borg-

Exactly, you pay 500 gold to a tribe, it gives you 10 extremely fast units with a very burn power, but weak for general combat, or 5 units of 2 men and a trunk, much faster than a conventional ram, capable of destroying buildings in a more stealthy way. We could have relics around the map as an old metal mine, with infinite metal or a large metal mine and some towers around, which would make it difficult for the enemy to fight these collectors.

I like the core idea of how 0a.d works, so maybe I wouldn't change anything about how it works now. Regarding spam, I think adding viable strategies on the map, such as treasures, alliances, abandoned fortresses among others, can help. The objective is to add other means of achieving victory other than just making large numbers of soldiers. Champions must be trained in p1. They must be really strong compared to conventional soldiers, this would encourage them to spend resources training champions instead of more citizen soldiers. Also champions must have some sort of special skill, like being able to train siege units or special buildings like towers that can be built on enemy terrain.

Resistance is futile

Worker elephant can join on cc.

I don't know if it's a known bug already, but working elephant can't get inside a cc if it's on the corner of cc. It's an easy to find bug, just a few tries by mauryan.

It can be that way too, instead of having 3 generic civilizations at the beginning, we can start with Greeks and then choose which Greek civilization we want to expand.

You start the game like in the dark ages of aoe1. You can choose from three generic civilizations. All civilizations look very similar (only a few differences provided by branching models). Civilizations share the same units, women (food), basic spearmen (food/wood), javelins (food/wood) and a scout (food). Scout is like a spear cavalry, able to fight and be trained in age one. At that moment we will have a good rock/paper/scissors for all civilizations. Each of these three civilizations has some very basic bonuses, one of the civilizations would have a bonus for economy, another for aggression and another for defense, pleasing all players styles. When ready to pass the stage you can choose which civilization you want to evolve to, if you choose Sparta for example, you will have some bonuses like as stronger women, faster and stronger infantry.

As long as we are focused only on balance, we will be chasing our own tail. 0 a.d has reached a stage where it needs a design overhaul. A design document is needed to guide the next steps. The idea of starting with a generic civilization, and then being able to choose which civilization you want to steer towards is extremely fun. I would start with a standard civilization and then the second phase I could choose which of the 14 civilizations I would like to play with, with their respective bonuses. This would add a very interesting element of surprise to players, especially in team games. If I had to choose one idea, I would certainly go that way.

All this to play slinger/jave + ram, super interesting. That is, supposedly before you had many "diversifications" but without any utilities, while today you have less diversification and more choices of civilizations / units, so the current design is correct compared to the a23 Look how incredible, before you had a super "unique" construction of Macedonia but no one would choose this civilization, while today it is a preference in 1v1 games for example. You cite technologies and bonus as being "diversification", so we have more diversification for sparta and athens now with hoplite tradition, or else with the bonus slinger of rome, or the gain of food from ptolemies, cavalry of gauls. I can go deeper, now you have playable mercenaries because they have improved their design and you can also build more than two embassies, and Cushites can build in neutral territory, etc..etc... Anyway, this argument doesn't seem valid to me.

Do you think giving stables to other civilizations makes the game poorer? Is that your view of gameplay differentiation? Sorry for me this is very poor. When I think about diversifying civilizations I think we can be much better than keeping a stable for just one civilization because it "looks" different. Where was a23 most diverse? Only 2 or 3 civilizations were used, and the same units every game. Having a kennel or stable only for Persians does not make the game "diversified". The change in mercenaries is rather a design change and not just a balance change, and they are much more used now.

It's hard for me to understand. When we had slinger + ram spam in every game on a23, they complained that the game was basically limited to these few units. I remember very well many players asking for melee cavalry to be more powerful and appear more in the game. I also remember that they asked for melee infantry to be more powerful in the game, as we now have cavalry and melee infantry appearing much more, along with mercenaries that were once a completely equal unit. I agree that there are still some fine balance adjustments to be made, but bringing up arguments like "we should go back to being like a23" or "remove stables" is extremely ridiculous. It seems that most people would rather go the easy way of simply removing what's bad than working harder to try to fix it for the next alphas.

I'm in favor of changes and when I said, maybe to a27. It's a feature that's being discussed a lot on the forum, so I think it should be looked at carefully.

I think it's an interesting feature but it's not the ideal time to implement it in my opinion.

Zagreo (Ζαγρεύς), reencarnação de Dionísio, o deus do vinho e da festa.

Gold is a metal.

You can have a 5v5 or 6v6 game but you will have to reduce the max population to 150 for example, which might make the experience not so fun since you need a good amount of units to collect resource and another to fight.

They are totally different games. What causes lag in 0a.d is not the number of players but the number of units moving on the map.

Lag in 4v4 games doesn't have much to do with computer setup. em

Editing the code isn't the problem. 0 a.d still needs a lot of optimization and playing 4v4 games is already quite complicated, so 5v5 and 6v6 in my opinion is still unfeasible.

The big problem is that balancing patches go through the same democratic process as other large patches. We have some patches with a small number of changes (status) that are a few months in the queue waiting to be checked. My suggestion is to create a small team balancing 3-5 players who listen to the community's suggestions, and based on the suggestions, talk and agree on the changes (vote if necessary). After the changes are agreed upon, the patch is built. Ideally, we need a moderator with the main role of balancing patches and gameplay that is more available for this type of patch. This moderator would not exercise his opinion on the patch, he would just test it for possible bugs and code breaks. There have been a lot of good suggestions on the forum over the years on how to work with civilizations, but the process of having to break those patches into dozens of little patches and all being discussed individually doesn't work well, because when you have ideas about changing a civilization, you think about global changes, one patch often depends on the other, and in the current form it's almost impossible to work.

I don't know if this is a good solution. A new room come by default "nick_game", this would already take up much more than 10 characters, besides the fact that few characters make it difficult to customize matches, you would have many 1v1 1200/ 2v2 1600 etc...

Only gaia can defeat me anyway

Most competitive players are not playing the game often, so it's not being built for competitive players. The fact that we don't have such diverse civilizations is because there is no design plan and someone to command it. I've even started working on it, but it takes a lot of time, and unfortunately I don't have my free time to spend on it anymore, Besides that the part of 0.ad community is extremely ungrateful. You spend hundreds of hours working on various improvements, to find two or three problems/errors and post on the forum all the time when the new alpha is bad. I said several times that a24 was a work in progress and that a25 would be much better, but they continued to talk a lot of crap. Well the "end" result of the work is an alpha25 much better than alpha24 and 23 as I said. Lack of patience is a problem, especially for those who don't move a finger to help with anything. Basically the alpha 24 - 25 was mostly build by me and @Nescio (gameplay/balance), but we're not working on it concretely anymore, so if no one else is interested in this, players are destined to play with these civilizations / gameplay / balancing for many years, like that how was a23 sling + ram.

AOE4 is good but doesn't use full potential. I think one year after the release it is using 100% potential, and I think it will be a great game for a few years. Developers gave up realism and graphic quality in exchange for visibility, and most of that is due to the scenery/hills, so not having any buffs/debuffs is a bit dumb in my opinion. They are listening to the community, and should be working hard on it by the 28th.

Structure tree > mouse over what you want to know.