The Path Forward

I honestly love the fact that we are getting a new expansion with new civs, new campaigns, and co-operative play. i look forward to seeing the content. i really do. I’m also apprehensive about this because a lot of stuff that has been added to the game has been gimmicky in nature (Cumans 2 TC and Feudal Siege, Lithuanians relic bonus, various unique techs (Cumans, Vietnamese, Sicilians, Burgundians all come to mind), and while some of this stuff can certainly be fun, its also very hard to balance.

Going forward i would like to see the Devs take a step back from putting out new content. no more new events. No more new DLC. No more new game modes.

Instead i would like to see them work on the basis of the game. Bug fixes, cleaning up the ladder problems, disconnect problems, etc. Spend more time analyzing the balance and find out exactly what needs to change and how instead of knee jerking it and overnerfing civs for a quick fix. Take time and do things the right way.

Add in some of the non content optional stuff people have been asking for. things like regional unit skins for monks, rulers, and even potentially units could all be a good example of this.

12 Likes

They will never fix any bugs, only the most obvious ones like Lithuanian Relic bug or Coustillier bonus damage against Archer Armor class was fixed. Pathing is still stupid, villagers stop chopping wood randomly, villagers choose the longer path etc.

The game will never be balanced with these stupid baby step balance changes in every 3 months and the devs don’t remove idiotic things like

to admit their mistakes.

3 Likes

Those would likely be in the form of DLC.

It might be harsh to say that but I really don’t see the things you’re suggesting happening from an economical point of view.

AOE4 will have to be mediocre or less or Microsoft will invest considerably less money in AOE2.

I dont agree fully with all the things in the first post but there needs to be a stop with adding changes/events every month.this is no mmo game.

Bugged unbalanced which ever the case it needs to stop this year so people will get in to modding.

Tbh devs have done a good job with balance so far (maybe thanks to pros consulence).

About new civs, the issue seems to be that it’s hard to fit new “normal” ones into the game, considering a lot of bonus have been taken, and devs don’t look to be able to understand and design disruptive civs effectively (see the interview before the release of sicilians and burgundians and take a massive laugh to what those civs should have been supposed to accomplish: Age of Empires 2: Definitive Edition’s new civs are “disruptive”, but fans love it | PCGamesN)

2 Likes

I think they need to have some principles for balance changes. Current balance is just wrong in many ways and it also makes the game boring. You go to ladder and there is <10 of civs picked all the time and nothing new happens. There is many examples but I wont get into those. Just look at aoestats.io and it is just boring.

2 Likes

I totally agree. We got 6 new civs in almost 1 year, and here we go with 2 new civs on the way and we still have tons of balance problems, bugs, crashes and path-finding. Honestly they lately add civs too fast with weird new mechanics and bonuses that changing the game to make it different from the aoe2 that we know. I am not a fan of keep adding more civs, but if they should add then at least it should be after a good break from the last DLC (IMO at least 2 or even 3 years). I like the game and if we get a new DLC I will buy it but I am honestly don’t think the game need more stuff or civs and new contents at all, we have now 37 and with 2 otw we have 39 and thos new 8 civs were only in 1year and half which is a very big number and a very short period.

I like to see costant updates and new content in the game, and I think that regional unit skins are more needed in the game than new civilizations, which in any case I still like. I’m not an expert on balance, but if there is this issue they should work on that, providing other new content type as regional unit skins, indeed

1 Like

I am almost sure they will add 3 civs and less campaigns to justify 10 dollars by the next dlc, but that wouldn’t be the last dlc, cause aoe 4 is one thing, aoe2 devs in charge still need to recover a lot of money invested in aoe3 DE development and the maintenance of aoe1, both games are basically dead and they have to keep giving support to aoe3 for some years more, creating a deficit that they need to get back somehow and the best way is to milk out the only healthy player base of all age of empires series.

The limit was 48 civs, but with all the changes to the code they might be closing it in 45-46 civs, last dlc didn’t sell that well to justify more, but you clearly don’t see that reflected in their decisions.

Each new civilization added has to be broken to increase the selling, meaning balance will never be fair following that path, just look burgundians are now the best boom civ overall with strongest gold units at their disposal unlike the vikings, the poles or whatever civ is coming will have to surpass that and needs to have more unique features, like having champions on castle age or even worse having up to 3 bonuses to the same army composition, cheap, free upgrades and fast production or extra armor, that is like the worse thing that could happen to the game honestly.

Performance is not even their top priority, the freeze or stutter when someone clicks up to the next age is still present, random crashes, bad servers, lobby games don’t appear to everyone, bad MM, several new or old bugs come back at every single patch, like bad pathing for villagers and units jumping walls or walking above them, the path forward doesn’t seem promising for us the solid player base that enjoys multiplayer.

2 Likes

How do you know this?

1 Like

This seems an awful lot like personal speculation. They’ve said in the Gamestar interview that they’ll be willing to add more DLCs if the community wants some. The fact that we’re getting Dawn of the Dukes seems to confirm that Lords of the West wasn’t a commercial failure.

2 Likes

i’m not saying to permanently stop making DLCs and what not. i’m just saying to take a step back from it for it now. spend the next 6-9 months focusing on fixing stuff.

this isn’t completely true. there are <10 that are picked all the time because those are the absolute strongest, and nothing you can do will change that. there will always be civs that are stronger then others. but some of those civs have changed over the past year. Aztecs, Khmer, and Persians used to have insane playrates and have been supplanted by other civs. I’m actually suprised to see Magyars playrate so high during the current patch.

and also frankly - if you think this balance is bad - you should have seen it before they started making changes - we had maybe 5 civs that were actually good, and a whole bunch of really bad ones, like Turks and Teutons who are now at least mid tier. If you think it’s boring now you should have seen it before.

1 Like

Well said. Some of the balance changes happened just because some people felt bad about something, not because it was an actual balance problem.

2 Likes