All Activity

I think they theoretically could make sense. For example, if you started out as a base Hellenic civ that you couple develop into Athens or Sparta with unique features then that would be pretty cool. But for simple techs I think it takes away from the cat and mouse game where players adjust their strategies in response to the other because tech pairs, by definition, eliminate future choices. One of the main problems I have is that people want new, novel features and never consider whether those novel features actually make any sense.

They raise their hands to the gods on high, no matter which god. The gods are on high, except for those of the Underworld.

That is true. I'd only use them as a design decision, not as some kind of fix for something.

@Classic-Burger Will your Priests praise the Sun, as welll?

Which is actually an appropriate suggestion if the problem he say exists actually existed. I think more expensive eco techs with shorter train times probably make sense at some phase(s). Right now, you get little benefit by forgoing techs to phase faster and that shouldn’t be the case. My big point is that tech pairs are a really awful “fix” to basically any problem.

Well, it will work for my mod.

As if prices and time couldn't be changed.

No, YOU miss the point. Players often oscillate between getting a tech in one game and forging it in the next. You are complaining about a lack of strategies when you don’t use ones that are already available. Literally none of this requires a tech pair instead of just adding more techs. When you research a tech matters. You all both looking at this from a one dimensional view of if it can be researched and ignore all timing dimensions.

\art\animation\biped\citizen\pray.dae It's used here: \art\variants\biped\gather_praise.xml

That's why the game never changes.

You miss the point, they can do that. I can also "adjust" my attribute multipliers in Morrowind by spending gold on trainers for a skill that my character shouldn't be good at. It will be efficient, yes? But, is that fun? Again, you miss the point by looking at everything from your high-stakes multiplayer viewpoint.

Praise.dae (?)

Technologies don't make a big impact sometimes. For pairs to work there would have to be a larger election scheme. Long paths with technologies are needed, so that there are decisions An example of Path of Exile. Lots of decisions, not a spamfest simulation. With few technologies that do not define a strategy, a coherent line of decisions cannot be followed. Although Path of Exile is exaggerated, you can see how varied it is.

Praise

What animation do you use there?

Even at baseline gather rate, you would still be much slower if everyone else has an access to a tech to make berries faster. Tech pairs sole purpose is to eliminate this choice, which is why I entirely dislike them. Everyone doesn’t research every technology. Even for the techs that most people do get, they don’t get them at the same time. I suggest you look inward and question whether you are yet to discover other strategies that other players have. And, if the situation you describe did occur (which it hasn’t) then you could just adjust cost/benefits so that it doesn’t happen every time for every player.

The hunting tech shouldn't change the berry gather rates. It should just improve hunting. Forget about multiplayer for a second. The game needs to be fun to play first and foremost. If the game is fun, players will discover strategies and counter-strategies. Fun games have choices that are risky, but rewarding. If you devolve a game to a literal spamfest where everyone can get everything in every match (we still don't restrict technologies per civ! AoE 1 had that in 1997), you lose a lot of replayability.

Add something like this to the unit template: <UnitAI> <DefaultStance>violent</DefaultStance> <RoamDistance>8.0</RoamDistance> <RoamTimeMin>2000</RoamTimeMin> <RoamTimeMax>8000</RoamTimeMax> <FeedTimeMin>15000</FeedTimeMin> <FeedTimeMax>60000</FeedTimeMax> <Formations disable=""/> </UnitAI>

Very awesome, successful games have these attributes. I don't oppose it at all.

It’s also why I dislike how you can only train a hero once. Different heroes might be best at different phases of the game and I shouldn’t lose the ability to adjust back and forth within the game. I can understand if your enemy kills your hero but I am talking about a situation where I voluntarily want to change heroes back and forth.

It isn’t. You have lost the choice to do that and the strategy associated with that. Every civ has the berry tech. It was in the game for many alphas. If I chose the hunting tech, which make berry gathering slow, and you later discover that there are a lot of harvestable berries on the map then you will be much slower than all other players that did the berry tech. Pareto is if you just add a hunting tech that makes hunting faster without eliminating the ability to be berries. As a principle matter, I don’t like anything that hinders your ability to adjust later. Tech pairs by definition do that

Not quite the same thing. OP is asking about making Gaia units wander around like deer do. In Gallic Fields, a Gaia soldier is spawned and tasked to go to a certain point.

But it is, in my example. I'm not talking about combining existing techs into pairs.

But it’s not. It eliminates a road that you can take. For example, the Maurya berry or hunting tech can ruin you. If you pick the berry tech and it turns out the map is super hunt heavy and everyone goes cav hunting then you’re in trouble. Opposite is true too. it’s only Pareto if it doesn’t take away other options. I see little reason to have tech pairs as opposed to bust adding a tech

Sure, but in my example you didn't have that choice at all before the 2nd tech was added. It's additive in this example.