I posted this as a reply to T-West's post on the release of the new expansion. I thought I'd make a post out of it for more civil discussions.
I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS GETTING SO MUCH HATE.
1) We've generally had a very good year of Age so far. We've had monthly balance changes, community events, scenarios, unlockable cosmetics and a free game mode at 0 additional costs. This alone proves that the devs care about the game and community, and the DLC means that they're willing to keep supporting the game for another year atleast. I understand that there are minor inconveniences and the game is not in an ideal condition, but it's far from unplayable, but the devs roll out hotfixes. Otherwise people won't be logging in everyday to play.
2) Civs being OP is taken way out of proportion I feel. For all we know, the Burgundians are capped to knights or just get the gold back for knights not Cavalier or Paladin, as the bonus states fallen knights return 50% of their gold, not knight line. So rather than jumping to conclusions we should probably wait for their tech trees.
3) Civ balance is probably the best it's ever been, so I really don't understand people complaining about civs being unplayable. Obviously, if people just mean Arabia 1v1, then yes, certain civs will be unplayable. But generally all civs have a win rate of 45-55% give or take, and are often good against certain match-ups or on certain maps.
4) Me as a casual player has not invested nearly the amount of time into the game as compared to pro payers or content creators. And they are generally excited about the release.
5) There are 3 new campaigns coming. I still think a large player base of the game does not involve themselves with online multiplayer as it is too daunting a task for them. They would rather chill and enjoy playing the campaign, and this is probably the best news for them.
6) I feel people really don't understand what Pay 2 Win means. Pay 2 Win in Age will probably be along the lines that upon Ageing up you get 500 on every resource if you prepurchase the DLC, which is not the case. Even if the new Civs are super OP, they will be nerfed, even if it takes a couple of months.
I understand people having strong opinions about this being a cash grab, that the marketing team is taking over and that AoE will die, and generally understand where they are coming from. But comparing this to another RTS remaster (Warcraft 3), I really feel AoE II is in an amazing spot. Yes, it still requires polishing here and there but there has been continued support from the developers. And I, in turn will support them. Thanking for listening to my rant.
PS: Not to act like Microsoft's Spokesperson, I do feel they should bring it down to $5.
Link to T-West's post: New Expansion Announced for Aoe2 DE | AoEZone - The international Age Of Empires community
I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS GETTING SO MUCH HATE.
1) We've generally had a very good year of Age so far. We've had monthly balance changes, community events, scenarios, unlockable cosmetics and a free game mode at 0 additional costs. This alone proves that the devs care about the game and community, and the DLC means that they're willing to keep supporting the game for another year atleast. I understand that there are minor inconveniences and the game is not in an ideal condition, but it's far from unplayable, but the devs roll out hotfixes. Otherwise people won't be logging in everyday to play.
2) Civs being OP is taken way out of proportion I feel. For all we know, the Burgundians are capped to knights or just get the gold back for knights not Cavalier or Paladin, as the bonus states fallen knights return 50% of their gold, not knight line. So rather than jumping to conclusions we should probably wait for their tech trees.
3) Civ balance is probably the best it's ever been, so I really don't understand people complaining about civs being unplayable. Obviously, if people just mean Arabia 1v1, then yes, certain civs will be unplayable. But generally all civs have a win rate of 45-55% give or take, and are often good against certain match-ups or on certain maps.
4) Me as a casual player has not invested nearly the amount of time into the game as compared to pro payers or content creators. And they are generally excited about the release.
5) There are 3 new campaigns coming. I still think a large player base of the game does not involve themselves with online multiplayer as it is too daunting a task for them. They would rather chill and enjoy playing the campaign, and this is probably the best news for them.
6) I feel people really don't understand what Pay 2 Win means. Pay 2 Win in Age will probably be along the lines that upon Ageing up you get 500 on every resource if you prepurchase the DLC, which is not the case. Even if the new Civs are super OP, they will be nerfed, even if it takes a couple of months.
I understand people having strong opinions about this being a cash grab, that the marketing team is taking over and that AoE will die, and generally understand where they are coming from. But comparing this to another RTS remaster (Warcraft 3), I really feel AoE II is in an amazing spot. Yes, it still requires polishing here and there but there has been continued support from the developers. And I, in turn will support them. Thanking for listening to my rant.
PS: Not to act like Microsoft's Spokesperson, I do feel they should bring it down to $5.
Link to T-West's post: New Expansion Announced for Aoe2 DE | AoEZone - The international Age Of Empires community
Last edited: