I find it a bit crazy that everyone has their own “requirements” for which civs they think or do not think the devs should add.
If the devs think that adding Mississippians or whatever civ they believe will improve the game, they can absolutely add them. Doesn’t matter if it is “the largest in the world”, “biggest this and that”, “My country needs to be included”, “This civ affected so or so many people”.
It is great that people get to create suggestion and/or have discussions on civs.If that inspires something to be added, great! If not, then don’t act like it was the end of the world. If the devs feel like they want to add 20+ more civs they can, experienced and pro players will adjust. In the end the competitive scene will always have several civs that are picked less, and competitive players are good players because they can adjust and adapt.
Now if you desperately want to have your civ, country etc represented properly and you feel like you know the best about it. Go create your own game/mod and show everyone how it is done.
I’m in support of adding civs from other continents.
But I’d be hesitant to call any kind of consensus as usually forum discussions and/or any other social platform leaves out a significant portion of the playerbase.
It’s one thing to like new content such as civs, it’s another thing to consider how all this content impacts the strategic limits of the average player. Most people don’t think beyond the first part. Most people are 1000 elo, these people can’t even do a proper darkage, they most likely aren’t able to get an advantage due taking advantage of their civ, this should tell you enough about their capabillities to estimate how many civs impact the game.
No nuance from you unfortunately, there is a difference between wanting new content and 12civs since release.
You forget that players are somewhat forced to buy dlcs If they don’t want to fall behind understanding the new civs.
Only if every ranked player doesn’t buy a specific dlc it becomes irrelevant, not really realistic… Nice fantasy argument.
Because something happened in a different game but not here says something right?? Nice toddler logic.
Ah yes adding 1/4th of content in 2 years time is “rather tame”. Thanks Atafas always willing to make a realistic comment.
If they can be “forced” to buy new dlcs just not to fall behind, it means they are okay with it.
This is a game not your job.
No one will punish you if you choose to fall behind or stick to the old version, as long as there are sufficient number of people willing to play with you, or avoid pvp entirely.
If new updates hurt the game so much as you described, then people will deliberately choose to “fall behind”. Will you bother to catch up with something you do not like at all?
Ah yes and we all know these “most people” contribute to the least to the game.
If that is what “most” people think they maybe it is the “fewer” elites who can do a proper dark age, are able to get an advantage due taking advantage of their civ, who need to figure out how to catch up. Because “most” people play a game as a game. The elites who play the game as a job should use their wits and efforts to figure out how to do their job properly because no job is an easy one.
You can’t seem to grasp the difference between “not wanting to fall behind” or “being in favour of new content”. These are different things.
Because making decicions based on what sells the most is always the best for the game? Is that your argument?
Why let a baker bake your bread? Why let a teacher school your kids and not a random guy from the street?
I’m not even talking about elites or pros, I’m just talking about people who are relevant to this case and can feel civ differences in their gameplay due to having decent mechanics (probably starts at 13-1400). Just to point out that your argument of “we want it the most” is fundamentally meaningless to make a good strategy game.
I’m not saying most intermediate+ players agree on things, but at least they have a level on which they can form an opinion.
You get my exact point.
This is a game. It’s not like food which you need to survive. It’s not like education which the society evaluates you on. Pros or elites or “experienced players” do not play the game for me. They do not decide how I enjoy the game. I don’t need someone to knock at my door and teach me I’m not enjoying the game in a right way.
“Most” people play the game for fun. Only pros play the game as a job.
If you are not a pro and treat it as a job, then you will need to invest as much as you do for a job. It’s pretty fair.
Again, if the new contents hurt the game so much as you describe, people would choose behind. No one forces you to catch up. If it is a painful process then there is no point playing the game any more.
If it has not happened, at least “most” people are not adverse to it.
Read as: this is just my temporary entertainment, I don’t value it enought to care how this strategy game ends up.
No one tells you how to enjoy the game. However you have now limited your entire enjoyment of the game to new civs beign added at rapid tempo lol.
You want things because you want them and don’t consider how it impacts the strategy aspect of the game.
Anyone who doesn’t play “for fun” is a pro. Wanting to have a decent understanding of the game means you are pro! Must be nice to have such a limited mind. Easy to convince yourself you are right! 11
Most people who bought the basegame haven’t bought dlc’s, so you are wrong by your own logic?
Basically you’re saying don’t play if you don’t like changes, the most disingenous argument you can possibly make.
No. Don’t play if you are not enjoying it. Simple as it is.
There is an immediate “if” after the sentence you quoted accounting for those who don’t play for fun and is not a pro. Read before you reply.
Yes. So what?
And here you are teaching me how to enjoy the game.
Hard to imagine anyone would consider this as an accusation.
No. So what?
Where is my salary from microsoft if I do?
Those who bought the base game and not the dlcs are likely to play a few campaigns and shelf it. That happens for every game. We are talking about people who are still playing the game.
Again, if the game is damaged by the current stage of updates, that group should have shrunk by far.
BTW, you said “most” people do not know about the game at all so why are you quoting them?
I have no interest in talking to someone who doesn’t back up his stance other than “I want it”. People like you are temporary leeches and don’t have the best in mind for this game.
Wanting a decent understanding of the game means it’s my job? Shouldn’t evey player strive to?
Your whole reasoning here is beyond ridiculous.
Only 1/3rd of active players bought the last dlc.
Lol read back your entire logic. You argue that things aren’t bad because people still play the game by which you conclude they enjoy changes. Makes no sense obviously to get a good stance on dlcs and civs by player numbers. You would have to piss of players much harder than just “disagreeing with changes” before they stop playing the game entirely.
I am of the opinion that civs from other continents should be added in addition to European civs. I literally do not care about the number of European civs in the game, unlike most people here.
My opinion is that civs from other continents should be added BEFORE Euro civs, not instead of them. Once we’ve circled the world, we can get go back to Europe, though there’s not much to add from there (yet some of the remaining civs are more relevant than Burgundians or Sicilians imo).
Sorry to say it, but this is BS. Western empires were as important in Middle Ages as ever. Take a look at France, England, Spain. Those rose to power and were an important influence on the rest. I’m not saying that Islamic Empires are bad (in fact, I would love to have a campaign for Turks or ######## ## ### scenario long ones), just not agreeing with your opinion that “Western empires were not even that important in the medieval times” comment.
Well, all depends on what you call “important”. What’s true is that most European states had little to no influence outside of their side of the continent, outside of the time of the crusades, and even then the few with lasting consequences were a collective effort. The only exceptions would be the HRE, the Byzantine Empire, and to some degree the Papacy. Maybe the kingdom of Aragon too. But they all paled in comparison to states such as the Umayyad and Abbassid caliphates, the Seldjukid Empire, China or the Mongol Empire.
I’m sorry, but didn’t Spain played a key role outside of Europe? The Conquerors expansion shows that! Well, Mongols, Turks and Saracens are great examples of non European powers. In fact, after this build:
I am all in support of spliting Saracens into Ummayads, Abbassids and Hashashins (but retaining Saracens as a civ with Mameluke being their unique unit). Thoughts?
