borg-

Eaeeeeeeee fpanicmod, keep distance

In my experience, hard counter work better.

Exactly, i defend the sycounter system for a long time, it is necessary for any rts.

I did not say that can not be better, I said that in the current moment (alpha), it is a cowardice. Well, i agree with you on most of the issues you see in 0a.d. 1- I would like to see towers and forts that can be built in neutral territory; 2- I wish units could destroy enemy buildings more easily; 3- CC should not train combat units, just women, you should be forced to have a barrack for this. these are some things I would like to have, the gameplay would improve, but they are just my points

Compare 0 a.d to aok is cowardice, you are comparing with one of the best games ever created.

The only change that I would make in relation to the rams, would be to reduce a little your shield against ranged units, you need lots of shots to be able to cause a small damage. Another alternative is a tech I proposed some time ago, "flaming arrows", where archers get significant damage against contructions and siege units. We could also do a similar tech for defensive constructions, where they could also cause extra damage against siege units.

There is no problem with rams, there are several ways to stop.

Fpre mod dont work, graphics problem eaee

I agree that the design limits us a lot. Not being able to build in neutral territory / enemy is a great waste for me, I think that constructions like towers, castles and barracks should be allowed, at least in neutral territory, I remember to have talked about this some time ago. Another important point is the lack of balance, I think that improved it, would open up some more possibilities. The lack of counter system, this really limits a lot. And lastly, players have to start playing other maps, not just continent. This limits us to equal games at all times, but for this we need an amount of (competitive) maps that have a good balance.

Sure, but what's the point here? Does lack of strategies exist because of lack of balance, or is lack of balance due to lack of strategies?

You are confusing build order with strategies. as I said, in any game you will see build order specific to each strategy, this is more logical if you need 10 vills for a given function because it will make 11? You'd be losing money / time. This occurs in sc2 as well.

In team games, I've seen a team win prizes rush by one of the players. That was really very interesting to see. Age of Empires has always had a lot of strategy variety, maybe not as sc2 but is also present. Unfortunately, this does not happen in aoe1, its balance is bad, and because of that, among other things, it was not even 10% of its successor's success.

This build order (22 > feudal) it's standard, but it all depends on what strategy you're going to do. Does not work on water map for example. Also probably will not work in a rush of towers, or militia rush. For each of these strategys, there is a specific order build that best fits. .

Any rts game you will find a build order, this is logical, players will polish their strategies until you create one that is the fastest / most functional. There are several different strategies and openings depending basically on the map and civilization (bonus). does not exist luck in RTS games, just if have bugs. lategame has nothing definite, in age of empires you can not only spam a only unit, regardless of the power it has, you will lose. The bonuses are influential, but do not lead you to victory alone. Map control is essential in age of empires, and this is a point in common with 0 a.d. But there is a difference between the two. In 0 a.d you probably can not turn a game where your enemy is with the whole map, just because the balance is horrible, the towers can kill lots of soldiers alone, and this does not happen in age of empires. You always have a way out, or at least most of the time.

Yes, age of empires tournament, where did you see the 2?

Where did I say that I am an age of empires 2 professional?

This confirms what I have said, many opinions and few decisions.

It's important because what keeps a game "alive" is its multiplayer and loyal players who play every day, even with a horrible balance. I think it's fair to give them at least a playable balance, regardless of whether they're ready or not.

I have already put me in total disposition to do the balance of the game, respecting the gamedesign of game, that is to say, with or without counters system. I'm sure i would do a great job. Probably the most experienced player of 0 a.d, with the most games, besides being the best player. Not only that, I am now 28 years old, and I have played rts games since my 8 years, most of the time competitively, a practical example is to be in the semi finals of an age of empires championship in this moment. I must be the one who understands the most here in the balancing part. The real problem I see is that with each small change, you should by voting and asking the opinion of many people, who most of the time do not even play the game, at least not multplayer. It makes no sense to me. The team should be small, with a maximum of 3 guys taking care of it.

A lot of opinion and little decision. This is the real problem.

it's so beautiful

In my opinion, real game rts is really a strategy game if have a counter system. If it does not, it happens what is happening in 0a.d, spam random units without a purpose. Not to any strategy in that, you do not need to think about something that will overthrow your enemy, just in creating more units than he, I do not see anything rts in it.

This type of system can also give versatility to the game. You do not need to have the same 3x for all spearmans, sparta for example for u history, can have something like 3.5x.

I'm sure my system works because very similar systems are working on other rts, and also for the lot of experience I have with 0 a.d and other rts. If accepted, with adjustments in the balancing, we could make it work very well, I'm sure.

We have to keep in mind that the units will need new values, for example, skimirsher cav can never have an attack of 18, it should only be effective against a type of unit, so the general attack of the units will probably be lower.