I think because for the people that don’t like it, it’s seen as a waste of developer time and resources that could’ve gone into civilizations that make more sense within the timeline, and can be played in ranked.
Well, there are multiple reasons to be dissatisfied.
First of all, the Romans civ was announced yesterday to be added as an AOE2 civ, which compelled AOE2-only players like myself to pre-order the DLC. But today the Steam entry was silently edited to say that it wouldn’t be playable on the ladder, which makes it an unplayable civ for people who play the ladder. Of course people will be upset.
In my opinion a civ should either be added or not. I really dislike the current approach where the civ is only “playable” in some settings but not others. Either add it or don’t. This is just confusing and misleading. It’s also breaking a precedent (that each civ is playable on the ladder) that shouldn’t be broken. Not adding Romans to AOE2 at all would have been much better than this.
Another reason is that I don’t like the concept of a DLC that has pretty much nothing to offer for players who just want to play AOE2 (instead of AOE1). The “just don’t buy it” argument ignores the fact that this DLC is competing for time and resources that could have been spent on a proper AOE2 DLC (from my perspective, of course), so yes, I do mind.
It’s a controversial choice as they were knocked out very early in the AOE2 timeline, in 476 (or 486 if you count Soissons). Some also see them as redundanct (we already have the Byzantines and the Italians), a waste of civ slot (apparently there is a hard limit in the engine, though it’s been increased over time) and an use of resources that could have been put toward other new civs.
Putting them as an AOE2 bonus in ROR also feels like inciting to buy the DLC despite not wanting anything related to AOE1.
The devs would need an insane amount of play testing for that (assuming they have a wide enough skill range…), they can not predict accurately how powerful a civ will exactly be. When using official stats they have the average of hundreds of thousands of matches, and can adjust accordingly.
Overall by using statistical feedback the balance is very good, despite the number of civs.
I disagree. The ranked ladder is the best way to test the balance of a new civ (after initial testing of course so that the civ is at least somewhat sane). The main issue is that for some reason it takes the devs a relatively long time to release a new patch with balance changes, but even then with the random civs option it’s not even a huge issue overall.
I think the limit is currently 48 civs. So 5 slots left unless the devs expand it. It’s easy to understand why one of the 6 slots currently available is taken by a civ that’s nowhere near the top of the list asked by the players (the Jurchens are number 1 for me, for example. I also wanted the Romans so this is a welcome surprise for me, but I understand why others are angry).
The best way of adding the Romans would have been making them free (both UUs already existed, they’ll probably use Constantine’s Arch as the wonder so it mainly needed making the tech tree, this civ was probablè lighter to design than others) and add them with the next update. They picked the half measure of making it only available in singleplayer and unranked (which will hurt the feedback on how balanced they are).