chrstgtr

This doesn’t make sense. Again, this changes unit balance, which isn’t what’s being discussed. Just do something like +10% health across all units. Or make it an auto upgrade like it was before with phasing

Agree. All the other stuff impact unit balance instead of actually address the underlying concern that all units die too fast.

Personally, I think units die too fast and have died too fast since a24, which removed the auto health upgrades from phasing up. I think the obvious improvement is just an overall unit health buff. It makes battles last longer, which is more satisfying, and makes retreating a bit easier, which I agree is needed Also, agree with @real_tabasco_sauce re melee units needing a speed buff. Glad you’ve come around to this idea. This is more about melee/range balance, though.

I said no such thing. I said some devs, like Nescio, eschewed player feedback and wrote patches that made little sense in the a24 era. I have no doubt this patch would've been pushed through by Nescio no matter what any player said for or against it. There's a pretty clear history of that happening all over a24. My point has always been that people that don't understand gameplay shouldn't be the ones designing the game.

Here comes @hyperion just disagreeing with anything I say again. Shocking. Nothing I said was untrue. As to the "reasons" given. Those reasons are: (1) turrets stats are bad--has nothing to do with whether they should shoot--and (2) turrets are walls, which clearly they are not. Even now, when people are trying to justify the removal of the attack function they do so by harkening back to a pre-a21 period when turrets could be closely placed together, which wasn't the case when the attack function was removed. You want to get rid of turrets attack function? Fine--I don't care. But pretending it was a masterstroke by Nescio is a lie. Defending basically anything done on the gameplay side of a24 is discrediting.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @alre https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3706 https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25135 Confirmed--turrets could attack until a24/a25 (can't tell on the date). Unsurprisingly, it was a Nescio written change. Little real reason is given to explain/justify the change, which wratii kind of hints at in the commit thread. Basically, the notion that turrets were OP and needed to have their attack removed is a fiction.

Turrets haven’t been OP since I started playing in a21. They’ve barely had a use case beyond garrison against rush (something iber is susceptible to) when you play iber. Nonetheless, I don’t care if they exist. But we should eliminate their existence if they’re just another segment to a wall. right now, turrets just seem like a bug where you garrison and nothing happens

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @alre this is the change you guys were talking about. The fix then was to have a min distance https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3811

I’m saying people who don’t understand how the game is played shouldn’t be given any weight in gameplay discussions. It’s really not a controversial position. For example, about once a month, a new player makes an account and says “rams are OP—my 100 archers can’t kill them! Please nerf rams!!!” One way to react would be to say this is a really common complaint so rams must be OP. Another way to react would be to say these are new players that don’t yet understand that you need melee units to kill rams. This second reaction also knows that if you make rams super susceptible to archers then rams will quickly become useless.

No. That change predated the complete stripping of arrows. Turrets could shoot arrows until a24 or a25. You both are describing a change that occurred before a21 (when I started playing). I think there was a spacing requirement or something installed that prevent people from spamming turrets (but I’m not really sure because I wasn’t around then and have only seen old forum posts on it)

I’m almost positive it was done under/by Nescio. He did many things that made absolutely no sense. It resulted in an absolutely awful alpha that drove off a large portion of the community and the game hasn’t recovered since then. When someone tried to give him input he would get mad and reject their suggestions. Then he would get madder when people didn’t like the product he put out. Good riddance It goes without saying, but you can’t properly design a game if you don’t understand it and you can’t truly understand it unless you play the game. The current iteration of devs are much better about listening to player feedback. But before it felt like many devs eschewed any input from actual players.

Yes, and that was ridiculous. Many posts on the forums should be ignored because they’re made by people who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.

I’m just pointing out how useless the tech you’re proposing is. Again, adding tech for the sake of having a “new feature” isn’t fun and doesn’t advance the game.

It’s random if there’s no reason it is an upgrade instead of a built in feature. The same way we could make defense towers buildings that do nothing until you click an upgrade tower to get arrows. Adding a bunch of buttons to do basic things doesn’t make the game more fun. And, yes, that is cluttering the tech tree even if there is nothing already there. It creates a mental load where one shouldn’t exist.

Or just make them automatically shoot like they used to. No need to clutter the screen with random upgrade buttons. I know of no one that wanted this in the first place. I think the diff that did this made reference to some random forum post by someone that no one knew. It was one of the a24ish changes that made absolutely no sense

You need a spy to tell you that your enemy is training an army? I hope you changed the cost to zero for that information

What’s the strategic use of that information 99.9% of the time after min 5? I would have about a 30% chance of learning that my enemy has farms around their CC. You said it changed from this originally, well it changed because it’s old form was useless too.

Look at the other thread that discusses which techs are most used. Spies is literally never researched (and for good reason). The game shouldn't be cluttered with junk.

I actually had the same thought—it should reveal hero locations. But I (wrongly) thought that was still a more or less useless tech. You’re right it would be very useful for regi games. It would be a niche tech. But at least it would be useful.

Spies needs a total rework. If it's most useful case is to find a lone fishing boat in the corner of the map after the game is all but officially over then it is a feature that shouldn't exist.

Imagine you just lost your CC and almost your entire population. You are now left with just 30 houses and a handful of men. You can now either (A) rebuild your CC, train women, slowly build barracks, and hopefully get back to max pop in 12ish minutes or (B) research the woman house tech, build 30 women two times at the longer 30s train time, and use those women to build up your CC, barracks, and get back to max pop in 6ish minutes. Which one do you choose? @Arup, you’re coming into these discussions hot. You tell people (who have played much longer and are generally much better players than you) that their opinions are laughable. But your logic pretty quickly falls apart when tested. You should pause before mocking others’ opinions.

It’s the most useful or least useful tech, depending on the circumstance.

The most interesting thing is that there are many techs that are never used. Some of this might a function of a lot of these being new techs that people haven’t sufficiently tested yet (the helot tech, maybe). But there are a ton of techs just never researched. Those seem like a good place to revamp or delete the techs. For example, there are a bunch of navy techs that we discussed in the other thread that just aren’t used. Other stuff like spies have been around forever and serve zero purpose. No need to overly complicate the tech tree with useless stuff.

Start with no metal. It keeps you in p2 forever and a prolonged fight will quickly eliminate a ton of other strategies like mercs, champs, and heavy siege. Complicated might be the wrong word since the techs are fairly easily to comprehend. But I imagine most players can’t tell you what techs exist, which suggests there’s too much going on with the tech tree. Techs just don’t make sense. Naval battles are mostly a sideshow, so investing in techs for a couple units is overkill. It’s like researching melee attack upgrades when your army is 95% range in the meat shield meta. It’s just not worth it, especially when the benefits are spread out over several different techs. Also, because docks are limited, the meta is “attack fast with more boats.” A defender can’t just make new boats one by one because they get ganged up on and quickly die. Old attacking boats can be repaired. And a defending player can’t just queue up a bunch of warships because their whole fish eco will die before reinforcements finish training. As a result, it doesn’t make sense to clog up your production buildings with techs (defender will not have enough boats for the first fight and will lose all fish if they do it later while attacker just wants a bunch of boats early and can easily gang up on reinforcements) Maybe a slightly weaker attack. They shouldn’t die too easily against land units, though, so I would buff their health and/or armor. ——- Agree with everything else you said @real_tabasco_sauce

Do it. No one wants these monstrous ships.