Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

chrstgtr last won the day on November 28

chrstgtr had the most liked content!

About chrstgtr

Recent Profile Visitors

1.882 profile views

chrstgtr's Achievements

Centurio

Centurio (6/14)

658

Reputation

  1. I like the idea a lot, I just question whether it ever really gets used. Rank 3 units are rare, especially for melee units.
  2. Yeah, but isn't that the point of al the champions? Champions were the best of the best for all of these extremely powerful civs that excelled in war.
  3. Yeah, I know, but that's a really long time. It limits your ability to fight and it causes a drag on your eco. (related note, I think this experience via garrisioning features needs a buff).
  4. I like this a lot. Only concern here would be computing concerns--I believe similar features have caused lag concerns in the past. I'm generally not a fan of making the "same" units have different stats because it makes the game harder to learn. Perhaps the aura means this isn't the same unit, though. Also, query whether this is necessary given the aura above. This feels quite restrictive--melee units are already very hard to promote up to rank 3 and melee units often die shortly after reaching rank 3. I would consider removing in order to make this a more used unit. ----- Overall, this seems nice
  5. I think it would be cool if this was replaced with a roaming territory influence aura. This would encourage players to make really aggressive attacks into enemy territory because after a certain amount of time the attacker could gain control of barracks and other buildings. I really like the rest of your proposal (it also really bugged me that the greatest(?) conqueror of all time was a pretty unhelpful hero)
  6. Sure but that’s more attenuated. Field costs changes build order more. For example, I would be a lot less likely to expand my territory with buildings to get extra berries if I know I can save 100 wood (farm stand cost) and not have to walk all the way to the edge of my territory if I have free fields.
  7. I like that. I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 made a great point about how the diminishing marginal returns is not actionable--it really just makes Sele easier. In that case, I think you can give an even bigger cost and/or build time decrease to make it "more" actionable and relevant. Deceased cost/build time could open up some different build orders (i.e., people would be less likely to chase berries).
  8. I tend to agree. I don’t like hidden features. Diminishing marginal returns is disclosed, but it’s magnitude is not. So the true impact of this bonus isn’t obvious (hence the above discussion). @hyperion’s suggestion makes the game more comprehendible and can easily be adjusted to do @real_tabasco_sauce‘s civ bonus. On this, I would also eliminate the diminishing marginal return for buildings, which is entirely hidden (I think).
  9. See above. I lean towards just making it the diminishing marginal returns. Or going bigger on discount cost (i.e., make fields free) and forget about the diminishing marginal return issue.
  10. Thanks. So this is about double what the Gauls' extra gathering tech is except it starts immediately and you get it for free. Could be fine--I don't know. Sounds substantial, though. My guess is that in the long term this would be less impactful than the extra pop that Persia and Maurya gets, but in the short term this would be one of the best booming features.
  11. What the normal diminishing marginal return? Also, do you know what the actual quant impact is? Say how much more food collected by min 10 assuming all fields are max staffed
  12. It used to do this too. The camp used to be really useful and open up a lot of new strats, but it was entirely gutted.
  13. It also lacks techs and other functionality. I agree for all your reasons and more. But that’s how we got here
  14. This was one of the mistakes from a23-->a24. Someone thought it was massively OP and made the camp useless in a24. It's been partially fixed, but I would have no problem going back to a23 where the camp was actually used (and wasn't OP imo). Now, it is very rare to ever see one built
×
×
  • Create New...