ESOCommunity

Analysis from parfait:



What do you think?

It is very on point. The idea is the known, that it was a trend to have this MMO essence in a game. In single player, it was motivating to make your own HC. In the multiplayer and competitive scene, it simply doesn't work optimally.

Just big love to parfait

It's a bit frustrating to hear critisism on hc leveling, when it hasn't been an issue since forever. At least one guy in the comments is whining about this.
I don't get the "loathing" of AoE3. Just because it's different the haters refuse to see the good things these new mechanics bring with them. Each to his own.

Parfait on the other hand had good points. Yea, it's harder to balance with 14 civs and home cities, but in return it feels very colourful and interesting.

That kid is more overrated than Grunt. What a sack of jizzlesss rags!

I think that DE should just remove the homecity system and have all cards available at any time. Personally, I do like the homecity system to a degree, but I definetly think it has its faults (mostly due to the shitty starting deck and how slow leveling up is). Doing something like that would also allow for a random civ option in lobbies because everyone would have every civilization.

The worst part about the HC is fixed, as parfait mentioned in his video. When you make a new HC you get the same as your highest level one.
I came to AoE3 a bit after TAD came out so I never really experienced the trouble of having to level up just to be able to change civ

Takin’ a stroll down Fird lane.

Basically everyone just plantation farmed to get cities high level or modified game files to do the same. The cards did not matter at all nor did the level up mechanic because people cheated to get around it.

Hes right that the design sucks for this feature and it didn't work. It was good for him to walk through all the reasons for why this was bad. I don't want to retype the 20 minutes of points he made but generally on point. Competitive games generally should not offer advantage due to hours played is main point that affects multiplayer.

_H2O wrote:The meta cards for the meta deck?

Basically everyone just plantation farmed to get cities high level or modified game files to do the same. The cards did not matter at all nor did the level up mechanic because people cheated to get around it.

speak for urself cheater

i worked hard for those lvls

samwise12 wrote:

_H2O wrote:The meta cards for the meta deck?

Basically everyone just plantation farmed to get cities high level or modified game files to do the same. The cards did not matter at all nor did the level up mechanic because people cheated to get around it.

speak for urself cheater

dang i got sniped by the master

samwise12 wrote:i worked hard for those lvls

nice double post

The system itself was actually pretty solid as it provided a new way of playing RTS games, the problem imo only had/are the levels themself. In the offline campaign those levels did make sense as they added depth to your homecity as a base for mission, online they gave huge bonuses to people spending hours farming those xp just to rek lower Hc level players.
I remember a player called vw Polo or something like that in the early stage of the game, where Poweranking wasn't a thing and elo for aoe3 was still in work, who smashed noobies on purpose with his high level hc, because he put in hours farming those xp and having every important cards to gain an unfair advantage.
Later the hc levels did not matter that much, as every mid to high tier player had max cards for his strategies. Imo the card system is still a great idea, but the implementation was poor from a compettive point of view, unbalanced and unfair if you just started the game and still unbalanced in certain matchups and time points of the match.