Leaderboard

ValihrAnt's patch looks useful to improve the gameplay fast and relatively easily, but now i'm more worried about borg's changes. If there is an intention to eventually let them into the game, it can become harder the longer it's postponed. I believe rebasing those changes onto the new alpha wouldn't be comparably hard to making and testing them, especially for someone used to working with patches. How strict is the requirement of separating the changes into several patches? This is something that could be really hard to do. There has been a lot of testing of the mod as a whole. Trying to split it into several patches could be as hard as making several balanced mods out of the borg's original one. I think an exception should be considered in this case. If we agree to allow submitting borg's mod in a single patch, I'd consider volunteering in rebasing those changes onto the current game version. Is it possible to get a any of guarantee that making the rebase won't come to a waste?

@borg-, @ValihrAnt Couldn't you guys work together as a team ? Thanks for the initative btw

@ValihrAnt, @borg-, @Boudica, Am I seeing a game balance department in the making? If you're able to reach consensus on things amongst yourselves, then convincing the community probably won't be that hard. We need some experienced people to take initiative on this, because there currently isn't a balance department in the dev team. If you work as a team on this, you'd effectively become that department, and I think the devs might/should be amenable to this. Even if they're not, we'll just start a small riot on the forum (and by riot I mean a public poll or something ) Just make sure the documentation is on point, so that everyone can easily see all the changes (even if there are hundreds of changes, we just need a list).

This is a balance mod meant for testing changes before creating patches for them on trac. The changes are purposefully small and not drastic, and I don't plan to fix all of the balance issues as I don't have too much time available and additionally it makes it harder to get into the game. Additionally I'm also limited by other factors, such as map generation. Currently mines are spawned entirely randomly, which means that in team games one team will occasionally enjoy a huge metal advantage, while the other team has no extra metal mines or has to share 1 mine between all of them. This means that if champions are balanced in such a way that they are cost efficient vs citizen soldiers then we will much more frequently have the winning side decided on map generation. CURRENT CHANGES Team bonuses: Iber: 20% to 10% Rome: 20% to 10% Kush: 20% to 10% Technologies: Loom: 50% to 100% and cost from 150F to 200F Armor plating: 500W, 250M to 300W, 150M Advanced Siege: 1000W, 500M to 700W, 300M Citizen soldiers: Slingers: 9.5P, 1C and 3.0 accuracy to 9.2P, 0.9C and 3.5 accuracy(right between skirms and archers). Archers: 6P to 6.7P. Citizen cavalry: Cavalry archers: Move speed from 17.5(same as javelin cavalry) to 16.0 and run speed from 29.2 to 26.6 Elephants: War Elephant: 250F, 250M to 300F, 200M Elephant Archer: 200F, 80W, 20M to 150F, 75W Champions: Archer Cav: Move speed from 20.3 to 18.4 and run speed from 33.8 to 30.7 Catapults: Splash damage radius: 10m to 7m Buildings: Carthaginian temple: 400S to 300S Kushite small pyramid: 300F, 300S to 300S VERSION 6.0 CHANGES Actually changed archer damage to 6.7P from 6.8P Fixed elephant archer speed, as I originally didn't realise they had cav archers as parent template. Carthaginian temple cost from 400S to 300S Kushite small pyramid cost reduced from 300F 300S to 300S BalanceTestModV6.zip

Which really takes time is to make the patches separate. If we could upload a complete patch, I would certainly could work on it.

These sound like some pretty straight forward ideas. Thanks for taking the time to look at this! I can't wait to try it. For Black cloaks and P2 mercenary champions: Why not have a cheap technology that makes them a bit stronger in P3 instead of reducing their cost? It would have a similar effect if you want them to continued to get used in P3. I hope this goes well! @borg- Sorry to hear you don't have the time. I really like your mod as it is and I feel it adds more than just balance to the game. I know there were a couple people trolling you on it a while back, I hope you didn't take their opinions to heart to much. I'm not sure they even tried playing your mod. Some people are maybe just afraid of change.

I'm not doing this all alone. I have mostly been cooperating with Feld as borg- is generally harder for me to reach, but both of them have given me their opinions on things, helped test and offered suggestions on how to improve the changes.

How to converse with the irregular programs. @borg- @PhyZik @Boudica

Following the discussion here I prepared a bunch of mods for you to test and to share with people to find the best alternative Can you guys test them and share them to figure out if any of them is better ? @HMS-Surprise I added the results from the discord. IbexHorn1.zip 227.37 kB · 3 downloads IbexHorn2.zip 204.93 kB · 2 downloads IbexHorn3.zip 190.2 kB · 2 downloads IbexHorn4.zip 178.37 kB · 3 downloads ShellTrumpet1.zip 105.77 kB · 3 downloads ShellTrumpet2.zip 81.45 kB · 2 downloads ShellTrumpet3.zip 124.25 kB · 3 downloads

ships cant ram. Swordcav and Lancecavis useless. Archers own them in mass! U still dont get notified when u r in a battle wiht a player and another player is raping ur base. Ship battles are lame (no special attacks, no fire tirime etc, just arrows like wtf.) Macedonians have +10% attack bonus vs Persians?! Unfair and unrealistic. I have to ban them every time I play as Persians. Persians and Carthanians tradebonus got nerfed (stop nerfing every cultural benefit), 25% extra HP for cav is only 20% because of some stupid upgrade in the stable. Ballista are totally overpowered. 3 ballista can rape army of 100 with eles. Melee units are trying to convert opponents siege instead of destroying it. Slingers are somewhat overpowered ( their walking speed is too high, they can escape cav) Further sugguestions: Add some Asian culture (Chinese/Han)! That also gets 10% pop bonus. Improve wall building, so that it automatically closes the gaps.

"since when do we care about forum polls?" - a recent quote where the context was very similar to this one. The correct course of action is to just: https://code.wildfiregames.com/differential/diff/create/ and hope someone looks at the thing and goes "hey, that might be cool. I need to add that". Also, if you need inspiration or something, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1400. It was conjured up by two top players. Seems like neither of them are really around anymore.

> Swordcav and Lancecavis useless. Archers own them in mass! Does not seem like someone who understands interactions between these units. > U still dont get notified when u r in a battle wiht a player and another player is raping ur base. Not sure what this means, I think it's lack of attention span unless it's a bug I never faced. > Ballista are totally overpowered. 3 ballista can rape army of 100 with eles. I am not sure an experienced player would have an issue here, ballistas are powerful yes but they have major drawbacks that can be easily overcame. > Melee units are trying to convert opponents siege instead of destroying it. I mean, I understand that the defaults may not be your personal preference, most of the time you'll want to destroy instead of capturing. But not paying attention to a simple default is not reason to blame 'balance beyond bad'. This assertion is true, it does not mean that the accusations aforementioned are objective truths as opposed to frustration.

Well you mainly stated facts with which I agree. You also offered two solutions which do not help the issue. Adding a 14th civilisation while nice would not help make the game more balanced. You can still convince your friends to play Terra Magna or DE (which might more balanced even though you lose the Random Maps) For the wall thingy it's planned Pratice is the only reason you are not banned With practise comes patience. I'm just wondering though, if Age of Empires is so much better, why are you not spreading your love on their forums instead of spreading your hate of this FLOSS game here ?

if i was admin I would ban this guy for a week, actually anyone who talks complete nonesense

Ibex 1 - I'm trying to imagine it with the Battle Sounds, and this one doesn't seem to create unnecessary dissonance. The Shells sound like farts to me.

IbexHorn1 sounds good with 2X playback speed.

That's indeed rare of you @Sundiata. I was already expecting you calling it out the moment it was posted in the Forums. I was honestly cowering under my blanket, hoping that you'd go easy on it.

As far as I know, the team would be willing to implement it. But I've been working for many months on this mod, and I would need many more months to convert it to a24 and make the patches separate and up. It's a time I don't have now, unfortunately.

@LordGood @Sundiata @Angen used the towers against me, they are completely OP ^^

Freestanding towers in general just weren't really a thing outside of the Roman Limes (although I don't know where that second pic from LordGood comes from. Is it actually an example of a freestanding tower?). But every civ has towers because it's an RTS convention. That said, artillery towers (attached to walls) were indeed a thing. Of all people, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm kind of in favor of waving historical accuracy for these things because they are pretty darn cool (Alistair's reaction says it all), and they're not super unhistorical because artillery towers did exist... They shouldn't break the game of course. And if I understand correctly, they're only for Greco-Roman civs, so it would feel relatively believable.

Actually, it should be not 2 but 3 civs ban-allowed.. because now it's simply a 100% Gauls tournament

made the whole tree smaller to compensate, polys are pushing new oak levels though

I merged the three topics. For the non-technical people this means that the lobby server required more security than Windows clients were able to provide and therefore caused a denial of service for all users that had TLS enabled. We are sorry for any inconvenience. For those that wish to know what happened here is a short summary. An issue occurred after an Update on the Debian VM hosting the lobby. Debian then required that all clients use TLS 1.2. Currently all users on Windows are limited to TLS 1.0 because of Gloox, which caused them to be denied access to the service. From the debian mailing list https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/08/msg00187.html > I've just uploaded a version of OpenSSL to unstable that disables > the TLS 1.0 and 1.1 protocol. This currently leaves TLS 1.2 as the > only supported SSL/TLS protocol version. > This will likely break certain things that for whatever reason > still don't support TLS 1.2. I strongly suggest that if it's not > supported that you add support for it, or get the other side to > add support for it. elexis resolved this issue by recompiling the SSL lib without that limitation and changei 17:09 <elexis> have to compile with enable-weak-ssl-ciphers, why even update things 19:11 <elexis> /etc/ssl/openssl.cnf MinProtocol = None CipherString = DEFAULT + ejabberd restart Another workaround was to disable TLS.

My humble contribution right old, left new.

is this branch suppose to stretch like this or its a bug?

A look at what I've been able to do with @LordGood's new "Badlands" cliffs