borg-

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.

At this point I do not venture to say which ones are better or worse. So far I have been able to make good games with all of them.

The biggest proof that a24 is better than a23, is to join a team game and see at least 6 different civilizations, where before we only had two haha

Slinger has the advantage of having crush damage that can be good against buildings and siege units. I am also in favor of being a low cost troop, but you only analyzed the combat part, but what would be the economic impact of a unit costing 20% less at the beginning of the game?

Perhaps an adjustment in the cost of metal or some other attribute may be enough instead of being able to collect resources?

Well kushite camps can be built in neutral territory, so I'm fine with them right now. If I am not mistaken for Carthage there is a larger embassy, not currently used in the game. We can replace the 3 embassies with the bigger one, which could train all units, and maybe increase the construction limit.

Maybe civilizations with great mercenary potential like carthage, can train level 2 mercenaries instead of 1 like other civilizations, it's just an idea.

Mercenaries cannot collect resources as a way of diversifying gameplay and also more realistic historically, and particularly I don't intend to change that. On the main point of the discussion, it is interesting, but if we remove the mercenary camps/embassy then the game becomes more equal for all civilizations, so any suggestions?

Is it scheduled for a25?

@Alexandermb can we have this for a25?

Yes, now after tests we can avail better. Contrary to what @vinmesay, economics should be taken into consideration, because if you delay the rush just for a moment, it may be pie to attack your opponent, then he wins in the economy. As I said earlier, dogs are exclusively for attacking, so with an opponent's carelessness, they must be able to do serious damage and even win the game. It seems to me that a small adjustment is necessary, but nothing to move to p2 or something like that.

Exactly what I said. There is still a lot to be tested and new strategies to be used. We have very little information yet. The fact that you lose one game against dogs vs player much better than you, does not mean that everything is wrong and that everything must change or dogs go back to p2. But as I said before, it is great to point out problems and this is really necessary, but also present a proposal to solve problem.

Dogs cannot do anything, only open a map and attack, so they must be able to fight with some efficiency, the question is what would be the ideal proposal for this. The current proposal for Celts is that they have a very strong initial phase1, with efficient rush and lose their efficiency in later phases. so I believe that a very small adjustment must be made, nothing that remove the efficiency of the dogs. The ideal of @Genava55 should be enough.

Tnx for feedback.

Ok, tnx @Genava55