian Knight is still a Knight albeit a sturdy. A Sicilian one may not be as hard-countered as a generic one, but that could also be said about a Teuton one or one which has armour compared to one whose owner forgot to upgrade them at the Blacksmith.
Especially on lower skill levels, technique and strategic knowledge matters way more than some small number changes.
People have to adapt, thatâs a proof of a good game, not the proof that itâs getting worse. I still donât get why people are complaining about getting new content for a what is at its core a very old but excellent game.
I think that the most exciting part about DLCs are new civs and Iâm pretty sure Iâm not alone on that regard. The pros so far Iâve seen are very happy with new DLCs too.
I really hope they continue on that route, though I would like to see some more traditional civs too. Iâm not a big fan of single-use techs.
1 Like
I already bought the new expansion in advance, but I would like the developers to make new expansions mainly one (the next one of preference) aimed at civilizations and the American continent (North and South America). Among the civilizations, Mapuche (Araucans), Iroquois, Mississipians and Pueblos (Anasazi).
2 Likes
I would like the developers to do at least an online vote, to choose the next expansions, with more requested civilizations. In particular, I believe that American civilizations were little explored in Age 2. And here in the forums there are great ideas for them. my dream was that the mod American World would become an official expansion, but adding more native American civilizations.
3 Likes
American civs? mayans were already gone in the dark age for europeans, incas well we donât even preserver their language and they werenât a warrior civ oriented, so their existence in the game is simply wrong. Why would you like to add more historic aberrations?
Aoe 1 could have more american old civs for sure, at least they would be accurate in time, but for aoe 2 it simply doesnât fit. That is their mistake with the sicilians already, huns atleast were still present during the dark age but yeah their prime was during the aoe 1 era.
There arenât simply enough civs powerful enough to be considered for aoe2 since most of them were conquered or in control of others or just too small, it is not the same being in the history for one battle than being in history for conquered territory or expansionism, the concept of aoe 2 was that include the big civs that during that time had control of certain regions it was never to include every single flag in the game.
At this point 37 civs is just too much, devs ran out of ideas long time ago so now they are just taking aoe3 or aom ideas and repeating civ bonuses, adding more civs does hurt the quality of the game sadly.
1 Like
At this point, it is clear you have some kind of hatred against non-Aztec Nat-Ams and Europeans, both of which are paradoxical in the same person, and the first of which is very, very specific.
The new civs are coming regardless.
I cannot wait for the devs to announce the Tarascans.
3 Likes
You will be waiting a while 
I can wait, but will likely still get them. Specially since the announced LotW is not the last DLC.
But I suppose you really like being the clown.
2 Likes
what announcement?
Yes sir-ree, need some enjoyment in life