So I just played a 2v2, my empire is level 8. I was teamed with a level 10. 
 
We were put against a level 17 and a level 16. Considering the amount of extra gear they have (their units also looked badass), I thought we'd get rolled. But with harassment and pressure (Starcraft 2 training came in handy), I was able to lead my team to victory. 
 
It was actually pretty fun. This game offers a lot of depth.. It feels really free compared to most RTS games, as the original AoEs did. You can macro, you can turtle, most strategies are viable, and a lot of strategy must come into play due to the nature of the deep economy system. And apparently level doesn't matter too much, thanks to this victory (although if two equally skilled players fight, the higher level with better gear will likely come out ahead)
 
One issue though, is I did encounter a bit of lag. There's a solid second delay between commands in pvp matches. I'll let it slide for now because I've NEVER played a launch MMO (this kind of counts) that didn't lag, but hopefully it's fixed soon. And hopefully they make the matchmaking a bit better, because a level 8 shouldnt fight a 17.
 
If anyone wants to pvp with me, I'm on Athens, gamertag Pinworm45.

I was probably 7 when the first Age of Empires came out, and playing it online was amazing (one of my first online interactions)

If you played the first one, how does it hold up with AoEO in terms of the online? Very similar?

I was probably 7 when the first Age of Empires came out, and playing it online was amazing (one of my first online interactions)

If you played the first one, how does it hold up with AoEO in terms of the online? Very similar?

Considering it is Free to Play, it's not that surprising it feels really free compared to other RTS games...

Okay that was bad.

I'm intrigued by this game, but I still feel like if I sometime want to play some AoE, I could just play AoE2 until I get my fill.

EDIT: Also, I just realized, don't you have to spend a ton of money in order to get what is essentially the same amount of content that there was in precious games?

If you have to be level 40 to have a similar experience as the traditional games, that costs money, and in order to have the same amount of civilizations you have to spend even more money. Now, I don't know how this is handled in AoEO, but considering there is already a $100 pack, it sounds like you'll have to spend a lot of money to have the "full" experience.

I've been a little interested in this game but I'm not a big fan of games based on micro-transaction; I just want to pay for the game once and then play it fair and square against people. How much does it really cost to fully play this game? Can you like buy/unlock everything at once and then your done with it or do you have to keep paying to keep up your good stuff or what's the deal?

Ohhhhh man good ol' Live. I remember back in the when I played dow2 before steamworks. I was a 20+ rank and I was roflstomping lvl 1s.

Other RTS developers have stated that for this game genre to work in matchmaking you need more than 50 degrees of separation when comparing opponents. There are too many variables at play (especially in this game) and skill levels to have a good accurate match up. This matchmaking is fine in an FPS but it has shown not to work so well in this case.

Microsoft should switch to the elo system.

I haven't actually tried out PVP in AoE:O yet, but I've read some people with pretty serious and well-thought out concerns over balance. All the potential gear, and the fact that free and premium players are matched against once another, just seems to destroy all balance that game could possibly have. 
 
Also, I've read that Greece doesn't have an anti-ranged unit until Age III, giving Egypt the ability to archer rush Greece and pretty much slaughter that player unless their gear is godly or the Egypt player is completely incompetent. Something like that just seems ridiculous, or like something that would seem less ridiculous if there were actually more than a paltry two civilizations in the game.
 
That being said, of course, I'll probably buy the launch starter bundle in the coming days. If I'm going to play this game I feel like I'm wasting my time doing it in free-mode. Even paying an obscene forty dollars just for two civilizations is still less than what it would probably cost in a box, though I know I'm rationalizing. (And also, if there were just two civilizations in a box product, for an AoE game, that would be crazy-scandalous.)

I think the game's microtransaction model is very poor value compared to say AoE2. Playing without buying Premium civilizations is nothing more than a demo and the full game of AoEO costs two or three times as much as AoE2 at full price and does not offer more content.

It's a little frustrating to hear Jeff talking about how you can still build certain lesser units so everything is fine. No it isn't. Everyone who knows a little bit about AoE knows that upgrading units and civilizations is key to winning in an AoE game.

I think the game's microtransaction model is very poor value compared to say AoE2. Playing without buying Premium civilizations is nothing more than a demo and the full game of AoEO costs two or three times as much as AoE2 at full price and does not offer more content.

It's a little frustrating to hear Jeff talking about how you can still build certain lesser units so everything is fine. No it isn't. Everyone who knows a little bit about AoE knows that upgrading units and civilizations is key to winning in an AoE game.

@Pinworm45 said:

@CptBedlam said:

I think the game's microtransaction model is very poor value compared to say AoE2. Playing without buying Premium civilizations is nothing more than a demo and the full game of AoEO costs two or three times as much as AoE2 at full price and does not offer more content.

It's a little frustrating to hear Jeff talking about how you can still build certain lesser units so everything is fine. No it isn't. Everyone who knows a little bit about AoE knows that upgrading units and civilizations is key to winning in an AoE game.

You only need to buy a civ to be competitive. It's 20$. Most the expensive stuff, including what drives up the price of that 100$ package, is cosmetic stuff (which is perfectly fair, they have to make money somehow) I repeat: you only need to spend 20$ on this game to have access to everything (minus crete which doesn't matter and is cheap anyway).

Well, in AoE2 I got all the "Premium" civilizations, several single-player campaigns and online play for 50$. Better value in my opinion.

Yes, I get that in AoEO you don't have to buy everything but that only gives you access to certain parts of the game. With AoE2 you got all these parts for a much better price.

@CptBedlam said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@CptBedlam said:

I think the game's microtransaction model is very poor value compared to say AoE2. Playing without buying Premium civilizations is nothing more than a demo and the full game of AoEO costs two or three times as much as AoE2 at full price and does not offer more content.

It's a little frustrating to hear Jeff talking about how you can still build certain lesser units so everything is fine. No it isn't. Everyone who knows a little bit about AoE knows that upgrading units and civilizations is key to winning in an AoE game.

You only need to buy a civ to be competitive. It's 20$. Most the expensive stuff, including what drives up the price of that 100$ package, is cosmetic stuff (which is perfectly fair, they have to make money somehow) I repeat: you only need to spend 20$ on this game to have access to everything (minus crete which doesn't matter and is cheap anyway).

Well, in AoE2 I got all the "Premium" civilizations, several single-player campaigns and online play for 50$. Better value in my opinion.

Yes, I get that in AoEO you don't have to buy everything but that only gives you access to certain parts of the game. With AoE2 you got all these parts for a much better price.

I understand your point, but AoEO is a totally different approach when compared to previous games. The leveling and gear systems make it so that you want to stick with only one civ instead of jumping around, with that beign said, buying a single civ for $20 IS the complete experience, there is no incentive to play more than one civ, since you'll have to level up again, get gear again, etc.

Also, the leveling and gearing makes the game deeper and more satisfying in my opinion. There's a reason why persistent upgrades and leveling are so popular nowadays, they really give a sense of progress to the player.