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.
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!
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.
It depends on the subject. The people complaining that Romans are not added to ranked may (and hopefully will) be heard. The people complaining about the Romans being playable in AoE2 could yell at the sea and expect the very same results.
I didn’t intend to make fun of you, it’s just that this argument really made me think about this scene.
But I also think this situation shouldn’t be treated with as much gravity as if human lives were at stake.
Also, I have to point out that even though many people are complaining right now, not all of them are complaining about the same thing. And, in my opinion, there are a few valid complaints (non ranked AoE2 Romans being the main one), some that I’m relatively neutral about (Lac Viet as the 17th AoE1 civ, I think it’s relatively cool as long as we get later updates), and some that I think are just entitled and/or unrealistic (people complaining that we didn’t get more than one new AoE2 civ and/or 3 new campaigns, for instance). I think the devs can’t satisfy everyone, especially not before the announced released date, and considering some of the complaints I don’t think they should even try…