It’s not that it’s in an ongoing development for 6 months. It’s more of a priority thing. Patrol isn’t at the top of their list. I don’t think anything would take that long while in active development. Roadmaps are mostly just to show a rough time scale for when these features are going to be released.
Read a little closer…? On the announcement itself they have addressed the issue.
I could be reading a different image to you, but I think there’s more listed than the patrol command.
What you seem to mean is “why aren’t the things I want on there”, which is fair enough, but if everyone defined that themselves we’d have a thousand roadmaps. What do you do when your ideal roadmap clashes with someone elses’?
Can we just appreciate that we have a road map finally? And whoever thought that every single thing we want to see addressed to be on the road map or fixed ASAP must really re-think about this whole thing.
What do you want to celebrate? Fixes for a game that’s not in the early access stage? Basic changes to UI that are correcting poor design choices that never should have been made (leaving most of the GUI issue not being even mentioned)?
Roadmap? When IV is going to release, summer 2023?
Having a patrol (Age of Kings feature from 1999) option for spring? I guess player colour selection (Age of Empires 1997 feature) should hit autumn 2022.
Considering how many games come out these days- mid-2022 might as well be 2026.
These days it’s a normal thing to have balance patches… Not sure what’s to appreciate- this game is not meant to die 3 months after release, so obviously they have to tweak it constantly to keep mp scene at least semi-fresh so basic support comes with the package.
Not sure who’s the tech lead over there (or whatever is the title of a guy that picked this engine) but that might have been a bad pick for this position. It looks like Devs are struggling with serious issues behind the scenes and instead of expanding the game they are working on core things that meant to be ready for normal release.
It reminds me of ME Andromeda and the fact that picking Frostbite 3 engine lead to a double-digit number of months wasted implementing basic features required for it to support TPP RPG format.
From the positives- of course, it would be bad if it didn’t exist, so it’s good I guess.
And being realistic is better than overpromising. But that’s about it, considering the profile and importance of this game.
Those are internal problems we have no control over.
All we’ve been able to do is provide feedback and hope they implement it in due time.
Is the current price worth the current state of the game? I would say not really.
But neither is it a total disappointment. The game did pretty well at launch actually and the quality of the campaigns is nice IMO. Multiplayer is still really fun for me but I haven’t had the misfortune of meeting any glitch exploiters so far.
I don’t think I agree with the ME andromeda/Cyberpunk comparisons people keep making considering how badly those games released. Literally unplayable.
Whereas generally speaking Aoe IV is a perfectly serviceable game.
Should @Fryapan90 be happy about the roadmap? Sure, he’s interested in seeing the feedback finally implemented. Ultimately most of us want this game to improve and this Roadmap is a gesture towards that.
Now if Relic fails to meet the roadmap we will have something to criticise them with.
I never used the word celebration, you did. All I’m saying is that you can still show appreciation that they are doing something good like showing us a road-map that’s been wanted by the community for quite some time now, while still having things you want to see fixed and/or addressed.
We wanted to know if they are listening to our feedback, and also to provide us with a road-map. Well they did and they have stated multiple times that they are, but now when they finally showed us a road-map, let’s start whining about something else. Why?
Everyone should know that it’s impossible for them to please everyone with a road-map that works for everyone, and just because something isn’t on this road-map doesn’t mean that they aren’t working on it behind the scenes, as well as we have not the full patch notes details on this first major patch.
This won’t be the last road-map, as I’m pretty sure that they will continue to give us new road-maps in the future with further content announcement. It’s OKAY to show some appreciation and gratitude that they are going into the right direction, while also know that there are things still in need to be addressed.
So how about that we take a moment now to chill, and await the first long waited patch for the game that is said to come as “early Christmas” present and we go from there on-wards.
Edit: Road-map are never final and will always change in development, so we might see things switching place with each other to get them sooner than expected.
I’m also thinking that their engine is biting them on every tiny thing they try to do, which might be considered quite easy in another context. But, Tbf, I think it was a plausible one to stick to something that was working for them. Once they found out all the issues unfolding when not doing a CoH-like game, they couldn’t just go “yeah, ■■■■ it, we made a mistake and need to start over”, when they were already late. Especially if there’s no expertise in another engine or let alone writing one. So they just played their hand as well as they could and I don’t think, any one person is to blame for that.
No, the general consensus is that the game is both good and enjoyable, as evidenced by the concurrent player count and the user reviews. Given the amount of confident predictions that we had another DoW III on our hands, I have to laugh a bit when people try and paint Age IV as anything less than a solid success.
This isn’t me saying “don’t ask for more”. This isn’t me saying the game is perfect. So don’t take it that way, alright?
All I’m saying is that “general consensus” on most things is a lot less “general” than people think. This roadmap has made me pretty confident that they are listening, even though some folks understandably want things faster (regardless of how possible that is).
These things do not contradict each other
Being fun doesn’t nullify the objective fact of the lack of basic features - and the real problem isn’t that they are coming in slowly. The issue is nobody thought to put them in in first place.
Obviously there’s a matter of the deadline, but delaying games, to put it lightly, isn’t an uncommon practice and since we don’t have access to a parallel universe- we won’t know if delaying IV 6-9 months would be a better course of the action.
Early access format, as long as it’s named as such, isn’t potentially any real issue. You only release game once and once people move on it’s even harder to make the second impression that would make them to not only go back but also stay, to sustain multiplayer community.
IV is totally fine and fun to play, sure. But Age of Empires IP is creme de la creme of the genre, one of the most recognizable PC series, and its success and impact is important for far greater things than just the bottom line for studio execs at the end of the fiscal year.
Indie strategy scene is big on PC, but RTS games like that aren’t big part of it, and I’d just like to see a game of this type on AAA level of size and production values, that is transcending the usual level of RTS popularity and spearheads RTS to broader awareness among younger players.
Blizzard is pretty much dead, and we’ll sooner see Mario as a playable CoD character than see EA make a new, honest CnC or BfME game. For the most part- it’s either MS or no one (ANNO1800 is super strong, but that’s a different subgenre, and Settlers are a big unknown but most likely will remain also its own thing. So no luck with Ubisoft).
I’d definitely argue that lacking basic features would impact perception of the product. For example, people frequently criticised the decision to go with three factions in Dawn of War III, as well as the limited map pool on release, the types of cover provided and the lack of “sync kills”. There were arguments about the art style and whatnot, but irrespective of whether people came from vDoW, DoW II, or another franchise entirely, over the past five years the most comments I’ve seen about the game needing work was to do with these areas.
We can see similar trends in some of the Age IV criticism, but the difference is these aren’t enough to harm the product itself to any great extent. Every issue is important to someone, right? The ultimate line in the sand is whether or not these add up to push the product into one of two general states: “is bad”, or “is good regardless”. Generally speaking, if the only thing someone can say about a game is “needs improvement”, that’s the same as “is bad” (when boiling things down to two possible outcomes). Based on that, it’s very hard for us to know why so many people like Age IV (just as it’s hard for me to work out by myself why DoW III was so universally rejected. It’s evident that it was, there’s no argument there. But - like here - there are a lot of different reasons that add up to the overall judgement). All we (non-developers) know is that people do like this title. Pretty substantially.
I get that you want more. I get that you want them to pour as much money as they can into Age IV and make it the best they can. I’m not knocking either of these two things.