This game is not competitive. change my opinion!?

leave your comment here ‘for’ or ‘against’, I want to develop my ideas together with yours


You might have better luck getting replies if you give reasoning behind your thoughts…


Competitive: of or relating to a situation in which people or groups are trying to win a contest or be more successful than others : relating to or involving competition. : having a strong desire to win or be the best at something. : as good as or better than others of the same kind : able to compete successfully with others.

Quick copy and paste of a definition. Whilst there is no “ranked” , people are being competitive to try and be the best through the ladder which has a rank… and the tournaments going on.

Maybe not everyone wants to be competitive at the game but I also do not want to play Fortnite. People have become very rich doing this.

As in poker, you just need a chip and a chair and someone to play against to be competitive (you can even compete against yourself to get better). Not really sure how you think your opinion will remove the absolute evidence that people are being competitive in the game as we speak.

Seems to be another thinly veiled attempt by the negativity camp to undermine what others are enjoying, despite the areas requiring improvement.

1 Like

This game is competitive, change my opinion OP.

By definition of the word you are wrong

It is competitive.

I think a game is good for competitive play when results are not so much luck based, but instead based primarily on skill. For instance battle royale games are heavily luck based and the results seem highly random in BR competitive games. This is not good competitive play.

If you look at the 2 biggest AOE 4 tournaments so far (Genesis & Steel Series) you will see that 7 of the top 8 players from genesis, also made made it to the top 16 in Steel Series and 5 of the 8 from Genesis again made it to the top 8 in Steel Series. These are incredibly consistent results considering both tournaments had large fields of over 500 players to get through. It means that pure skill and strategy are probably the biggest indicators of results in competitive play, rather than luck.

Only 1v1s might be considered to be competetive.
Others modes are unbalanced pile of rubbish.
Kinda sadge when even more complex game like CoH2 managed to keep good balance across all modes (Oh but thats only because community-balance members retook all the work which Relic spoiled)

a topic about why this game isnt competitive.

1 Like

It’s competitive by standard definitions, it simply lacks a great deal of things for which to compete.

Why work hard to climb a ladder as a commoner when there is no reward at the end of the day? You don’t even get to see an ELO lineup in game, let alone some reward akin to masteries for your success in the field.

Ehhh…see this really depends. There should be a rule somewhere saying that ‘‘as long as something is online, it is competitive’’, because that’s essentially every online game ever. But a game has 2 sides, the casual side and the competitive side, both which kind of live together in the same ‘‘house’’ (game).

Specific personal reasons make the player be or want a more competitive set to it, and rewards should follow accordingly. However the community is responsible for how much competitiveness is allowed, there has to be a balance in order to keep the game fun otherwise we end up having the League of Legends problem.

But if you played the game so far, quickplay not with bots, you’ll see that even in quickplay most people are competitive the better your skills are at the game. The game when it sees you have potential it pushes you forward against the competitive boiz. Which if you do not win against, you’re kind of stuck in that hell forever. And that will influence your perception of the game. Therefore your statement is invalid not only because the game’s competitiveness is relative to what types of players it attracts and sustains but also because it is an opinion that states a general fact of the game which has such a general relative to it. For it to be proven right, it would require a general majority to not be talking about patches, balance issues, bugs and exploits, as casuals love exploits and bugs because it makes the game fun while balance would be an issue only when something is ridiculously overpowered.

You wish for us to change an opinion that is as relative to what you want to believe as these 2 sides (competitive and casual) are to the players that coexist in the community. In such a case, the strong majority are proof of either being the reality and truth of the current state of the game.

The game is still incomplete. It’s too early to call it competitive or casual because it lacks some essential contents and features to make either more enjoyable. Better wait for a year of update and make the conclusion.


  1. By “incomplete” I mean the game still lacks some important features like map editor, campaign missions that are less monotone, color picking, random maps and civs, improved physics, true variety and flexibility (rather than only having a high sheer number of options but most are very bad or occasional) etc. It does not mean these features have to be there at the release. Nor does it mean they will never be updated. Nor does it mean the devs promised these before but failed to realize them. Nor does it mean they are false-advertising.
  2. By “essential” I mean I believe these features are needed for to attract either casual or competitive players and make them stay longer. It does not mean the game has to have them because other games do. Nor does it mean the game is essentially bad without them. Nor does it mean others are not allowed to like the game without them. Nor does it mean these are of the highest priority.