Is AoE3 an upgrade to AoE2?

[Sorvete]

It's a genuine question. xD I only played 1 a loooong time ago, no idea how the series developed itself.

[Victorav29]

Some people like more AoE II, some other AoE III. They play on different leagues on it's own.

For sure, unlocking levels on MP was a bad decision, but now will be fixed.

[Marshal]

Personally I prefer AoE 3. But both are good in their own right.

[Bangklang]

Originally posted by Dr. Damn Nation:

Nope.
AoE2 is the superior game of the series, its peak.
But i still see a place for AoE3 if only for some new campaigns and the like.

this is exactly the problem with aoe 2 players... you always talk about the campaigngs when you compare both games- who gives a damn? Aoe 3 is a purely online multiplayer based breed, the campaigns suck and thats because the focus wasnt on the campaings by devs from the start, but the fast and casual online gaming.
In terms of online multiplayer, Aoe 3 is superiour in the regard, that you are fast in the action, you can rush at high speed and dont waste hours playing a single game. Queueing a single unit at a time as in aoe 2 is such a waste of time honestly

True, Aoe 3 is limited in options, but thats also a good thing if you want to enjoy a quick game and not drag out long eco building with extensive battles.

In a nutshell, very different games for different kinds of people. None is superiour to each other. I totally hated aoe 2 for its slooooow buildup...

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Bangklang:

Originally posted by Dr. Damn Nation:

Nope.
AoE2 is the superior game of the series, its peak.
But i still see a place for AoE3 if only for some new campaigns and the like.

this is exactly the problem with aoe 2 players... you always talk about the campaigngs when you compare both games- who gives a damn? Aoe 3 is a purely online multiplayer based breed, the campaigns suck and thats because the focus wasnt on the campaings by devs from the start, but the fast and casual online gaming.
In terms of online multiplayer, Aoe 3 is superiour in the regard, that you are fast in the action, you can rush at high speed and dont waste hours playing a single game. Queueing a single unit at a time as in aoe 2 is such a waste of time honestly

True, Aoe 3 is limited in options, but thats also a good thing if you want to enjoy a quick game and not drag out long eco building with extensive battles.

In a nutshell, very different games for different kinds of people. None is superiour to each other. I totally hated aoe 2 for its slooooow buildup...

So you might like AoE 2 DEs Empire Wars mode

[Trevor Reznik]

What have they said about the level unlocking in multiplayer exactly?

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Trevor Reznik:

What have they said about the level unlocking in multiplayer exactly?

:lunar2020thinkingtiger:

It's gone, all cards are available at the very beginning

[treats]

Originally posted by holydiver95:

Originally posted by Trevor Reznik:

What have they said about the level unlocking in multiplayer exactly?

:lunar2020thinkingtiger:

It's gone, all cards are available at the very beginning

...for multiplayer.
It will still exist but only for singleplayer, and probably less of a grind

[Corban Harbor]

objectivley aoe3 is better. games dont last as eccruciatingly long, the shipment system allows for more varried strategies, the civilizations are FAR more unique that aoe2 and learning each one feels like relearning the game. it also looks better and has lots of quality of life changes

[Trevor Reznik]

Originally posted by holydiver95:

It's gone, all cards are available at the very beginning

Great news!

[Nero]

AoE2 requires more skill and the elitists that enjoy AoE2 do not want to go over to 3 because all that skill they accumulated in how to hunt a boar and other stuff doesn't translate over.

Farm placing and farming in general is rocketscience in AoE2 where you have to watch a Spirit of the Law video or else you're 1 minute later in castle age and then automatically loose.

I love the ressource gathering in 3. Place a farm and assign 10 villagers to it, it will work on its own. Now AoE2 DE also has this, they minimized the economy gameplay to become more attractive. There's also a gamemode that starts you with a village now so you can skip the first 5 minutes that are always the same.

AoE2 is one of those "frustrating" RTS games where you build up for like 20 minutes just to find out that the other player did it better and then you can throw in the towel. In 3 with the hometown you can break out of that cycle by activating other cards and maybe have some military victory by just being better at the combat.

The treasures also add to the gameplay, if you find good ones you may be able to make a comeback. Skill still determines the outcome in the end.

[Nero]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

All you are saying is that AoE2 is a better GAME after all.

Well yes if you subjectively like that better then its the better game for you.

[Bangklang]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by WitchingSnake:

AoE2 requires more skill and the elitists that enjoy AoE2 do not want to go over to 3 because all that skill they accumulated in how to hunt a boar and other stuff doesn't translate over.

Farm placing and farming in general is rocketscience in AoE2 where you have to watch a Spirit of the Law video or else you're 1 minute later in castle age and then automatically loose.

I love the ressource gathering in 3. Place a farm and assign 10 villagers to it, it will work on its own. Now AoE2 DE also has this, they minimized the economy gameplay to become more attractive. There's also a gamemode that starts you with a village now so you can skip the first 5 minutes that are always the same.

AoE2 is one of those "frustrating" RTS games where you build up for like 20 minutes just to find out that the other player did it better and then you can throw in the towel. In 3 with the hometown you can break out of that cycle by activating other cards and maybe have some military victory by just being better at the combat.

The treasures also add to the gameplay, if you find good ones you may be able to make a comeback. Skill still determines the outcome in the end.

All you are saying is that AoE2 is a better GAME after all.

That skill is what seperates a game from a passive waiting period.

AoE2 is a better game, by default, specially because it is almost fully dependant on player input, and not how lucky you are with treasures, or how many hours you played to get all cards.

you are wrong, what withcing snake wrote is correct!

because, treasures dont do much difference, they are usually just a few resources. neither does the HC level. Meanwhile, all players are over level 40 and if not u can XP boost your level by simply farming XP without loosing rank. So, it really doesnt depend on levels or treasures in game.

it really depends on skill, especially combat skill!
And you are able to turn a game around by using mercenary units, clever unit transformations, crazy strategies etc. Aoe 3 is full of cool stuff.
Ao2 is literally just an eco farming game at start.
In Aoe 3 you can fight around 5 min if you know how to and completely neglect eco to win...

[Alphakuh]

Does it really bother you to play 10 games to unlock the most cards? Lol. That’s what I like about the game

[Sergeant Poultry]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by stefizzle:

Does it really bother you to play 10 games to unlock the most cards? Lol. That’s what I like about the game

Yes, it is incredibly bothersome, all players should start at the same level of ingame abilities (personal skill and civ asymmetry nonwithstanding) at all times.

Having more cards because you are level 40 while the other guy is level 10, is absurd for any competitive game; which is why AoE3 was never as good as AoE2.

To be fair, most new players tend to play against new players. If they both don't have cards then no sweat. If one has cards but the other doesn't it is still acceptable as new players tend to not know how to use cards to their full potential (unless they are smurfing at which point it can be a probelm). Experienced players will have played the game for so long that they recognize most cards are useless, hence why only a select few cards are chosen. It's also why you don't see many high level players with low level HC (unless they smurf). Therefore, you could argue there is a vague correlation with skill level and HC level, which is why it isn't that big of a deal when it comes to balance. I have personally lost many times to players with level 1-10 decks whereas mine was 100. Skill is still the most important aspect in the game and considering how all new decks are orientated towards rush/agro (which the entire game is) the problem isn't full on that bad. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but it is not as bad as you think it is. I am still in support of all cards being availbe solely so I don't have to grind.

[Alphakuh]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by stefizzle:

Does it really bother you to play 10 games to unlock the most cards? Lol. That’s what I like about the game

Yes, it is incredibly bothersome, all players should start at the same level of ingame abilities (personal skill and civ asymmetry nonwithstanding) at all times.

Having more cards because you are level 40 while the other guy is level 10, is absurd for any competitive game; which is why AoE3 was never as good as AoE2.

I would kick your ass off with hometown with lv 1 even if you have all cards