borg-

Perfect!

In 21 seconds you can see some gameplay stuff, like minimap, interface, etc ...

This is not just the problem. If I am going to attack you, how will I know if you have collectors or soldiers? This mark on the soldiers must be permanent then, without having to select/click the unit

I don't know, i like how 0 a.d works now. my problem is that there must be a great differentiation between the models of men, because it is very difficult to know if it is a collector or a soldier. Should the gatherin rate be the same for all units now?

Remembering that we can bring the two patchs. Rank 2 + less training time (D3699) + less metal cost (D3665).

The ships are basically the same as the a23.

This is in my plans.

I am opening this topic to discuss the cost of citizen units. My idea is to standardize the cost of the units. Citizen melee and ranged infantry cost: 50 food and 50 wood. Cavalry cost: Javelin cavalry: 100 food 50 wood Archer, sword and spear cavalry: 100 food 30 wood 20 food. The intention is to ensure that the infantry is on an equal footing across all factions. On maps where you only have access to a metal or stone mine, slingers or swordmans can be a problem in late game. Javelin cavalary is the cheapest cavalry, costing only food and wood. The additional cost of gold for the strongest cavalry. A ptolomeu camel spam rush becomes a little more difficult. Spear cavalry can easily take down other cavalry at the beginning of the game, mainly javelin cavalry, so now it would cost a little gold, which in theory improves balance. The intention is also that also about more metal and stone for the research of techs and also to facilitate the training of mercenaries and champions. I would like everyone's opinion. Tnx and have a good day!!!

In fact my original idea was that only Gauls could have access to the forge in the village phase (I did it in my patch), I think it would be a great differentiation, with a historic backing to be a good rush civilization

I'm fine with 3rd level of upgrade. Would it be interesting to move the forge to the village phase then? This encourages an attack even earlier.

Really what I call a constructive criticism, thank you. I'm already working on some patches: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3677

An idea would also be to potentialize one or more existing bonuses for civilization.

Most of our changes had a historical context. I have always made it clear here on the forum that it is very important to have a historical foundation.

The problem is that you are able to maintain historical realism. Javelins for example were effective against heavy infantry and not long-range units, but either way it can be adjusted and I like how you think.

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision. Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share. Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants. Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%. Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2. Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows. Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5. Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16). Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav? It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

I prefer option 2 too.

To be honest it seems much more lazy for some players to learn something new than really a gameplay / balancing problem. I have entered 4v4 games and no less than 6 different civilizations per game. I see dog rush, bolts with palisades protecting in neutral territory, much more infantry in the game, champs, etc ... In my 1v1 games with @ValihrAnt, we played all games with random civ, and both had a chance of winning with any civilization, not the most afraid of celts / pto. Some players are stepping out of their comfort zone and learning how to play a new game, but you won't be able to do that by playing 2 or 3 games. It also took me a while to get used to the changes, the game seemed a little slower than a23, but nothing you don't get used to and learn to like. It is obvious that there is still a need for refinement for the units, but it is indisputable that a24 has a better balance than a23, for several reasons. Some frustrations seem to me more focused on ddos and also lag. We will continue to work to improve this, and make a25 even better, however it is necessary to make constructive criticisms and not throw up a lot of random words. We have created a subforum for this and so far most people who criticize with harsh words here, have not posted anything there, so how do they think of helping?

I would like to participate in a tournament now.

Yes, i don't really care about that kind of "criticism" anymore.

Is not possible to please everyone. I see a lot of people online and a lot of games, so it seems like most of them liked it anyway.

Gratifying to be able to read this from a member so important to the community. Thanks to you for all the dedication you have with 0a.d for all this time. I wanted to share this with @Nescio who was certainly the one who worked the most patchs on a24.

I am grateful for the criticisms, as long as they are constructive. Criticisms like: the game is slower, the units are slower, impossible to rush now, these criticisms I don't take seriously, because for the most part they are not true. In general units move faster now than in a23. We slowed down the infantry javelin for reasons of economic balance, but some players can't fill it, and just scream, javelin is now slow, horrible. About the rush, I can guarantee that it’s still possible, I won more games with rush now than in the a23. I even understand that some players were so used to brit + sling rush and gg, that now they need to think a little more and it is necessary to leave the comfort zone. Now is necessary to use better siege units, the towers can defend better, so you cannot just make a lot of slinger and knocking down all the towers as in a23.

It is difficult because the cost for slaves must be different. Javelins for example were slaves in Sparta, so we would have to have a different cost for these units, which makes it really difficult to balance.

Historically it is correct and I agree with you that it should be implemented, however we do not know the real impact on gameplay. My idea was just to implement for athenas, to differentiate it from other civilizations.

Very cool to know that there are people working based on my mod.