Are you really counting ? xD
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.
Hey I think a lot of people that dont like Romands didnt like the last two Euro DLCs that much either
If we are going to beat this subject to death, I guess I will do my part, hopefully we get to 100 before the release, so we can have another 100 of Whining about it after the release…lol
I personally don’t think it’s that funny. These are legit complaints that should be taken seriously.
But not OP and that group of people
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).
Or maybe they could remove the Romans from AoE2’s timeframe, keep them only for AoE1, and use those 6 slots for civs fit for AoE2’s timeframe.
They only used the Romans in AoE2 as a clickbait to get players uninterested in AoE1 to buy it anyway, but this only led to:
- Players who don’t want Romans in AoE2 being mad about it.
- Players who want Romans in AoE2 but not AoE1 being mad about paying huge price for only 1 civ.
And it’s very weird, because the Romans weren’t by far the most popular suggested civ in the community, but I guess the developers wanted to surprise the community, they should have just played it safe.
Now that they have announced the Romans in the preorder description of the DLC, they crossed the Rubicon. There is no coming back on adding them. And they still are part of the AOE2 timeline (you fight them in Attila and Alaric), despite being knocked out very quickly.
It looks like it was a honest bonus (restricting it to unranked = zero risk of pay-to-win if they happen to be strong), but done poorly after some sales guy from Microsoft told them not to put them in a free update or even a separate cheap DLC, but tie the civ to the ROR package.
Maybe they’ll get backstabbed in the senate.
That seems awfully arbitrary. I can’t say I understand why it should be the way.
It’s obvious the limit has to be fixed due to some engine limit, and the devs have little incentive to worry about that so long that enough slots are left for the next couple DLCs.
I think I saw someone mentioning the limit having been upped after DoI, ### ### # ###### bit suspicious regarding this whole talk about civ limits due to “strings” (a term I see a lot when the limit is discussed but even professional programers seem to be confused about what it’s supposed to mean). I remember after the African Kingdoms people were saying the limit was something like 28 or 30, yet after Rise of the Rajas we had 31 civs and the Last Khans was supposed to bring us to 35 even before we moved to DE.
I also think Romans should probably have been added for free, especially with the whole non ranked debacle (even though I’m not concerned by this problem I fully sympathise with ranked players on this one) AND the fact that we will probably never get a single player campaign for AoE2’s Romans if they’re paywalled behind a dlc (Trajan most probably use AoE1’s tech tree for the whole campaign, it would be extremeley weird to use AoE2’s Romans before at the very least the Crisis of the Third Century is over).
Sidenote, Jurchens are also at the top of my list of civs to add!
Sorry, but I think this is funny for 2 main reasons
A)- We have over 50 discussions over the same DLC and almost all comments have been repeated 3 to 7 times minimum…
B)- Because regardless of how many comments or discussions we have it would have no effect on the final product …
But by all means, I encourage all to continue starting new discussions about this DLC, I want to see if we can get to 100 before the realease.
I’m a programmer as well and I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean either. A string is just an array of characters. I don’t see the relationship with the limit.
But I guess this is another discussion that’s not relevant here. I was just hoping for some straightforward explanation.
The devs will not let themselves run out of civ slots without doing anything about it. We want more civs to have more civs, they want more civs to sell more DLCs.
On point, Thank you
This is pretty common. There is only so much to say. So people are bound to repeat each other. But to me that is another indication that people are dissatisfied. Otherwise they wouldn’t be bringing up the same points.
I sincerely hope the devs at least pay some attention to the discussions, even if they have different ideas. Ignoring the community altogether would be unwise.
Again, I’m not as amused as you are. I was pretty excited about a new civ yesterday, but now I’m just bummed out. I’m genuinely disappointed.