Reasons to love "Lord of the West" DLC

We’ve got a ton of speculation threads already, so I want to do the exact opposite: Remind people why they should love the new DLC.

NUMERO UNO: They aren’t done with AOE II

They didn’t just release DE with new civs and new graphics, all that, and call it good. They could have, and just tweaked the balance till it died off, but they’re putting in more content to keep growing and freshen it up. For all the concerns about balance, yes, it’ll probably be a rough few weeks after release and many tweaks down the road when these civs are released, but I think that’s a small price.

Them not being done with the design of AOE II means players like I (who practically only play the second installment) can continue to support their efforts in a practical way. I clearly understand having to pay for the DLC is a downside for myself, but I don’t mind supporting Forgotten Empires.

NUMERO DOS: They get more experience and design work testing for IV

Do we want IV to be fun? I do. If they start throwing things at the wall here, and seeing what sticks, there’s a good chance it does better on release than trying out a ton of new things all at once in one grand mess of a release. I mean, that’s practically III in a nutshell and there’s a reason I don’t play III that much.

I also see the fact that they’re still testing and implementing new things for AOE II as a possible sign that they want to model IV more to be like it and I’m totally on board with that. I’m not going off relevant sources or actual evidence for such a connection, but it makes sense in my mind.

NUMERO TRES: A short bit of time where everyone’s worried about how the new stuff will break the game and, for a change, is not worried about changing something about the game as is.

There’s been so few complaint about insert unit/civ/bonus here threads lately, it’s been peaceful. Everyone’s just theorycrafting their worst nightmares about the new stuff, meaning the rest of the game can have a largely peaceful nap away from the balance threads for a brief moment. I’ve needed that.

If you’ve got something else to enjoy about the new DLC, even before the DLC, that’s what the thread is for.

12 Likes

Hope for more expansions sultans of the east kings of the mountains chiefs of the plains etc.

9 Likes

They were never done with the game, the multiplayer is still the beta for the MP in aoe4, there are at least 3 different companies working in this game separately, that is why the patches have all those issues at release cause of the missing communication i guess.

Your assumption is wrong relic is doing the multiplayer only, all the changes in UI, civ desing are done by FE team, while relic is the only team developing aoe 4 features, so none of the changes here are some kind of bizarre test for the upcoming game.

I’m not too hyped for AoE IV. It could be good but in the end, I don’t think it will be as good as AoEII DE simply because isometric 2D RTS games are far more enjoyable than 3D RTS games at least for me. I also would have loved to see AoE IV covering a different era than AoEII (maybe world war?). I could be wrong though, I certainly will give it a chance.

8 Likes

A would have liked AoE 4 more to be an AoE 1 remake personally. Totally agree on 2d rts too.

3 Likes

Simply put. Getting more content to the game is great! More support, longer lifetime. Most people want civs from other regions, I don’t really care that much about that. But I do really like that they added Burgundians (Big hype for me) and Sicillians.

Shaking up the meta a little bit or introducing new ways to play, is always step in the right direction. Balancing is difficult and needs to continue, along with new content. Making it interesting over a longer period of time.

Not sure if this is a good argument. If they seem to prioritize the wrong things, then ‘not being done with AOE II’ can be a bad thing. I see some issues arise because of the new DlC. I dont think we need more civs. We already have more then enough. And if we need more civs, why do we need more european civs? Other regions are missing more civs. I have also no idea how the new DLC will work for ranked. I think that design would be terrible. And what about bug fixes / fixing broken things? Some things are broken for months, but the devs dont really care. A new DLC most likely result in more bugs, not less.

Microsoft already has more then 20 year experiences with the full serie, including all the remakes / remasters. I would say 20 years experience would be enough. Do they really need more experience?

I am not worried about this point at all. All new civs started OP and got nerfed into the ground in the next balance patches.

In the end nothing convinced me to love the new DLC.

3 Likes

Factually false, many even had to be buffed, like the Tatars.

3 Likes

yeah, it took a lot longer then that to nerf Aztecs among others

1 Like

OK. Change my statement to ‘almost all’. Many new civs started as OP and needed a nerf, but also recieved a nerf.

There is a difference between S-Tier and being broken. But yeah, it was time to finally nerf the Aztecs a bit.

If you think they should be done with AOE II, go back to Voobly. If you don’t, clearly you think it’s a good thing that they aren’t done with AOE II. Not sure how you could consider this to be a bad argument.

They didn’t have to re-invest resources into revitalizing AOE II or the Age series, and the fact that they did is probably a good thing. That they continue to give it attention is further probably a good thing. I was having fun with HD, but DE has been a quality upgrade I’m happy to have been given.

2 Likes

Problem is that this is not even true. Portuguese had to be buffed many times, long after AK release. Koreans always struggled with balance. Teutons and Turks have been difficult since the game realeased 20 years ago.

Not all civs are OP on release, not even the majority.
From the Last Khans, Cumans, Tatars and Bulgarians have been buffed multiple times. All the real nerfs were to the Steppe Lancer unit, an Bulgarians losing Paladin.

1 Like

It will take a while for AoE: IV come seeing as they’ve been teasing it since 2005.

  1. I’m glad the developers are spending time trying to make the game better, unlike HD which had very poor support. However I would prefer they spent time fixing lag and bugs than adding new content which will no doubt bring more bugs. Late game lag in multiplayer is such a common issue that has been going on for months yet the devs have only made it worse. Even against the AI my game stuttered every 10 seconds.
    I’ve been watching a lot of the 2v2 world cup and there have been several occasions where T90’s stats froze. There’s still no chat when you spectate live games, meaning community games and events like Regicide Rumble are much less fun for viewers.
    So yeah, new civs may sound cool but I’d rather they fixed the game first.

  2. I see where you’re coming from but Forgotten Empires aren’t working on AoE4.

  3. 11 true, the “TREBUCHET OP PLS NERF” threads were pretty painful.

As someone who never touches multiplayer, I’m just stoked for more campaign content, and (probably more importantly), more Editor assets for the amazing modding community to play with.

I’m not 100% sure what Microsoft’s plan is with Age4, since it sounds like it’s going back to the “less factions that are more unique” formula. Which may work, but I have my reservations, since trying to follow this StarCraft-esque formula was one of the reasons the RTS genre nearly died in late 2000s. I’m sure Age4 is gonna attract new players into the genre, but us fans of the series (and especially AoK) could have a hard time seeing a good value proposition in Age 4, compared to the loads of content DE has to offer. I certainly know that if Age4 doesn’t have a good scenario editor and is primarily aimed at the multi-player crowd, I won’t be as keen to pick it up right away.

3 Likes

Man you changed my opinion over the new civs. Thanks a lot.

I hope that they will release new campaings for ever :smiley:

2 Likes

HD had support for about 6 years, they never had the money to make it better, as a remaster microsoft made a lot of money investing nothing in comparison, then they used different companies so the guys balancing the game were not the same guys optimizing the game, such mistake was repeated in this game, if you wonder why the MP has too many issues is due another team doing it.

T90 was in fact using the older patch which is way better than the anniversary patch, so things could have been worse in WC.

The team that made the Userpatch and even skylabs the team in charge of the HD version agreed in one thing, the game code is so old and outdated that every single change might break another thing and that has been proved in both versions, new features will break something else that is guaranteed, the difference is that both userpatch and hd were releasing beta patches to test them, while on DE we all are the beta testers and have to wait until they fix it.

And to give the final stockade to those who claim that SP are the majority and they were asking for it, go the steam and Microsoft achievement section, i found out that less than 5% of all the players who have the game have even 10% of the campaign progress 111111111111111111111

1 Like

Single player doesn’t necessarily mean Campaign. Random Map games vs AI is an option. Black forest is not a Matchmaking map option and it, alone, counts for over 7% of all map plays. Once you consider 7% of all games played are played outside of Matchmaking and only on one map it’s really easy to make the case that a very substantial part of the playerbase doesn’t play a lot of matchmaking games. That means Public games, that means Random match games vs the AI.

It’s also fair game to mention that less than a fifth of players have ever won a game as the Chinese, according to achievements. I think we can safely say that any percentage you can pull on the achievements section doesn’t likely represent the totality of the players under it.

I don’t think a majority of players only play vs AI, but I don’t think it’s a tiny minority off of the statistics I see, and the people I talk to. I certainly don’t think we need to laugh at people who think it’s a substantial part of the playerbase.

3 Likes

…is what I play actually the most. I should really start with the campaigns one day, but I’ve already played most of them once already so no big incentive to start again.

1 Like