Please don’t give them any ideas. I’ll take anything over those abominations.
3 Likes
The rules are pretty clear, I thought everyone already knew them.
- Suggest something you would like the developers to add to the game.
- Start a topic to bring together all those interested in what you posted.
- Wait for the developers to read the conversation and see people’s interest.
- Accept the decision the developers made and have fun talking to others.
- Enjoy a healthy community.
What not to do
- Belittle the requests of others.
- Divert the topic by refusing to recognize it as valid.
- Be toxic and think that your request is the only valid one.
- try to impose ideas on others.
- invent rules that the developers never said and will never clarify.
Obvious.
There is a limit to what the developers are going to add to the game, but it is neither as strict as they want to see it nor as important as they seem to think it is. The developers have already made it clear with actions that they do not care that much about these limits and none of us has the right to say that this is a mistake, only Microsoft and the developers have the last word.
According to whom? Who told you that the game cannot have post-colonial civilizations and who gave it the power to decide above all others?
This would be an argument if it were not for the fact that it does not fall within what I am talking about, this falls into a fallacy of false equivalence.
All civilizations have to meet strict criteria in terms of gameplay, which is what you’re talking about in this case, but I’m speaking in non-gameplay terms. To give an example, why can’t we have Brazil and Persia? The answer is simple, yes we can, there is no reason not to add them, but the decision lies with the developers and Microsoft
The forum exists to be part of a community that has a shared taste, to help new players and share our points of view. Also to help developers with errors that they unfortunately did not see and to give ideas that interest us, but that may or may not be heard. (and we have no right to consider it unfair, because the decision is not ours to make)
We have the right to give our opinion, but in a respectful manner and without violating the community standards, nothing more, nothing less, the game does not depend on the forums to exist.
Regardless of what the developers say, our opinion doesn’t matter, feedback is good, but it only counts as something important if the vast majority of the community agrees. (I mean Discord, YouTube, This forum, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Etc.)
The changes are not made by a few, we all make them as a community, something that unfortunately with so many people stepping on each other is almost impossible, especially by inventing rules that the developers never said or will say. The last thing they want is for us to lose creativity because of rules that they clearly only have as suggestions and that we would treat as strict rules.
As for what’s next, I hope for an epic comeback, because I think we can all agree that the game is in a very bad place. Microsoft totally ignores AOE3, disrespects us by giving us only half a minute in a live stream of the entire franchise and on top of that kills the game by transferring practically all of its developers to another IP.
The opinions of the community have value, due to quantity and creativity, not due to regulations. If we want this game to take off, we need more people with creativity and a strong and united community. We will only achieve that with respect and leaving aside the strict rules that should never have mattered to us. All civilizations are welcome, there are immovable rules, but only in gameplay. It doesn’t matter if it is pre-colony, post-colony, if it is from Asia, Oceania, Africa or anywhere else, the only real limit is that it does not have tanks and even that I am not sure 
4 Likes
I 100% agree with you! People should stop imposing their rules regarding what civs can or cannot be added to the game. I personally would love a canadian civ, even though Canada wasn’t very relevant and the vast majority would be against it. Everyone has the right to have their preferences and none is better than the other.
3 Likes
At least I have no complaints about the existence of the United States or Mexico, and I don’t agree with your opinion. In fact, I’m looking forward to the addition of Civs like Brazil and Gran Colombia.
If you don’t like America or Mexico as independent factions, you’re better off finding another game that doesn’t feature them.
1 Like
It is not belittling, it is counterarguing.
I am giving my opinion according to the topic.
I’m not being toxic
I only contrast arguments.
Of course Microsoft doesn’t care about my opinion in the least, but that doesn’t mean they don’t make some bad decisions. For example, the strange “mining” of the Lakota and Haudenosaune. It’s not that I’m comparing it to what we’re talking about, because I would prefer 10 more postcolonial civilizations than a change in the game due to political correctness. I use it to explain my point.
Look at the old forums when Mexico and the United States were announced.
Nobody gave me the power, it’s just common sense.
I’m sorry, but I think that almost all the factions in Central and South America in that period did not even have their borders defined, such as the great Colombia that only lasted a little more than 10 years (1819 to 1831). What would it look like as a playable faction? ? Imagine it, each age would be equivalent to 2 years.
Brazil was a colony unlike Persia. There is no comparison.
Well, if there are no rules, there should be. This way we avoid these long conversations.
I think most of us agree on this without a doubt.
2 Likes
I bought them the same month they were published.
What on earth was that about? Sounds like you bought the DLCs just to have the right to complain.
The fact that I question their presence in the game even though I have bought them, does not mean that their gameplay is bad, in fact they have many good mechanics, especially Mexico, which is on the verge of saturation, but what I am trying to explain is that plot-wise they do not fit.
Age of empires 1 could be divided into 3 different games due to the enormous time scale it represents.
The Aztecs in Age of Empires 2 have units not specific to the faction, there is no comparison. And it also covers like 1000 years of history.
AOE-3, however, came to correct the errors of the previous games, not to replicate them.
There is no possible argument when it is a request, that person wants that civilization, you are not going to convince him otherwise. Focus on asking for what interests you and let him ask for what he wants, in the end it is the developers and Microsoft who will define what civilization they are going to add.
I’m not criticizing you, but those who do that kind of thing
I’m not criticizing you, but those who do that kind of thing
I’m not criticizing you, but those who do that kind of thing
Lakota and Haudenosaune “mining” was a political issue in the United States and it is not our place to get involved in that matter. We may not agree with the decision, but it’s not our place to weigh in on something we clearly don’t know the whole story about.
With respect to post-colonial civilizations, it’s okay if you don’t like them, but let the rest ask for them in peace, no one owes us explanations as to why they want x civilization.
No, it’s not, it’s just your opinion. Common sense would be to say that a civilization cannot have helicopters, airplanes and a tank because the game is designed for units from 1700 to 1900 and those numbers are not strict either because the technology was not the same throughout the world. (as long as your army is not from the First World War there should be no problem)
I always consider you a person with a lot of creativity. Can you really not think of any mechanics with which you could represent Gran Colombia and, in the process, take advantage of it to represent the northern part of South America?
and? The fact that it was a colony is not an impediment to adding it, and you are also ignoring the context of the original argument.
Brazil and Persia can be complete civilizations, because there are many people who want to see them added, but it is the developers and Microsoft who have the last word. (let’s be fair, Microsoft only cares about money, not our arguments for or against)
As I said, the rules already exist, they just aren’t to everyone’s liking, give your opinion on what to add, if the developers see that it is a popular idea among the community they may end up adding it. (but the decision is theirs and no one else’s)
As I said before, saying what civilization we don’t like is as useful as the YouTube dislike button, it’s useless. (for it to really have any impact it has to be something that bothers the entire community, not just some or just one forum)
I hate with all my soul Microsoft’s systematic disdain for AOE3 and I sincerely hope that one day the game has all the content it deserves. I think MODs like WOL and AOTW show that almost all of us want an eternal AOE3 with a lot of content.
Important clarification; I don’t want you to think that all my criticism is directed at you. All my comments are on a general level, I have known you practically since I created my account, I am not lying when I say that I consider you a creative person, remember when we proposed new cards for old civilizations or new mechanics for livestock. I have nothing against you and I don’t consider you toxic, in any case I think you are suffering from what the majority of people on the forum are. I think the situation with Microsoft has many people worn out and with little patience. Maybe you should take a break from the forum and the game. (but I leave it to your discretion)
I stand by what I said a long time ago, I would be very offended if the developers did not consult them to get livestock ideas if they ever make Argentina a complete civilization. 
Try the same logic with Prussia or Marathas and you get crucified.
There are reasons for or against all kinds of civs and people should be as free to criticize as they are to suggest.
4 Likes
Because? 
You can criticize all you want, but you are wasting your time, anyone who wants a civilization is not going to change their mind and the developers do not seem to pay attention to those who criticize, except on rare occasions. (when the entire community opposes, but this does not usually happen)
1 Like
Just relax. I haven’t felt disrespected and I hope you don’t feel disrespected on my part either.
1 Like
If the person would not expect criticism or counterarguments, that person would not post in a forum where the core design of that forum is to discuss and criticize.
1500 to 1850.
1 Like
The only opportunity for this to happen is when stuff gets leaked early. And the one time that happened they reversed course on a Danish revolution so it has been a 100% success rate. If people had known about USA, Mexico, or Malta in the early stages, it could have made a difference, but by the time it was known it was too late. No one knows what’s next so that’s why people are vocal about what they don’t like.
2 Likes
I would say until 1875-85.
You do not get to dictate what people are allowed to want or not want and arguments should be standing on their own feet rather than be protected from any and all valid criticism.
People should be able to argue their points even if they opposes your wishes, dictating what people aren’t allowed to criticize isn’t okay. If your idea or argument can’t stand on its own legs against criticism then is it a good idea to begin with?
I also find it deeply ironic this position comes from someone who has not only done the same but also have brigaded other threads demanding people add their chosen faction to a wishlist.
2 Likes
That’s assuming the leak was not intentional to see the public’s reaction.
Although, I wonder if the reason behind adding these civilizations was the enormous outrage on the part of the entire AOE3 community, it doesn’t seem like the developers had anything prepared for the event and only put up 2 flags. Perhaps Microsoft demanded that they invent something to “make us happy”, that would explain why it has no date and why there are only two flags that we already knew.
Outrage at the constant mistreatment of AOE3, not because of the revolutions, they could have perfectly been canceled and it is very strange two DLCs of European civilizations one after the other, they had never done something like this.
I clarify that this is mere speculation, I do not claim to have the absolute truth.
1 Like
I didn’t feel disrespected, but I was concerned about your comment and wanted to clarify it to avoid misunderstandings.
I’d love to see this forum go back to what it was when I joined, no one cared what anyone else asked for and we all came up with creative things, eg unique cards, buildings and mechanics.
The forum was bustling with activity and although there were spoilsports they were ignored, I still remember that you proposed a mine that gave experience instead of or in addition to gold, I think it was quartz or emeralds?
1 Like
Emeralds. The idea came to me because it is a very abundant precious stone in some areas of Colombia, and because the Muiscas extracted these stones.
Quartz mine? I don’t know anything about the usefulness of quartz in that period, but it makes me curious.
1 Like