The problem of AGE IV explained in one video

The problem with AoEIV was and still is that it was released incomplete and is still missing things.

Professionals and technicians advise for the vast majority of balance issues, bugs and a good competitive scene. For game design, bugs and content the devs choose and listen to everyone.


A lot of the sentiment in the comments is along the lines of “competitive players shouldn’t get the game changed for them”. I find this very ironic @TsudaTumiko considering you seem to want AoE IV to be a completely different game.

The same goes for the quote that just because you’re good at the game, doesn’t make you good at games design. This is true! But most players aren’t good at games design. Sorry, it’s the truth. So I don’t think it’s sensible to single out competitive players.

The developers make the game. The developers ultimately make the choices based on how they decide to take on feedback from across the playerbase.

If one developer chooses to listen to competitive players more than any other demographic, that isn’t the fault of competitive players. Competitive players expecting their opinion to be taken as law is a mistake, but again, I’ve seen a lot of non-competitive players make that mistake!


If devs actually listened to pros, we would’ve got a lot of highly requested features (offline replays, password protected lobbies, option to hidden civs, more gamemodes) already.


yes but also pros who arent willing to make necessary changes until is too late like the UU buff which the reason of why they didnt it was basically becaus it annoys competitive scene or the multiples pros that were part of the council which if its true or not if they were listened in the end but its influence was mostly negative to the build of thsi game and most changes were done by the mutiple report from sp players, user from thsi forum and some from reddit which is a place where negativity to criticism is too prevalent.

Tournament level play comes with a separate set of rules and a hand picked set of maps. There are many differences between what a professional level player experiences from any other player. Also, professional players have a difficult time getting their input received and frequently speak to this. When a feature is changed or added to the game they have to adapt to that meta, they are often given early access to the patches to adjust to new gameplay. That kind of gives them a greater level of insight on the developments of the game, but it hardly means they get to decide the direction of gameplay and balance.

It is easy to cast doubt on the process without having a full idea of the innerworkings of it. Placing the blame on an elite class of people who decide things for you, potentially deciding things for themselves over others, is a common trope when someone may disagree with the status quo. The survey that they put out recently is polling interest on a select set of ideas that the developers are already workshopping. It also has prompts that take suggestions from all players, not just tournament level pros or in-house testers.

The video linked seems to be geared towards issues with FPS style games. The main reference to RTSes that I saw was a video from GiantGrantGames, but he immediately brought the conversation back to FPSes. With that being said, what is it that people believe professional players have an influence on, and how do those things contribute to “the problem” with AoE IV? Also, what is “the problem”?

This is the list that ShreddedNerd made to summarize his video essay:

Do these suggestions fall in line with what you are referencing the video for?

In the summary with the suggestions he makes I don’t quite agree that “they shouldn’t focus on e-sports” or “they shouldn’t focus on the entry level or weak player” and only “they should focus on the average and core player”.

No no, in a triple A game they should be able to focus on the first 3 sections at the same time and not mix them up.

RTS should have a casual section separate from competitive and with a different experience, at the same time it should have a favourable competitive environment (there can be a bit of RNG but without having too much gambling) and at the same time it should be accessible to new players without hurting the skill ceiling too much.

I think matchmaking, when you first start playing the game, should be more aggressive in assigning elo so you don’t have to lose 8-9 games to get real elo.

1 Like

wrong is their fault to make the statement at it can potentially ruin the experience for other demographic

16 civilizations, and so far the only competitive map of all is Arabia… because the developers only listen to the professionals, give him a round of applause

How the Meta can ruin a game like Overwatch, despite its graphics, something that only interests you here

1 Like