DE big disappointment

[Imperial Noob]

Some of the new voices such as those for canoes and some other nat units are simply unprofessional. They sound like someone casting a game.

[007Salt]

It'll get better.

[helln00]

tbh after getting my hotkeys in order I couldn't tell the difference most of the time while playing, if anything its better purely on the lower lag.

there are a lot of things that needs to be fixed , lobby ui, ingame constrast in general needs to be better. China currently can't get imp upgrades for like half of their units but tbh I'm liking this so far .

New bots are actually challenging somewhat, they take map control on smaller maps and constantly pressure.

I am an easy person to please so I'm not going to be representative of people but its ok so far

[evilcheadar]

I refunded. So sad

Lol

[evilcheadar]

Some of the new voices such as those for canoes and some other nat units are simply unprofessional. They sound like someone casting a game.

Games are professionally casted all the time

[Arc_gu1ll3_sp]

I refunded. So sad

Why?

I've writen a post about the part that hurts me most:

viewtopic.php?p=493901#p493901

[kevthegooner]

@dicktator_ If you read a lot of the reviews a lot of them are just people getting annoyed with the 'SJW' changes, so overall a lot of the negative reviews are just people who went in knowing this.

People who are upset that MS actually took some time to listen to the downtrodden people of the world can go pound sand.

I mean it is still about "Empire" people, you get to be an imperialist, FFS.

[Challenger_Marco]

I really wish they read esoc and take feedback ,the official aoe forums is not as user friendly as here ,someone should copy paste all the things and request it.

[Amsel_]

Do we know if Microsoft got any help testing and developing the game from experienced players?

[Lukas_L99]

Some of the new voices such as those for canoes and some other nat units are simply unprofessional. They sound like someone casting a game.

Yeah, I think sioux units all have the same voice now lol

[Snow Lynx]

Overall theme in this thread “It’s different = disappointment”.

Be happy! It’s literally day one and there’s only a few things that are wrong, no doubt will be updated in fixed

So far we have fresh maps, new graphics (I’m not keen on the bloom effect that seems to stay on even after I chose to have it off lol but still, new civs, TONNES of new revolt options. They’ve fixed a good bit of the game, especially when you compare it to RE!

If you still find you can’t cope with things being different, sorry mate but 2005 has been and gone my friend. XD

[howlingwolfpaw]

Overall theme in this thread “It’s different = disappointment”.

Be happy! It’s literally day one and there’s only a few things that are wrong, no doubt will be updated in fixed

So far we have fresh maps, new graphics (I’m not keen on the bloom effect that seems to stay on even after I chose to have it off lol but still, new civs, TONNES of new revolt options. They’ve fixed a good bit of the game, especially when you compare it to RE!

If you still find you can’t cope with things being different, sorry mate but 2005 has been and gone my friend. XD

All the game stuff is forgivable and ok.... its the UI and the new impersonal multiplayer set up that is a deal breaker.

2005 may be gone, but AOE3 RE lives. and it is better than this.

LONG LIVE AOE3 RE

[dicktator_]

So I think I can narrow down my problems with DE into 4 main points:

1. Rushed/unfinished/unpolished release. I think the game would have benefited a lot if they had waited like 2 months before releasing and fixed some of the issues. This part is pretty self-explanatory, but I want to point out that aoe1de and aoe2de also had messy releases. This shows an inability of the people in charge of making these kinds of decisions to learn from their mistakes and makes me worried for aoe4.

2. Gratuitous, unnecessary changes. I’m going to define a gratuitous change as a change that does nothing for historical accuracy or one that while it does target a historical accuracy, it is a detriment to gameplay. Iro/Sioux name changes to Haudenosaunee/Lakota? Not gratuitous, targets and fixes a historical inaccuracy. Firepit to community plaza? Even though the vills look stupid on the community plaza, it targets a historical accuracy with no effect on gameplay, so I wouldn’t call this a gratuitous change. Removing references to colonialism (“Commerce Age”, “You abandon your town”) in a game that takes place during the era in which colonialism was taking place? Incredibly gratuitous. Colonialism happened, this is not fixing a historical accuracy, it’s just changing names for no good reason. The convert change, while it does fix a historical inaccuracy, is enough of a detriment to gameplay that I consider it gratuitous as well. An important part of placing TWC civs on legacy was using the convert on relevant guardians to get a pokemon army and take control of age 1 that way. Now they can still do that if they find treasures with human guardians, but if the treasures only have pets they’re out of luck. I’d call the mining change gratuitous as well, even though they minimized the effect on gameplay it’s not really any more historically accurate. Now the vills drain coin mines by standing at marketplaces that can only be built near coin mines, which doesn’t sound any more historically accurate to me.

3. Only listening to certain communities. I can give two examples of what I mean here. On TP, a change was implemented where docks can only be built within the radius of the starting TC during treaty time, like any other building. This had no effect on TP gameplay other than on Orinoco where it made it so that docking and building WS in the river would be impossible to do before the treaty ends. DE decided to implement this change, which we (the Treaty Patch andes players) were glad for, but it kind of messed things up for people who like to play water games in lower level tr games or VS the AI. I was surprised when I saw complaints in the beta forum pop up about being unable to build docks outside of the treaty radius, and I realized that the TP Andes TR community is only a subset of the people that play TR (after all, we are playing an inherently casual mode competitively), and we were the only ones that they listened to. FWIW I was surprised that they decided to care about treaty and wouldn’t have blamed them if they had just left it alone. Also I think the solution to that specific problem is to enable docking outside the radius in SP/lobbies, or maybe make it an option.

Another example is the HC leveling. Disabling it for multiplayer was great and entirely necessary but a lot of people were disappointed seeing that it was disabled for single player as well. Since ESOC is a community focused on multiplayer, no one here cares about singleplayer so we didn’t even consider this. This problem also had an easy compromise, they could’ve just kept leveling for SP and had everything unlocked for MP. Point being they shouldn’t have taken advice from only one community.

4. Things that are strictly worse than legacy Aoe3. IMO a remaster should either make things better than the original game or make them as good. This is definitely easier said than done and I'd be willing to cut them some slack but there are just so many things that make the gameplay experience strictly worse than it is on legacy. Ability to differentiate units, inability to see number of vills in a TC, etc (viewtopic.php?f=982&t=21704). I’m still enjoying DE more than legacy but pretty much all of that enjoyment stems from the fact that I am playing EP maps, with EP (kind of, they messed up some things…) balance, with matchmaking and server based multiplayer. And then there’s the fact you can’t message friends (viewtopic.php?p=493901#p493901)...

Still going to play a lot and remain hopeful, even assuming they won’t budge on point 2, points 1, 3, and 4 are all fixable. They worked hard on aoe2de for the first months with patches so I assume they’ll do the same here.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

You have a very good point about listening only to certain communities but the fact is ESO was basically the only community left alive, so they had no chances to speak to other people.

[EAGLEMUT]

Another example is the HC leveling. Disabling it for multiplayer was great and entirely necessary but a lot of people were disappointed seeing that it was disabled for single player as well. Since ESOC is a community focused on multiplayer, no one here cares about singleplayer so we didn’t even consider this. This problem also had an easy compromise, they could’ve just kept leveling for SP and had everything unlocked for MP. Point being they shouldn’t have taken advice from only one community.

I still refuse to accept this was a bad decision, even for singleplayer. You say now that the compromise would be easy because there are a couple players complaining about not needing to level in SP, but if SP level unlocking was preserved, you'd see even more people complain why it wasn't removed from SP and why are HCs separate from MP. Even if you check some threads on Steam forum now, there is usually one person who makes a thread about wanting unlocks and then 20 replies about unlocking being wrong and stupid. You just can't please everyone, but this was the right choice I believe.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye, agreed. I don't care about #3 that much, but DE is rushed for sure and some things are worse than legacy aoe3 which is unacceptable tbh.

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

If i didnt have friends in the community to connect with for games/clans etc I would feel so lost in this game. No way to chat to friends, setting up the EPCM clan has seemed really buggy and not straight forward. Cant see which friends are online i think.

Not to mention the noob bashing which has been happening from me and every other experienced AoE3 player so far, may have actually been rather damaging to the player base but that is just speculation as there is no real way to find. So on behalf of me and everybody greater than RE PR 25>, we are sorry

P.s. just imagine queueing into 2v2 with your best mate, both have never played aoe before and you pair against soldier and mitoe in the 2v2. Rip my fellow noobs.

[SoldieR]

I'm feeling much much more optimistic with the quick patch and MUTMOD!

[dicktator_]

Another example is the HC leveling. Disabling it for multiplayer was great and entirely necessary but a lot of people were disappointed seeing that it was disabled for single player as well. Since ESOC is a community focused on multiplayer, no one here cares about singleplayer so we didn’t even consider this. This problem also had an easy compromise, they could’ve just kept leveling for SP and had everything unlocked for MP. Point being they shouldn’t have taken advice from only one community.

I still refuse to accept this was a bad decision, even for singleplayer. You say now that the compromise would be easy because there are a couple players complaining about not needing to level in SP, but if SP level unlocking was preserved, you'd see even more people complain why it wasn't removed from SP and why are HCs separate from MP. Even if you check some threads on Steam forum now, there is usually one person who makes a thread about wanting unlocks and then 20 replies about unlocking being wrong and stupid. You just can't please everyone, but this was the right choice I believe.

Yeah the HC leveling is definitely way more subjective than I thought. I brought it up because I was looking at the top negative steam reviews and at first I was shocked that people didn't like the complete removal of leveling for cards, then I remembered having fun leveling my single player HCs when I was like 10-12 years old.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

If i didnt have friends in the community to connect with for games/clans etc I would feel so lost in this game. No way to chat to friends, setting up the EPCM clan has seemed really buggy and not straight forward. Cant see which friends are online i think.

Not to mention the noob bashing which has been happening from me and every other experienced AoE3 player so far, may have actually been rather damaging to the player base but that is just speculation as there is no real way to find. So on behalf of me and everybody greater than RE PR 25>, we are sorry

P.s. just imagine queueing into 2v2 with your best mate, both have never played aoe before and you pair against soldier and mitoe in the 2v2. Rip my fellow noobs.

Yeah please noob bash as much as you want but be polite and say like "lol ez I'm pro yu noob" at the end.

[n0el]

Another example is the HC leveling. Disabling it for multiplayer was great and entirely necessary but a lot of people were disappointed seeing that it was disabled for single player as well. Since ESOC is a community focused on multiplayer, no one here cares about singleplayer so we didn’t even consider this. This problem also had an easy compromise, they could’ve just kept leveling for SP and had everything unlocked for MP. Point being they shouldn’t have taken advice from only one community.

I still refuse to accept this was a bad decision, even for singleplayer. You say now that the compromise would be easy because there are a couple players complaining about not needing to level in SP, but if SP level unlocking was preserved, you'd see even more people complain why it wasn't removed from SP and why are HCs separate from MP. Even if you check some threads on Steam forum now, there is usually one person who makes a thread about wanting unlocks and then 20 replies about unlocking being wrong and stupid. You just can't please everyone, but this was the right choice I believe.

Yeah the HC leveling is definitely way more subjective than I thought. I brought it up because I was looking at the top negative steam reviews and at first I was shocked that people didn't like the complete removal of leveling for cards, then I remembered having fun leveling my single player HCs when I was like 10-12 years old.

They should have done something else to replace the effects of this. Like building skins or single player content.