Why Dev’s what’s to make this game pay to win?
‘Why Dev is what is to make this game pay to win?’
Did anyone understand that?
a) US, not USA
b) Sweden, Inca, and US were free, not sure what are you talking about here.
New civs are more often than not slightly unbalanced (obviously) because internal testing is not the same as public testing. On top with some advantage in power, designed to make them more fun and appealing for early adopters.
Sweden and Inca were and are still free. They came packaged with the game. The USA is a paid DLC that was offered for free for a very limited time if you did a grindy monotonous month long challenge. Not an equivalent of Sweden or Inca in the least.
Was it technically free for a short time? Yes. But so are many many things in pay-to-win mobile games. Again, the fact that it was offered for free at all is awesome, but still disingenuous to refer to it as free in the same context as the Incans or Swedes.
All I can say is repeat- free or paid doesn’t matter in the context of this subject.
OPs post is a mess, he’s talking about a few different things and he gets them wrong/ doesn’t understand.
Nothing about new civs from Inca to Hausa comes close in its nature to P2W practices.
Balancing games is hard.
Balancing games like these classic RTS games with numerous civs is harder.
Doing that in the context of PVP multiplayer is very hard and time-consuming, especially for games with a lower profile (not talking about AoE IV, but in general about hard-hitting AAA titles that get the most funding and attention from a publisher, here- Microsoft). They might have 3 or 30 people working on this support, I don’t know.
Devs have to solve the same problems and oblige to the same rules, whether it’s a free event civ in 3DE, or full-blown expansion with campaigns etc. like in 2DE.
Fixing things takes time. Devs work hard on fixing them, but balancing very diverse and numerous selection of civs take much longer- just gathering data and feedback from competitive multiplayer matches and processing it is a lot of work. Most problems with civs are not ‘bugs’ that can be hotfixed, but just that- a balance.
People are clueless about a lot of things and jump to conclusions ‘X is OP, nerf Y’, at the same time suggesting nefarious intent from developers. Because clearly designing OP civ aimed to destroy multiplayer scene and popularity of the game is their goal
Without a developer in this thread- we can talk endlessly about how long it should take to balance a civ, but it’s all speculation, and very easy in theory from a position of armchair game designer
Swedes and Incas came with the DE game itself so they are not paid. And Inca were only op for the first few patches, nerfed pretty hard, returned op with the second last patch, and nerfed back to normal with the last batch.
US has been quite bad since release. Only buffed in the rework patch.
Africans were indeed op at release but the nerf was quick and huge.
I’d expect Mexico to be pretty op (at least pretty lame) on release, if they have no significant penalty in the early game.
Now as for treaty, I fear the game has rarely been seriously balanced for treaties. They gave some buffs to those with very bad late games but that’s all.
Silly topic imo with no real foundation, inca were op at release but quickly nerfed back to b tier, usa released as a weak civ and for a long time were 1 of the weaker civs in the game recent patches have helped them a bit but still below the level of old civs like brit/spain/ports etc at least in supremacy.
Sweden is the only civ that was op for awhile because of torps being a nightmare to balance, still not pay to win because it’s included in DE so everyone with DE has access to sweden. They’ve nerfed swedes too far now imo and nobody uses them.
Ethiopia and hausa got huge nerfs, Hausa was my most played civ but since 3v shipment was removed I’ve stopped using them, a step too far imo.
It was your choice to pay for it or dedicate some time to do event challenges in order to receive it for free.
US launch event was quite long. Just like not liking it doesn’t change the fact devs made US obtainable for free, the same way event being time-limited doesn’t change that.
Unlock for Free! For a limited time, you can unlock the new United States civilization for FREE by completing 50 in-game challenges—each representing a state in the union and ordered by the date they joined the United States!
It was fairly long and could be tuned when it comes to the number of challenges that can be completed in one game and a couple of descriptions (and maybe one legit bug that was hotfixed), but lore-wise it was actually very interesting and in spirit with the subject- formation of United States.
Gameplay-wise it was super simple, but these challenges and event are promo tools for devs, not ways to introduce new content, game modes, mechanics.
They were designed to be simple/ borderline boring. AoE games are not RPGs and options are limited for what can be done by a player, outside of building/gathering/killing.
If they were hard/tricky there would be 2x more complaints. At least they could be done quickly (min maxing like resigning counts as a completed game, etc.).
Not really though, many original civs still remain very strong either S or A tier such as brit/spain/ports/dutch etc.
Swedens trash now, Inca are probably a high B tier, US B tier, hausa feel so slow since 3v was removed. Ethiopia are still fairly good but very predictable FF civ, only in treaty are they particularly strong I believe.