chrstgtr

Agree. It won’t fix it entirely, but it def helps

As a general rule, I don't think things should change unless there is an improvement. It would only introduce a new variable that could (or could not) have harmful effects for any of the reasons explained above.

Fine. Like I said above, I don't care either way.

Personally, I like having the option to train animals that produce quicker and cost less, especially in p1. So, I wouldn’t delete all the animal types. Agree on reducing train time. But this will be tricky. I don’t care one way or other on getting rid of phase requirements for animal types. Players usually can’t afford cows in early game. I think we should also experiment with a bigger buff: decreasing the cost of animals and/or increasing the amount of food that each animal let’s you collect. Tying up a bunch of your food in corrals really slows you down in early/mid game.

Looks pretty to me. For me, the biggest problem with ships has to do with their fighting mechanics and pathfinding. I have zero suggestions for improvement.

I’m just trying to say you both have reasonable positions. Might as well test and see at this point. I doubt I would care either way

I think you and @real_tabasco_sauce are ignoring good arguments each of you put up. Healers are extremely strong when used correctly and leveled up. Metal can be gathered far quicker than food--the only concern is whether you run out. Metal is available on maps, but can easily be exhausted if you go for a merc or champ army. I would be fine with either cost structure.

It would be nice if ping in lobby could be heard while you are in game.

At the very end of the replay, I deleted a bunch of palisades. At the exact same time, Sr. Ivar went OOS. When I executed the command, the entire game paused for a second and then an OOS message appeared and the palisades deleted. SaidRdz was the host 2022-11-12_0001.zip

Yeah, my point is: if there is differentiation it should be easily visible to the player and not require the player to learn through extensive gameplay. This is a logical change that we have made previously (e.g. eliminating woman gathering aura, which could actually be seen and was disclosed, but it’s impact wasn’t quantified). Something like gravity that effects everything doesn’t need to be disclosed/quantified because it is everywhere. For example, there is confusion right now on whether women and men construct buildings at the same rate. I don’t know the answer. But confusion exists, and if there is a difference it should be disclosed. Having hidden stats isn’t a fun Easter egg, especially when players don’t know differences exists. We should either eliminate the differences or disclose/quantify the differences.

It depends on how quickly a unit can engage. It’s different for a reason. We shouldn’t hide the ball. We also should try to determine what is and isn’t important information for a player to know. On multiple occasions I have heard players ask why their unit dies before another unit even though both units were low health and units appeared to engage each other at the time time. If that is the result of prepare time then players should be able to see that.

Good. I was referring to projectile acceleration, to the extent it differs across entities.

Yeah, all your reasons stated. Also, it becomes an issue when units start dying off there is a snowball effect. For example, skirmishes are expected to cancel each other out so 100 skirm against 100 skirms results more or less in no units surviving but 100 skirm against 20 skirm will result in something like 90 units from the bigger army surviving. It happens because there are more units to absorb projectiles and more units to launch projectiles. It’s also why armies standing under defensive buildings tend to suddenly die all at once. So same damage may be dealt/received while units are alive, but once u it’s start dying and/or when armies aren’t equal sizes there is a snowball effect. Also, law of large numbers applies to averages. I am talking about variances that may result from observed effects. Parameters can have the same expected value with different standard deviations.

Maybe. I’m sure some do—we can see it in the forums. More to the point, is there harm to showing it?

Related note, only one of those is visible in the in-game stats. I really hate the lack of transparency there is for accuracy, prepare time, and acceleration. I only have a rough idea how units compare for some of those variables. I cannot imagine how hard it is to understand for someone who is just learning how to play

I agree. But it's some others' opinion. Like a bunch of these other things, I don't really care what values are set. But constantly changing a bunch of this stuff doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when you can do a simple adjustment to just one or two variable (i.e., damage and amour, or accuracy) to achieve the same desired effect.

My point is that something like changing projectile speeds can have a massive, unintended impact, and playtesting for things like this in the past have failed terribly. Changing projectile speed and walk speeds were two things that no one thought would matter, but basically ruined a24 for a lot of players. I'm just suggesting humbleness and making adjustments in easily observable/measurable aspects of the game.

I think intervals should be standard across all CS units (melee included)--it makes it easier to understand, especially for newer players. I don't know at what interval the speed should be, but I tend to prefer quicker speeds. Some other say they like different interval speeds as a form of differentiation, though.

Wasn't this a big part of the problem with a24 and no one realized how big an impact it had until it was too late? Doesn't this impact accuracy a ton? I wouldn't mess with projectile speed and would just adjust DPS/repeat times as you see fit. Changing accuracy won't change things--the problem (if it is one) is that each projectile will have a bigger impact on the units it hits (i.e., a unit may die in 3 hits instead of 4). That is unavoidable with the change you are suggesting and will introduce greater variance in results because which units get hit (and misses) will matter more (i.e., lower health units that previously would not have died may now die from a single projectile hit). This may or may not have a meaningful impact on balance--I don't know, and tests would be needed.

It would introduce higher variance because each arrow would make death more likely if hit. And misses would be a bigger lost opportunity. I don’t know if that would be a meaningful balance change or improvement in lag. Could be something to experiment with and I would be open to experimenting to see

This is the fix for me too. I don't know it fixes it, but it isn't ideal.

Quote me where I said CCs were too strong. Quote anyone who said CCs were strong. One person (in response to you) noted CCs arrows seem unusual compared to other buildings but that person stopped short of saying that was a problem or why it is a problem. You made the proposal to a problem that you assumed to be true. Your proposal also makes a ton of assumptions. You don’t know if CCs are too strong, you don’t know if CCs will be too easy to build, you don’t know if your proposal will make CCs to weak, you don’t know how the meta will change with smaller CC territory, and you don’t know a ton of other things.

There are lots of 50 unit army pushes now. It’s the most common form of inf rush. Hiding behind a CC is basically the only way to defend if you aren’t already prepared. This very frequently happens in 1v1s that last long enough for one player to reach 100 pop If you lose your only CC in 1v1 it’s almost certainly gg. The connection you are trying to draw between cheaper CCs and CCs’ defensive abilities is strained. To the extent your concern actually is valid it should be dealt with by increasing the difficulty of making a new CC (ie increasing cost or build time). You’re making a ton of assumptions based on things you think (but don’t know) will happen. If any of your assumptions are wrong it could eliminate the utility of an entire unit class (siege), frustrate the entire purpose of making CCs cheaper, and change the entire meta to something unknown and different.

Mid game where you have armies of like 50 soldiers and retreat to cc. this will also decrease the need for siege late game. Could create a a21-like meta where 80 slings kills CCs alone

I don’t like that idea. I don’t like the idea of armies hanging out around CCs, especially in early game. Taking away food prod will really slow a player down even if it is just for 30 seconds. Honestly, I’m mostly happy with how arrow shouting buildings work now. I also think it’s premature to be concerned with CC spam when currently almost no one makes CCs. It’s something to keep an eye out on during testing, though But I like the sentry arrow change you mentioned