chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.283 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
52 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
This seems like a narrow definition.
It’s also fixed to this specific alpha. Snowballing has been around for a long time. This thread is evidence of that. There are underlying factors that contribute to that, which have nothing to do with cav/champs being too strong.
It would be wise to listen to some of the old heads that have been around for a longer time that have learned the (often painful) lessons of previous alphas
-
3 minutes ago, Atrik said:
You also said last time that when fort gave territory root, game was lame because it was forcing a player to spend even more time ramming all of the enemy's base.
I'm pretty sure that this desire to have "stronger" defensive buildings is a bias, and that once I will be the case, it be lame and stall games.
Defensive strategies should be viable (as is currently), not de-facto guaranteed to all players who built a fort to get their hero in the first place.
There's clearly something between the game being a miserable turtle system and feeble defensive buildings that do little to secure a base and render many siege units superfluous. In fact, that system has previously existed.
-
14 minutes ago, Atrik said:
Yes, definitively, more so, stronger and faster units should have also greater weaknesses.
I think players say that because they expect turtling to be : "build a fort then you are safe".
Turtling this alpha is a tone of fun and it's balanced. The attacker CAN make progress, and you have to think of your defenses as layers, instead of just relying on just having invested a very low amount of resources that would make you immune forever to attacks.
Defending should be dynamic (and this alpha, it kinda was). There would be 0 fun if any players could just set up a base with a fort with swords garrisoned and a couple towers, and be rewarded with immunity without him having to do more.
I would point out that defenses are really cheap and currently are already very easy to make worth their cost:
A single tower can have 25+ kills over the course a game very easily. A fort with 80+ kills is common.
A tower cost 200 resource or 2 CS, a fort 900 resource or 9 CS.
Obviously not weak at all.Defensive buildings aren't meant to just get kills.
Defensive buildings are primarily meant to protect you from losing your base to an invading army. Defensive buildings perform very poorly in this aspect. Siege is rarely built because defensive buildings are so poor at their primary purpose.
The game hasn't always been this way. Something is clearly wrong.
-
1
-
-
Couple thoughts:
Other factors contributing to snowballing:
- Promotion feature--this makes it very hard to fight back even if you have equal numbers. This is especially true if there are healers, which aren't much a factor in this alpha but have been in the past.
- Weak defensive building--I think this is the biggest factor in the current alpha. The current alpha has weak defensive buildings. As a result, players have a more difficult time going back to their safe space to regain strength.
- Cav dominance--cav are the dominate meta for a lot of reasons. But it's difficult to repop with cav because of cost, slow train times, and the likelihood of continued harassment.
I would focus efforts on mitigating the factors that contribute to snowballing.
14 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Citizen soldiers
You're right that it has a snowball effect but I don't find it to be problematic. This seems to be one of things where the advantage is earned. It is also most pronounced in early/mid game, which I am fine with since it is hard to kill a CC before p3.
16 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Loot
I don't find this a problem at all. It's relatively low numbers. (I actually think loot should be a bigger part of the game)
22 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Shift economic contributions more towards civilians (formerly women):
Agree.
22 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Unit diversification and counters
22 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Unit-specific technology tree
Without commenting on the merits of these two, I think these are entirely separate proposals that may or may not have some impact on snowballing. You should also consider that, while these will be available to defending players, they will also be available to attacking players, so the snowball effect may become greater with them too.
-
2
-
13 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:
Stalker.
I don't stay stuck in something that has no future.If there are no changes, this game will continue as it is. Stop killing innovation.
Without innovation, this game will not grow.
If the game is not adapted, it will perish.
Trying to make yourself understood is a waste of time.
But I'm leaving this on record for anyone who comes and reads it.
-
9 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:
Here come those who always give their opinions.
The funny thing about forums is that they keep a written record of every user’s actions.
The sad part is that you post at more than 13x the rate of the people you mock for posting too much.
-
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:
For me it's good how it is currently.
Shocker.
Although I agree it’s a waste of time I could care less how this function works
-
10 minutes ago, Fabius said:
That is fair, though I am not suggesting my idea because they are weak, but rather because I think it is interesting and a way to add some nuance to them
Understood. But someone else suggested they were weak relative to cost and Dakara, I think, was responding from a balance perspective.
Siege Towers are weird because they were important historically, so they’re in the game, but it’s difficult to accurately portray that historical usage in the current game.Personally, I think siege towers should be revamped to provide special building capturing capabilities, which would be a nod to their historical usage.
Anyways, I think what you suggested has been suggested before. I don’t recall why it didn’t go anywhere, though.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Fabius said:
Can be applied to a lot of things, like lacking catapults, or champion spears for dealing with champion cavalry, or x with insert appropriate missing unit that any one civ lacks.
I do not think your siege tower idea is that strong because siege towers function like regular towers in terms of shooting, and I can simply swarm them with any combination of X melee troops and knock them out with cold steel, aside from the obvious usage of catapults and rams. Every civ gets rams and the majority have catapults. Oh and elephants if available, even champion cavalry if one is wealthy. Ultimately every civ has a counter to this in some shape or form
Siege towers are decent right now. Their main downside is that they are slow and the current meta is cav.
that’s not to say they’re perfect—I don’t think anyone love the way they work now—but being “weak” isn’t a real reason to change them unless you want to change every other “slow” unit.
-
On 24/09/2025 at 11:36 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:
(possibly also nerf the +100 hp tech for them too).
I don't like this tech. It lacks originality and is OP. I would prefer it to be replaced with something entirely different.
3 minutes ago, Atrik said:- Your armor and HP changes barely change cav HP equivalent, but lowered it's speed, so they'll be worse at chasing other cavs but as good against infantry. A bit less map control too.
I don't get this either. Basically the nerf is to make them slower and lower their special health tech? That's fine, i guess, relative to other cav. But all melee champ cav remains OP vs inf.
-
1
-
8 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:
The problem comes when you start to become obsessed with balancing.
Early RTS games weren't supposed to have such strict balance. Eventually, you're supposed to nerf everything and the gameplay gets boring.
A seemingly balanced game is not the same as an overbalanced game.
This happens not only with RTS.
Fighting games are like that, seemingly balanced.
StarCraft I wasn't like that. Even in AoE I there were very OP units like the centurion.
The other thing is always the lack of exploring new mechanics.
So the innovation is in the mods, they have no one to criticize them.
The balance before was that there was 1,2,3.
The balance now is that everyone must be equal, all must be 1.
I'm not saying it's good that Gaul Fanatics are broken. Previously, what was done was to create an Achilles heel for a strategy or unit.
returning to the main theme of the mechanics of technologies would be better if there were many technologies that cost little were much more, in the form of a path, the path would be a strategy, but it is an idea an approach.
And for the technologies to be useful it is simply necessary to make them work differently than if they were not there, that is to say that they have a real impact on the gameplay.
It's not strange and it makes you think, that people do not use the technologies because there is no real impact on the gameplay.
You’re arguing against a straw man. Very few people want to eliminate things the way you’re saying and most that do get ignored (for good reason).
The loudest the multiplayer community ever was was right after a24 got released and a lot of that was because features got eliminated. Note, when that happened a lot of SPs and devs initially dismissed the complaints before coming around later.
The most you hear now from the MP community now is that champ cav is OP, which no one has really found solution to. The other recent thing I’ve heard is reza saying fana is OP to which most people told him he was wrong. MPs will regularly say things like certain techs like “spies”are useless but even there it’s not like the SP is saying how great they are.
-
6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
It used to be an unlocking tech, so that you were forced to choose cheaper techs or faster research before the full Forge tech tree could be enabled. Had that for a long time, but then decided it would be nicer for the player for it to be a choice they could make whenever it was convenient. The effects obviously have less impact the later you make the choice, but who knows what may come up.
I agree that Special Buildings are a great place for such pairs.
I like the way you have it now. (I generally don’t like techs that have a negative effect on something else but I recognize that’s mostly a personal pet peeve)
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The tech isn't required, but presents an interesting choice that helps you as you tech up.
100% agree. I actually suggested something similar the other day in another thread for how we could improve Ptol’s library. I don’t think it has to be a paired tech per se but it makes a lot of sense for it to be one. Maybe these meta techs are places where paired techs work well in general.
Nice to see you implemented something similar.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:
You tell me, there's nothing to fix.
“Purists” say that because people often come with assumptions that are just plain wrong. You can see that in this thread.
Multiplayers often have this perspective because they naturally see more strategies than any single player can. In one game, a multiplayer can see 8 different strategies while a single player can only see one. Multiplayers also push one another to become better in a way that doesn’t exist with SP.
It’s not unreasonable to say learn what already exists instead of crowing for something “new” that already existed and might break the game for others.
-
6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
That is true. I'd only use them as a design decision, not as some kind of fix for something.
I think they theoretically could make sense. For example, if you started out as a base Hellenic civ that you couple develop into Athens or Sparta with unique features then that would be pretty cool. But for simple techs I think it takes away from the cat and mouse game where players adjust their strategies in response to the other because tech pairs, by definition, eliminate future choices.
One of the main problems I have is that people want new, novel features and never consider whether those novel features actually make any sense.
-
15 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:
As if prices and time couldn't be changed.
Which is actually an appropriate suggestion if the problem he say exists actually existed. I think more expensive eco techs with shorter train times probably make sense at some phase(s). Right now, you get little benefit by forgoing techs to phase faster and that shouldn’t be the case.
My big point is that tech pairs are a really awful “fix” to basically any problem.
-
4 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:
You miss the point, they can do that.
No, YOU miss the point. Players often oscillate between getting a tech in one game and forging it in the next.
You are complaining about a lack of strategies when you don’t use ones that are already available.
12 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:For pairs to work there would have to be a larger election scheme.
Literally none of this requires a tech pair instead of just adding more techs.
When you research a tech matters. You all both looking at this from a one dimensional view of if it can be researched and ignore all timing dimensions.
-
11 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:
The hunting tech shouldn't change the berry gather rates. It should just improve hunting.
Even at baseline gather rate, you would still be much slower if everyone else has an access to a tech to make berries faster. Tech pairs sole purpose is to eliminate this choice, which is why I entirely dislike them.
11 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:If you devolve a game to a literal spamfest where everyone can get everything in every match
Everyone doesn’t research every technology. Even for the techs that most people do get, they don’t get them at the same time. I suggest you look inward and question whether you are yet to discover other strategies that other players have. And, if the situation you describe did occur (which it hasn’t) then you could just adjust cost/benefits so that it doesn’t happen every time for every player.
-
52 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
that's why I oppose choosing heroes at game start
It’s also why I dislike how you can only train a hero once. Different heroes might be best at different phases of the game and I shouldn’t lose the ability to adjust back and forth within the game. I can understand if your enemy kills your hero but I am talking about a situation where I voluntarily want to change heroes back and forth.
-
8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
But it is, in my example. I'm not talking about combining existing techs into pairs.
It isn’t. You have lost the choice to do that and the strategy associated with that.
Every civ has the berry tech. It was in the game for many alphas. If I chose the hunting tech, which make berry gathering slow, and you later discover that there are a lot of harvestable berries on the map then you will be much slower than all other players that did the berry tech.
Pareto is if you just add a hunting tech that makes hunting faster without eliminating the ability to be berries.
As a principle matter, I don’t like anything that hinders your ability to adjust later. Tech pairs by definition do that
-
9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
It's additive in this example.
But it’s not. It eliminates a road that you can take. For example, the Maurya berry or hunting tech can ruin you. If you pick the berry tech and it turns out the map is super hunt heavy and everyone goes cav hunting then you’re in trouble. Opposite is true too.
it’s only Pareto if it doesn’t take away other options. I see little reason to have tech pairs as opposed to bust adding a tech
-
8 hours ago, Deicide4u said:
is that really the best choice in mid to long term
If you win by min 10 then, yes.
You are showing your ignorance in this thread. Again, I suggest you play multiplayer.
-
1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:
I believe that getting rid of the pair-techs was a wrong choice.
I hate these. They make the game rigid so that you only have one way to play and can’t adjust to meet current game situations.
-
2
-
-
On 5/9/2025 at 5:46 PM, Deicide4u said:
either before or after Barrack
Choice
On 5/9/2025 at 5:46 PM, Deicide4u said:After clicking to Town phase, or just before if you really need faster farming before Town phase
Choice
(I also don’t research it at either of these times, most of the time)
——-
Just because you always research a tech doesn’t mean that there isn’t a choice involved in when you research it.You have a very simplistic view of the game that doesn’t represent the myriad of other choices out there. You can rush, you can phase up fast, you can skip techs that you don’t need, you can skip eco techs in favor or military techs, you can skip techs in favor or getting more pop, you can skip techs in favor of more buildings
If things were as simple as you say everyone would have more or less the same economy, which isn’t obviously true.
-
2
-
Formation order rework
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by chrstgtr
This. Fights necessarily involve attrition.
There's a place for formations, especially at the start of fights. But fights shouldn't be determined by on player clicking their fighting units into formation and the other player being slow to hit H before their units try to chase enemy that ran to the back of a formation.
As a related note, I don't think units going into formation should be able to run. There should be a cost associated with having a disorganized army and calling them into formation. Right now, going into formation is mostly a gimmick to get kills similar to how dancing heroes used to occur.
----------------
I think the voting options are overly limited. I would want melee in front and range in back, regardless of whether those units are cav, inf, champ, and/or CS.