This is a clear example of “customers don’t know what they want” attitude at its finest

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

I know there have been several topics created recently that are very similar to what I am trying to convey here, but I have to create this topic anyway, since I’ll try my best to convey it a bit differently with the hopes that we finally get listened to.

I remember that the first few DLCs since 2021 have been a blast - namely Lords of the West, Dawn of the Dukes, and Dynasties of India - but also, The Mountain Royals.

The very first DLC showed us this current attitude, but in its early forms: we got civs nobody asked for, and gimmicky mechanics/techs (charged attacks, 1 time only techs such as First Crusade, Scutage, Burgundian Vineyards and Flemish Revolution). However, we got something that was an absolute blast: 2 new campaigns for the 2 new civilisations, and a campaign for an existing civilisation: Britons. The latter part is what we had been (or rather, have been) asking for 26 years now.

After a few months and patches, these gimmicky civs have been mostly corrected and their unique technologies largely fixed (even though the First Crusade and Flemish Revolution should be reworked/changed into something more permanent, in my honest opinion, but that is irrelevant) - and so we got to love them. The Dawn of the Dukes followed with almost no gimmicky mechanics (Obuch and their armor-stripping attacks), but everything else was very similar to the Dawn of the Dukes - making it a technically perfect DLC - 2 new civs (which we also asked for), 3 new campaigns (one for Lithuanians! Woohoo!), and these civs basically felt like AOE2 civs since the get-go. That’s what made it the most well received DLC in DE history.

Dynasties of India has been very similar, and it fixed the convoluted Indians as a single civilisation, and also added very few gimmicky mechanics/units (Shrivampsha rider, Chakram thrower, Urumi sworsmen) - but all of those have been on the more balanced side and using already pre-established precedents from the former 2 DLCs. Campaign wise it was great, but the number of civs with no campaigns have remained the same.

The things started to go a bit awry with Return of Rome - I, personally, loved it and had immense fun with its campaigns. But the problems were - not all of the campaigns had been ported to AoE2 DE. That’s why it has mostly mixed reviews…that and the increased price tag. We literally got campaign ports from Aoe1 to Aoe2 in the first few days of release by mods, so if the devs did that, the reviews would have been far better. Additionally, we’ve had some issues with the Romans and further gimmicky mechanics, such as Centurions increasing the attack speed and speed of Legionaries (that is where it’s basically passed the “acceptable” point of gimmicky mechanics). But Romans belong to Aoe2 just as much as Huns, if not more - and we can thank The Conquerors, as well as the Alaric campaign for that. No Aoe2 camapigns though, and that was a bummer…why not add a Roman campaign to Aoe2, with the final 1-2 scenarios played as e.g. Celts?

And then this attitude “customers don’t know what they want” showed its final form. We did ask for Georgians and Armenians, we did ask for new campaigns, we did ask for new architectural styles, and we did receive these things with The Mountain Royals (apart from the new architecture), so thank you for that, that was a direct hit! But the miss was evident: extremely gimmicky bonuses, such as Monaspa/Knights strength bonus and HP regeneration, withthe subsequent power creep that broke the meta. It’s basically the Lithuanian relic bonus, but worse - the issue with Lithuanins is the castle age, when winning a relic war not only gives the steady and permanent gold income, but it also makes the units stronger. Therefore, removing blast furnace did not address the castle age problem at all (why not cap the bonus at +2 in castle age?), and similar attitude is shown to Georgians - as Hera himself stated, so changing/reducing the HP regen for all units, instead of giving it to e.g. gold units only, is the problem.

But we were still begging for campaigns for civs that have none…and we we got ? The abysmal V&V. This we thought was a pinnacle of “customers don’t know what they want” attitude, but here we go again… No, we did not want some gimmicky RPG super long scenarios. We have repeatedly asked for 5 scenario campaigns for every single civilisation. That is it, that is all we asked for in regards to campaign-only DLCs. We don’t care if the levels are similar to already existing ones, but we really, really, really want every single civ to be able to be properly showcased in campaigns. But instead, it seems like every single time there are ideas from the community (which campaigns to get, what bonuses should be changed / nerfed), the devs purposedly ignore these ideas and make their own instead. Why? Why not follow the established meta with the first 3 DLCs and do the same thing, instead of pushing the boundaries and making something new, without finishing the existing game first?

I, personally, did not like the chronicles at all (especially since the missing campaigns problem still has not been fixed), but they were expertly made - a side show with ancient and diffierent civilisations - beautiful!.

And everyone got excited for the Chinese DLC - we thought we would get many new campaigns, and civilisations to properly address and complete the Asian set. We got the exact opposite - we got 3 short-lived kingdoms/city states, not civilisations. We got some utterly dumb/gimmicky mechanics/techs, as well as heroes in ranked play. We got 2 new Aoe2 proper civilisations, but they did not receive a single campaign, and neither did civilisations that did not have any.

So why is this attitude “customers don’t know what they want” still at play? When are the game directors going to realize, that all we want, is to complete the base game - add campaigns for all civs, add new, relevant, civs to respective theaters while at it, which would feel like Aoe2 civs, and not some aoe4/mythology nonsense. There is a reason why AoE2 DE is still by far the most played Age of Empires/Mythology game - and violating it with DLCs like The Three Kingdoms will only have the opposite effect.

This DLC, instead of hitting every mark that those previous DLCs hit (the first 3 + Mountain Royals), missed them all, and kept and exacerbated the bad stuff (gimmicky mechanics, non-aoe2 vibe). So we ask, yet again - give us what we ask for.

Release 3 kingdoms as Chronicles, and give us another China DLC with thse 2 civs + campaigns for them AND for Chinese and Koreans. And then the next DLC can add yet another 2 more civs, as well as campaigns for them and Japanese. Then we might get 1 new civ, and campaigns for Romans (don’t forget to add Celts scenarios too, please) and Vikings. Then we can get e.g. Wends, and campaigns for Slavs, Magyars, and Turks, with Wends getting the complete reins of Vlad Dracul (something similar to what happened with Dynasties of India)…then go to the new world, add 2 more civs, with a campaign for Mayans. Take a look at this thread I made 2 years ago and how community voted: We really need campaign packs It’s evident.we DO want campaigns, we DO want new civs…We DO NOT want super gimmicky mechanics. We DO NOT want short lived states as “civilisations”. And then, when this is accomplished, add new chronicles or V&V type scenarios to spice things up a little. But spicing up unifinished things is not the way to go.

This game has so much potential to be great…and it’s still plently of time to give it some thought and postpone/split the upcoming China DLC. What wrong can happen if you, this time, listen to us? We are not the “loud minority” at this point.

  • Do you agree with the points in this topic?
  • Universally YES
  • Mostly YES
  • Mostly NO
  • Universally NO
0 voters
6 Likes
2

We were literally about to get what we want, and they canned it.

14 Likes
3

But the more we point it out and talk about it, the higher the chance that we actually get it.

1 Like
4

I don’t think we could have been clearer this time.

  • Standard DLC
  • Set in China

Perhaps next time we should explain it through the medium of dance.

18 Likes
5

Just one more experiment bro. Just one more, please bro.

(I was about to add an absurd suggestion for comedic effect, but the ideas for these DLCs are so absurd I can’t even come up with anything, help?)

12 Likes
6

They’ve been promising regular DLCs that we’ve not got for two years and this is what they deliver…unbelievable.

Maybe the Pandora’s box was already opened when Burgundy and Sicily were added and accepted. Then they slid that slope further and further down, breaking the format more and more, adding unfitting stuff, and recycling concepts from other games calling it an innovation.

The biggest pain in the neck is that Chinese, Japanese and Koreans still are not getting their full-length campaigns. You knew you should do that for the other regions. Why do you only lose your mind this time?

5 Likes
7

WE’s board meeting five years later: “ People wanted Tanguts. Let’s add Tanguts. But did you hear it guys? There was this game called Black Myth Wukong that sold millions of copies in China. Let’s chase the trend and bundle it into a Journey to the West DLC with a campaign about that, and the ‘Xuanzang’s Pilgrimage’ civ with four heroes unlocked per age to ranked. It will sell like hot cake. Trust me.”

Edit: and dev’s message:
A quick search shows Xuanzang is a real historical figure, and we’ve dealt with fictional legends about real historical figures in the game such as El Cid, making it naturally eligible for the ranked gameplay!

11 Likes
8

I think the best thing they can do now is make a DLC with 5 campaigns for the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Jurchens and Khitans.
You unlock the Khitans and Jurchens if you own either of the DLC.
Both 3 Kingdoms and the new DLC are in a bundle, owning one of them gives you a discount on the other one.

Later they should make a Migration Period DLC (with civs like Vandals and Alans and a rework for the Goths and Huns) with a Roman campaign but I think first they should make a DLC that adds African and American civs. But we’re getting off topic here.

For me it seems like their main goal is to grow the player base.
More of the same is only something that current players want to have. If they just keep making more of the same kinda DLC their sales will slowly go down over time.
Also people get bored of more samey things. Without gimmicky mechanics there aren’t many bonuses left that new civilisations could have.
There is only so many different base stats that you can boost on a limited number of generic units.
HP, attack, armour (pierce and melee), speed and attack speed of Infantry, Cavalry, Archers and Siege.
Just having every variation of bonus for every generic unit is kinda boring, isn’t it.
Also for unique units you run out of unique things to have when you can’t have gimmicks.

Plus many things they did in the past were braking the “rules” and being “gimmicky”.
Imagine the Samurai didn’t exist and now they would introduce a unit that does bonus damage vs. Unique Units. Surly there would be people complaining about how it brakes the game and how it brakes the immersion.

Almost all of the Conquerors civs kinda broke the rules of what belongs in the game.

  • The Spanish are not Medieval, it should be Castilians
  • The Huns are Ancient
  • The Koreans were only added last minute to capture the Korean market (same complaint people have about the 3 Kingdoms)
  • The Aztecs and Mayans don’t have a Stable and get this strange new unit the Eagle Warrior still one of the most unique units gameplay wise to this day. Also they didn’t even have Iron weapons irl so they shouldn’t have a blacksmith either!

But of course everyone now sees it as a totally normal part of AoE2.

This doesn’t mean that I like the 3 Kingdoms DLC in it’s current from.
Yes I also dislike that they didn’t add campaings to any old civs and not even all of the new civs.
Yes I also think the 3 Kingdoms are too limited of a scope for a civilisation.
Yes I also would have preferred other civilisations.

But I do think the 3 Kingdoms will be fun and unique civilisations to play.
I also do think that expending the time line a bit into the past is not an issue. The idea of splitting history into 2 very distinct parts called Antiquity and Middle Ages is a very European point of view.
The 3 Kingdoms are technologically way more similar to Medieval Europe then Aztecs, Mayans and Huns are.

The optimal solution in my opinion would be to rebrand the 3 Kingdoms into Bai, Yue and Xianbei and their Hero units into simple generals.
Just keep the gameplay 1 to 1. Even the Heros can keep their visuals and stats.
All that needs to be changed are the icons and the names of the civs. Voice overs would be nice too but not really necessary.
In the campaign the civs can then still the the 3 Kingdoms but in Multiplayer and Skirmish they have more generic names.

2 Likes
9

People have been suggesting a regular dlc. They asked for civs like tanguts, tibetans, jurchens and khitans for years. Always the same civs.
Just recently people asked for Bais (Dali kingdom), but all the others were classic favorites. For. Years. Really.

Is it so hard to understand, MS?

11 Likes
10

Not hard at all. Tanguts, Tibetans, got it! And because we value your input, we’ll give you what you want by adding Fomorians to the game. It’s not outside the timeline, technically…

5 Likes
11

MS executive: Fomorians? Elves and dwarves are cooler. Have you guys ever read LOTR??

3 Likes
12

That does not work if your current players suddenly have nothing good to say about it.

13

This obviously massively backfired.
I’m curious how they will try to navigate this whole situation from here on.

14

There are already so many civs in the current game, and there are some civs that might not fit in aoe2. At least they were still wandering around within the collapsed Rome erra. Even some of them still remained standing after. Furthermore, they can be played as normal civs.

However, 3K are way worse. They don’t fit aoe2 ranked gameplay in the first place in many ways. Even if people don’t want to buy them, they will face them. Those 3 unreal/not-aoe2-type civs already “take 3 valuable slots” for other real civilizations through new possible DLCs that really need expansion.

For examples:

• Tanguts, Tibetans, Bais, etc. themselves.
• African DLC: Congolese, Zimbabweans, Swahilis, etc.
• American DLC: Tupi, Olmec, Chimu, Tlaxcala, etc.

Those deserve to be a ranked civilization with campaigns much more than 3K. If only effect called bleeding be applied to Tupi Poisonous Archer, it would be amazing.

10 Likes
15

Agree at 90%. V&V was a problem given the price, but not bad in itself… although some scenarios were and still are bugged. So still problematic, but I really liked the RPG missions, for the most part.

Return of Rome is a bit special… I like it but commercially it was not well done (should have been mostly free to AoE I owners, or at least no need to buy AoE II). Romans in Age II though should have been better planned.

And Chronicles: Battles for Greece was great, and presents the advantage of not hurting the AoE II classic player who doesn’t care! Multiplayer, balance, etc. remain the same.

Agreed on basically everything otherwise. Enough gimmicks and power creep. Listen to the crowd. We want campaigns for Jurchens and Khitans. Clean the split between Khitans and Tanguts. Take care of the languages.

And, more than anything. No Three Kingdoms in ranked Multiplayer!
N3KRM

1 Like
16

Conspiracy here: this is the very reason why 3K is done this way.
This time they want to encourage the sp players and force the mp players into buying the DLC at the same time, unlike the chronicles which the latter would pass.

2 Likes
17

Maybe, but even then… they could make more money with a Chronicles: Three Kingdoms and a Greater China DLC (Jurchen, Khitans, Tanguts, Tibetans) separately.

So devs! Tell that to Microsoft officials, or whomever is higher up, should you have any pressure! Delay the DLC. Listening to the base will pay up!

No heroes in ranked multiplayer. No nonsensical 3K “civs” in RM!

2 Likes
18

The name of the DLC is literally wrong. The focus should never be the three kingdoms. It should be “Empires of the Far East”/ “Empires of the Yellow River” etc. There have to be campaigns for East Asian civs honestly. Still none is found while they target Chinese market.

1 Like