The Case for EP 2.0

[Frontline]

Hello,

Considering the conclusion of the recent tournament, as well as the relative surge in interest for AoE3, I think now is an appropriate time to openly discuss the merits of EP 2.0.

To start, after the comparatively balanced days of the original EP, the advent of DE has brought many changes and additions: some good (improved graphics, varied strategies, new civilizations), many bad (general balance of said civilizations, haphazard unit design, additional bugs), and a few categorically awful (revolts, outlaws, Italians, church pops). The result is a strange, incongruent mess; being neither competitively viable or casual friendly, but instead a mishmash of strong core mechanics, absurdly bloated unit roster, and a terminally confused identity. It’s as if a painter, nearing completion of his magnum opus, decided to grab a spray can in one hand, a water hose in the other, close his eyes, and let loose.

With that glowing review out of the way, it’s still worthwhile acknowledging the positives of Microsoft’s role: the DE remaster, subsequent DLCs, constant updates, and free-to-play status all gave AoE3 injections of growth and interest. Yet, it came at a cost as the game is currently configured for longterm atrophy. This begs the question, “why the recent interest, increase in viewership, and general positivity around the game?” I think the answer is straightforward: nothing brings more engagement and excitement than great games being well produced and casted. However, that achievement is owed to an alignment of strong production values, an influx of veteran players, and relatively standard, quality gameplay. All of that to say, the success came despite DE’s failings as a competitive game, and it’s doubtful to be consistently replicated. A quick glance at the average ladder game showcases all the skeletons still hiding in plain sight.

So then, what is the next step? Even if Microsoft, or another company, resumed support for the game, the likelihood is that the Frankenstein mess of mechanics, design, and identity would continue to devolve, driving away those still left with interest. Instead, I think the optimal path is for the community to again take control of their game, learn from the past mistakes, and forge a coherent, balanced future.

[look]

What needs to be done is pressure on Microsoft, so that they can at least continue to release balance for the game, if the game is still profitable, they need to provide support. I hate the neglect of Age of Empires 3 just because it is the weakest in the franchise..
I don't see how it's so difficult to maintain a game's balance, when you just need to change codes and play without bugs.

[Guigs]

Hello,

Considering the conclusion of the recent tournament, as well as the relative surge in interest for AoE3, I think now is an appropriate time to openly discuss the merits of EP 2.0.

To start, after the comparatively balanced days of the original EP, the advent of DE has brought many changes and additions: some good (improved graphics, varied strategies, new civilizations), many bad (general balance of said civilizations, haphazard unit design, additional bugs), and a few categorically awful (revolts, outlaws, Italians, church pops). The result is a strange, incongruent mess; being neither competitively viable or casual friendly, but instead a mishmash of strong core mechanics, absurdly bloated unit roster, and a terminally confused identity. It’s as if a painter, nearing completion of his magnum opus, decided to grab a spray can in one hand, a water hose in the other, close his eyes, and let loose.

With that glowing review out of the way, it’s still worthwhile acknowledging the positives of Microsoft’s role: the DE remaster, subsequent DLCs, constant updates, and free-to-play status all gave AoE3 injections of growth and interest. Yet, it came at a cost as the game is currently configured for longterm atrophy. This begs the question, “why the recent interest, increase in viewership, and general positivity around the game?” I think the answer is straightforward: nothing brings more engagement and excitement than great games being well produced and casted. However, that achievement is owed to an alignment of strong production values, an influx of veteran players, and relatively standard, quality gameplay. All of that to say, the success came despite DE’s failings as a competitive game, and it’s doubtful to be consistently replicated. A quick glance at the average ladder game showcases all the skeletons still hiding in plain sight.

So then, what is the next step? Even if Microsoft, or another company, resumed support for the game, the likelihood is that the Frankenstein mess of mechanics, design, and identity would continue to devolve, driving away those still left with interest. Instead, I think the optimal path is for the community to again take control of their game, learn from the past mistakes, and forge a coherent, balanced future.

Couldn't agree more. From what I know, the technical aspect of implementing a community made patch is the hardest part tho

[musketeer925]

Couldn't agree more. From what I know, the technical aspect of implementing a community made patch is the hardest part tho

Take this with a grain of salt, as I've done zero modding for DE, but what we did for EP in legacy was probably a lot more work technically than it would be now. I don't think any of the anticheat or "unhardcode patch" features in legacy EP are necessary now; as far as I know DE has sufficient anticheat and I am not sure any of the "unhardcoded" things we implemented in EP are necessary/not already in DE. These were the hard things - most balance changes were pretty straightforward tweaks to XML files.

DE also has first-class mod support - not sure if an "EP 2.0" would use the built-in mod support or still go through an external launcher, but I imagine the installer and launcher infrastructure we already had for legacy could be re-used.

As someone who was involved in the technical side, my memory of legacy EP is that the hardest part was getting the community/balance team to agree to which balance changes should be made. There were long threads of discussion, arguments, and drama. Once the balance tweaks were decided, implementing them was fairly trivial in comparison.

[iNcog]

I think this should be done. This is a fantastic idea and it should be done; AoE3 tended to flourish when official development wasn't around. I was flamed in the last thread where this was brought up but I've been around the game since 2007. The prospect of EP 2.0 actually sounds genuinely exciting.

By far the biggest obstacle to this is finding someone to spearhead balance/design changes. I'm sure the opening of this thread sent shivers down Zoi's spine wherever he may be (Zoi, if you read this, you're an mvp and I hope you're doing well). From there, anyone involved in the development of said EP should try to minimize drama and agree that compromise is better than perfection.

RE: DE, the game took mechanics and put them in the back seat and it's an arms race to:
1. find the most broken shit
2. find the best build order for said broken shit

[callentournies]

give him the keys

give Frontline the keys to EP (2)

@realbillgate

[callentournies]

actually, you simply have too little appreciation for ladder gameplay. we have absolute mavericks playing 800 Baja games in 3 months accruing massive amounts of GK and doing good research best practices by maintaining a control variable (queue mexico, go Baja) and taking screenshots for posterity (Record keeping). Likewise absolute mavericks of the ottomans control variable doing research into how to win 20 min games vs minimoult with multiple fights without ever building a single military production building except the notoriously militaristic industrial complex of mosque. and without micro and apm. if you balance the game, you risk losing the strides these players have made and the noobs who are replicating their findings. Thousands and thousands of games of data, maximizing the ratio of strength:skill strategies, lost! also, jullianpotassium's strategy guide, obsolete! game's economy crashed. there will be tariffs on New builds from the east and Europe and global GK will grind to a halt. all streamers stop streaming because no osteo, no kerimb gameblay to leech.

it is the kind of samsoc attitude that is breaking apart the community. I think actually the resurgence of aoe3 is due entirely to Baja revolt and it could grow more if more revolts were buffed because I x have been watching lionelhearto play and win basically none of his games even though he got hunting dogs in age IV with 16 villagers and clicked his mouse thrice (!!) in one minute, which is plenty.

imagine if certain civs couldn't simply deny an FB every game with practically zero concessions -- you want games to be over before the imperial age, which is objectively the best and only measure of good game balance? And the ideal to be sought in game balance because what is always best is more more more more more, not less less less less less?? imperial or bust. don't take MY word for it. Take whoever is no. 1 since 2020's if you could muster the strength to say his name. if your irises weren't too dilated by the wool scamsoc has pulled over your eyes, for his brilliant lite.

I am a brave gamer which is why what I am about to say no one else would say except someone like me -- you are "mad cuz bad." in fact ottomans can make abuse gunners, therefore, Baja is weak revolt. Or as Garja would say, "bad base defense." Dutcho bankamatto. trickle trickle. eco no idle eco no BAD BOOM. merx merx. if we balance the game there will be no more italian brainrot and then italians will collectively have to start improving their country given that 100% of all italian output is spent on prompt configuring aoe3 italian brainrot, crabgot said, and can we, as a country, afford that?

[Mitoe]

I don't really have much of an opinion on whether this is a good idea or not, but two things to think about:

1. Rated games were still possible on EP; I believe rated games are not possible on DE with mods? Might make it difficult for many players to justify installing any fanpatch.
2. From what I remember, both AS Fanpatch and EP were not really used by the Asian communities, so there may be a split there for any kind of fanpatch.

[Javon]

actually, you simply have too little appreciation for ladder gameplay. we have absolute mavericks playing 800 Baja games in 3 months accruing massive amounts of GK and doing good research best practices by maintaining a control variable (queue mexico, go Baja) and taking screenshots for posterity (Record keeping). Likewise absolute mavericks of the ottomans control variable doing research into how to win 20 min games vs minimoult with multiple fights without ever building a single military production building except the notoriously militaristic industrial complex of mosque. and without micro and apm. if you balance the game, you risk losing the strides these players have made and the noobs who are replicating their findings. Thousands and thousands of games of data, maximizing the ratio of strength:skill strategies, lost! also, jullianpotassium's strategy guide, obsolete! game's economy crashed. there will be tariffs on New builds from the east and Europe and global GK will grind to a halt. all streamers stop streaming because no osteo, no kerimb gameblay to leech.

it is the kind of samsoc attitude that is breaking apart the community. I think actually the resurgence of aoe3 is due entirely to Baja revolt and it could grow more if more revolts were buffed because I x have been watching lionelhearto play and win basically none of his games even though he got hunting dogs in age IV with 16 villagers and clicked his mouse thrice (!!) in one minute, which is plenty.

imagine if certain civs couldn't simply deny an FB every game with practically zero concessions -- you want games to be over before the imperial age, which is objectively the best and only measure of good game balance? And the ideal to be sought in game balance because what is always best is more more more more more, not less less less less less?? imperial or bust. don't take MY word for it. Take whoever is no. 1 since 2020's if you could muster the strength to say his name. if your irises weren't too dilated by the wool scamsoc has pulled over your eyes, for his brilliant lite.

I am a brave gamer which is why what I am about to say no one else would say except someone like me -- you are "mad cuz bad." in fact ottomans can make abuse gunners, therefore, Baja is weak revolt. Or as Garja would say, "bad base defense." Dutcho bankamatto. trickle trickle. eco no idle eco no BAD BOOM. merx merx. if we balance the game there will be no more italian brainrot and then italians will collectively have to start improving their country given that 100% of all italian output is spent on prompt configuring aoe3 italian brainrot, crabgot said, and can we, as a country, afford that?

The only coherent take in this thread. Definitive Edition IS the Fan Patch. We've had 12 years of skirmucci dragonucci. Now that GK (game knowledge) and skill level of the players has finally evolved from its pupa stage (couldn't have been done before the advent of AI (artificial intelligence)), we have blossomed like a butterfly into the more interesting and technically onerous musket/falconet unit composition meta. Let's keep it that and think of other revolutions that could be (that should first and foremost be FUN).

[kevinitalien]

yeah it would divise the community so much, like yes the game need an EP2 but its cost so much

[Goodspeed]

You could consider it if:
- ESOC has enough reach. The forums feel much less active to me than they did around the time of EP1, but maybe people congregate on discord now idk? I'd do an analysis of stream viewer counts (noting that viewers aren't necessarily players), discord and forum activity, tournament sign ups (this looks bad ngl, the last tournament had 44 players whereas the first EP1 tournament had 157) etc to see if it's somewhat comparable to what it was back then. If you're not reaching enough players, a fan patch is DOA.
- The players you are reaching actually want it (you're going to have to sell this to some, no doubt).
- You have top players willing to sink a not-to-be-underestimated amount of time into this.
- You have someone willing and able to do the modding.

If you're going through with it, I'd be willing to help you make a plan of attack. I have no idea where to even start balancing the game, but there's a lot of important decisions to make before that and I've been there.

[Squamiger]

Do people think an EP 2 would expand the competitive player base of the game? As I understand it EP originally was created bc quicksearch in RE was totally dead. So the negative part of EP (splitting the player base, no quicksearch options) didn’t really matter. But as it stands, DE feels fairly active. The competitive scene doesn’t feel dead and quicksearch feels alive. Are we expecting that EP2 would mean players like lordrapha h2o mitoe etc would come back? I’m just not sure this is the case— people are getting older and older and moving on with their lives. Basically I’m just wondering what would EP2 solve or change that can’t just be changed by making tourney rules for already existing and planned ESOC tournies, like no Baja etc

Like, assuming that EP2 means no more quicksearch and a return to lobby games, what would EP2 really improve that you can’t already just do yourself by making lobbies / civ rules in DE as it stands now?

I kinda think the better option at this point is still to just pressure Microsoft to return to support and make qs / balance more competitive. It feels like an uphill battle bc for every player that understands balance there are 10 who have no idea what they are talking about and just want to add more crap. But I do think sustained lobbying from competitive players had some impact in shaping balance from 2020-24, as much as it was a pain. If Microsoft ever goes back to support for DE, regular, reasoned feedback on the official forums could still have an impact

[iNcog]

The first ESOC patch was created with the mindset of being able to use Garja's maps for rated games which was in itself already a huge improvement from standard patch. The quality of those maps was night and day compared to the poorly made maps that came in the standard version of the game. From there, the natural extension of that project was to add some balance changes to the biggest outliers: Iroquois and Ottoman

After that, moesbar exploits started to make an appearance on the standard patch and the ESOC devs were able to contain with the ESOC patch/launcher. It was able to provide a safer environment for ladder player than the stock game which was severely impacted by cheat units spawning in game.

So ESOC Patch was not only a means to make the ladder itself better, with better maps, balance and anti-cheating protections. It also served as the platform for the tournaments and events hosted by ESOC. Roughly the rule of thumb is that as soon as you went above PR25, you'd be playing on the EP. Below that RE was were most of the games were.

[look]

EP1 left a legacy for posterity, part of the game base we have today basically comes from EP, I believe it would be much easier to look for something official from Microsoft itself than to start a project as complicated as this... like everything in life, what we need is money to get where we want.

[Goodspeed]

The first ESOC patch was created with the mindset of being able to use Garja's maps for rated games which was in itself already a huge improvement from standard patch. The quality of those maps was night and day compared to the poorly made maps that came in the standard version of the game. From there, the natural extension of that project was to add some balance changes to the biggest outliers: Iroquois and Ottoman

Yeah, back then the biggest selling points were map changes and QoL changes. RE patch was fairly balanced already, with some outliers. We had a couple of quick wins in nerfing Otto and Iro (and walls) and buffing some of the weak stuff but we quickly ran out and it was small tweaks from there. From the beginning, a lot of people were saying "let's stick as close to RE patch as possible", justifiably so. Of course, we snuck design changes in there every now and then, and I'd like to think we managed to significantly improve the game from RE patch over time.

Anyway, now you're working with a completely different beast. The game is obviously way more broken now, with the amount of new stuff DE added, so there is a lot more potential improvement you can get out of community patches. However, the people who are still playing are still playing for a reason; apparently they don't mind the broken mess, so you do have to ask yourself: Is there enough demand for a better game? Would old players come back?

Also, there may be a lot more potential improvement, but actually getting the game to a balanced state will be harder. You're working with an unsettled meta where players are still gaining edges by having a better meta read quite often (I assume, anyway). If that's still a way to win games at the top level, can you expect to get a proper grasp on the state of civ balance? Are top players going to agree on balance changes? That plus our experience with EP1 tells us that no one should have any illusions about getting even close to a balanced game within at least the first year, unless you start by deleting every new civ that DE added and then slowly releasing them over time (which might be a good way to do it, actually).

All that said, if there is enough demand and you do manage to make the game great again, I don't think it's far fetched to say there is at least a chance the competitive community makes a bit of a comeback. Frankly, it's probably the only way it ever could. DE may have brought new players, but it destroyed the competitive community. The last big ESOC tournament pre-DE had 300 participants. A year later, with $2k more in the prize pool, a DE tournament had less than half that (maybe I'm missing nuance here, someone who was actually there for this can correct me). We're now at 44. Go figure.

Now that Microsoft is done vomiting their shitty new content into all of your faces (it is done, right?), it's as good a time as any to start cleaning it up. Maybe it's the sort of gamble you have to take, because it's the only way the game has a future.

[Guigs]

Also, there may be a lot more potential improvement, but actually getting the game to a balanced state will be harder. You're working with an unsettled meta where players are still gaining edges by having a better meta read quite often (I assume, anyway).

Very true

If that's still a way to win games at the top level, can you expect to get a proper grasp on the state of civ balance? Are top players going to agree on balance changes?

I wanna be positive and say yes, it's possible if the majority of top players wish for a community patch to begin with. Most of them agree on what's currently broken/OP and the most obvious things to change

All that said, if there is enough demand and you do manage to make the game great again, I don't think it's far fetched to say there is at least a chance the competitive community makes a bit of a comeback. Frankly, it's probably the only way it ever could. DE may have brought new players, but it destroyed the competitive community. The last big ESOC tournament pre-DE had 300 participants. A year later, with $2k more in the prize pool, a DE tournament had less than half that (maybe I'm missing nuance here, someone who was actually there for this can correct me). We're now at 44. Go figure.

I believe we do have a decent competitive player base atm when considering how bad it got around 2022-2023. Keep in mind every tourney we're hosting now are ESOC funded and we restrict the slots to 32 on purpose, so we can stream every series

[iNcog]

Anyone hoping microsoft steps up is going to be sorely disappointed. AoE3 has always been dirt to the AOE IP holders. They came in for a quick cash grab and left when it was done.

Cleaning up DE's design is going to be some work but I think doable if new EP team gets their hands dirty and goes for a nerf first ask questions later philosophy. First make it so that the garbage meme strats aren't viable/broken anymore.

From there, have a list of baseline civilizations (probably legacy civs honestly) that are deemed "balanced" and the other civilizations are nerfed to below their strength.

Then progressively bring the other new civilizations back on par with the baseline civilizations with frequent patches. I would do one, maybe two civilizations at a time. Have the balance team focus all efforts onto changing a small number of civilizations at a time instead of trying to do everything at once. Rinse and repeat until all the civilizations are where they need to be.

You could try to do all the civilizations at once but there are way too many civilizations and variables and I don't think it would be viable for the manpower available to the possible EP team. You have to size the mission/process to available resources.

I think natives, outlaws and revolutions are gimmicks that take away from the identity of the civilization. They should be present but not the actual way to win competitively unless you surprise your opponent (lack of scouting, lack of game knowlege). I would nerf them hard and let the civilizations speak for themselves. Having diverse options for the sake of diverse options isn't actually good for the game if you make too much shit broken.

Naturally this is just me spurring on the discussion, I think those who are more intimately aware of the game state should be spearheading this. But definitely I would say the PDCA-like method I'm proposing here would work well for this project.

[Goodspeed]

Also, there may be a lot more potential improvement, but actually getting the game to a balanced state will be harder. You're working with an unsettled meta where players are still gaining edges by having a better meta read quite often (I assume, anyway).

Very true

If that's still a way to win games at the top level, can you expect to get a proper grasp on the state of civ balance? Are top players going to agree on balance changes?

I wanna be positive and say yes, it's possible if the majority of top players wish for a community patch to begin with. Most of them agree on what's currently broken/OP and the most obvious things to change

All that said, if there is enough demand and you do manage to make the game great again, I don't think it's far fetched to say there is at least a chance the competitive community makes a bit of a comeback. Frankly, it's probably the only way it ever could. DE may have brought new players, but it destroyed the competitive community. The last big ESOC tournament pre-DE had 300 participants. A year later, with $2k more in the prize pool, a DE tournament had less than half that (maybe I'm missing nuance here, someone who was actually there for this can correct me). We're now at 44. Go figure.

I believe we do have a decent competitive player base atm when considering how bad it got around 2022-2023. Keep in mind every tourney we're hosting now are ESOC funded and we restrict the slots to 32 on purpose, so we can stream every series

Ah ok. What was the last open tournament you hosted and how many players signed up?

[Guigs]

Also, there may be a lot more potential improvement, but actually getting the game to a balanced state will be harder. You're working with an unsettled meta where players are still gaining edges by having a better meta read quite often (I assume, anyway).

Very true

If that's still a way to win games at the top level, can you expect to get a proper grasp on the state of civ balance? Are top players going to agree on balance changes?

I wanna be positive and say yes, it's possible if the majority of top players wish for a community patch to begin with. Most of them agree on what's currently broken/OP and the most obvious things to change

All that said, if there is enough demand and you do manage to make the game great again, I don't think it's far fetched to say there is at least a chance the competitive community makes a bit of a comeback. Frankly, it's probably the only way it ever could. DE may have brought new players, but it destroyed the competitive community. The last big ESOC tournament pre-DE had 300 participants. A year later, with $2k more in the prize pool, a DE tournament had less than half that (maybe I'm missing nuance here, someone who was actually there for this can correct me). We're now at 44. Go figure.

I believe we do have a decent competitive player base atm when considering how bad it got around 2022-2023. Keep in mind every tourney we're hosting now are ESOC funded and we restrict the slots to 32 on purpose, so we can stream every series

Ah ok. What was the last open tournament you hosted and how many players signed up?

There wasn't any since I joined (2022-2023)
I believe the last open tournament hosted by ESOC was Global championship : global-championship-2021

[Goodspeed]

You're telling me that if I'm an average player looking to test my skills in a tournament just for fun, there has been no way for me to play in a major ESOC event in the last 3 years?

That probably hasn't helped with player retention either...

[Garja]

A fan patch is way too much work and arguably wrong philosophy for this game to start with.

[Frontline]

A couple things to touch on regarding some of the comments:

This game is brutal for new players to pick up and enjoy. There are nearly two dozen civilizations, hundreds of units, countless gimmicks, and no real consistency or standardization to underline it all. On top of that, after you’ve played your tenth game vs. revolts, in-base church FIs, or mono unit spam, why would you care to learn it at all? In actuality, I think most of the active playerbase consists of ‘casual veterans,’ who have been around the block, enjoy their go-to civilization or strategy, and have no real desire to improve—hardly the impetus for a thriving scene.

In terms of competitive play, it seems unlikely that there’ll be much new blood coming into the scene because of just how unrewarding and unfair climbing the ladder feels. Likewise, as far as I can tell, many of the existing pro players have little interest in remaining constantly active and grinding ranked. Instead, we’d rather practice lobby games as preparation for an upcoming tournament, and then slide back into relative inactivity. While this arrangement might be sustainable for a period of time, it’s hard to see any resulting longterm growth.

With that said, I agree with the sentiments that an EP 2.0 could equally be harmful if implement improperly. Dividing the community over a somewhat balanced patch aimed exclusively at the tournament level sounds like a poor course of action. Rather, the patch would need to be ambitious in scope and scale, so that it’s evidently superior in all faucets compared to the base DE version.

So yes, an EP 2.0 would be difficult, time consuming, and involve a non-trivial chance of failure, but I don’t see any other viable path forward.

[Goodspeed]

So yes, an EP 2.0 would be difficult, time consuming, and involve a non-trivial chance of failure, but I don’t see any other viable path forward.

I think you're probably right.

[Mitoe]

You're telling me that if I'm an average player looking to test my skills in a tournament just for fun, there has been no way for me to play in a major ESOC event in the last 3 years?

That probably hasn't helped with player retention either...

Not just amateur players, I failed to qualify for the Winter Championship (which was actually just an age 2 only tournament I believe?) as a returning player because it was locked to top 16 seeds and I would've been seed 17.

The competitive scene for the last few years has been very skewed towards supporting only active players, IMO.

[Guigs]

You're telling me that if I'm an average player looking to test my skills in a tournament just for fun, there has been no way for me to play in a major ESOC event in the last 3 years?

That probably hasn't helped with player retention either...

Not just amateur players, I failed to qualify for the Winter Championship (which was actually just an age 2 only tournament I believe?) as a returning player because it was locked to top 16 seeds and I would've been seed 17.

The competitive scene for the last few years has been very skewed towards supporting only active players, IMO.

We had 30 sign ups for that event, we couldn't even fill the 32 slots to make a bigger bracket if we wanted to.
I guess a full age 2 tourney with "Unknown" map being imposed as map 1 doesn't exactly attract a crowd.

If i'm being honest, the requirements to make it into the 16 players wasn't that high but yeah, you need to play a bit of ladder no matter how tedious it is.

On the other hand, when we host a legacy civilization tourney we get the counter argument "you are just hosting that to get old players back". Point being no matter what you do, some will be unsatisfied