chrstgtr

No one reasonable will be upset with you. You did/are doing a great job. Assuming this all gets implemented into a27, there will be several new changes--maybe more than a24--and we did it without adding a new civ. That is a huge accomplishment. On this note, thanks to @wraitii and @Stan` for creating this project--I think it's been a huge success and one that makes a27 much more likely to succeed even though a27 will likely include a large number of changes. Thanks, @real_tabasco_sauce and everyone else who participated here

Do you mean 3?

What was the criteria we used last time? I thought it was a super majority or at least a majority of all votes cast. Lots of people pick the third option as a "I like some but not all choice." At a minimum, I don't think something that skids by on a 40%, 35%, 35% votes should get in.

Yeah, I think everything implemented so far has wide favor.

The mod is great. It allows for quicker improvements that players want. I'm just saying that, at least for a26, the mod represents a large portion of all regular users and therefore has replaced vanilla as the 'true' a26. I would love to see it back for a27.

I don't know. You tell me--is a patch of 22 upgrades still good? A patch of 21? 20? 19? . . . A patch with 1 upgrade?

But my question was why do all need to be implemented at once? A pickle can make you reject the whole burger if you are allergic. I just don't see why all have to be implemented at once. Units will eventually get to the upgrades, though. If a unit become OP after upgrades it is still OP.

We can call it "experimental" all we want, but for all intents and purposes--it is the current alpha. The vanilla version of a26 does not function, if for no other reason, because of the Han farming issue and as a result most regular players exclusively play the mod. The mod will also likely be a27. And, again, a single OP unit can ruin gameplay. For example, in a22, a common rule was the no one was allowed to make cav or bolt shooters. In a24, no one made anything but archers and OP defensive structures made games extremely long and enjoyable. Those are two alphas where a single OP unit was sufficient to ruin gameplay. We should not brush off just a few potentially OP units. I have other issues besides the specific ones I named, but the ones I named provide a general preview. That is also true if you add just one tech--it becomes part of the tech tree. Each of these can standalone. What requires all 23 to be implemented at once?

Sometimes I can't tell if you are just an excellent troll. Regardless, you lost your title of most toxic. Step up your game

A single unit can ruin gameplay. I prefer a game with 2 balanced units instead of a game with 3 unit options but only 1 is built because it is OP. This isn't true. You have to decide which to techs to get, the order to get them, and when to get them. Unless you are playing death match settings, it is a game of limited resources. I very rarely get all the techs and I doubt I have every played a game where everyone got all the techs. I like these too. I would like to see some more tech options like this. I don't think this is truly a whole system instead of a compilation of several individual things that could be individually implemented. I identified a 3 instances where I believe the proposal would be too strong. ------ I am not trying to say there aren't good ideas. I am trying to say that I don't like the package as a whole. But I would welcome some aspects of these. There have been a lot of people with grand overhaul visions and everyone who has tried to do it has created greater imbalances than they started out with. I don't think anyone should assume they are better than anyone has proven to be. I like when the health bonus was only for specific civs. If it is kept for all civs then there should be a trade off.

(1) It's a complicated system with 23 new techs. (2) It basically tries to rebalance everything all at once, which will inevitably create greater imbalances. (3) It contains some specific things I find concerning. For example, jav cav have a massive buff. Their spread (accuracy) improves a massive amount and their prepare time also is almost cut in half. Similarly, a massive buff is available for sword cav, which can get +10% health and +1 pierce armor. Additionally, a massive buff is available for archer cav, which get 1.15x dmg pierce dmg and 1.25x projectile speed, which increase accuracy (but does so indirectly). Taken together, the three best units, which many people already think are OP, all receive really, really large buffs. These buffs are also better than comparable inf buffs (e.g., archer cav get 1.25 dps plus increased accuracy but inf slings only get about 1.1x more dps). Likewise, projectile speeds are modified for several units and these modifications are inconsistent (1.5x speed for inf archers but 1.25x for cav archers and 30 for inf jav). Changing projectile speeds was a big part of the problem in a24. Honestly, I see no reason to ever change them because the same result can be accomplished in other more direct ways and their change isn't transparent to players.

Yeah, that's why I say, if these fail to gain support--as they appear headed to, I would see if a narrower/more targeted patch would gain support.

No, these are just the spelled out things. I would nerf all melee cav health. I don't have a big problem with jav cav health. Champ melee cav is a huge problem. I think speed is an issue, which is the way I would try to nerf jav and archer cav. I'm just trying to tell you how I think you could get wider acceptance on the cav issue, which is I think you could get a consensus on certain cav needing to be nerfed, but the current package as a whole is too divisive to gain large acceptance.

I think you need to split the health proposal. It has too much going on. For example, I don't want to nerf skirm cav health, but I do want to nerf melee champ cav. There's a decent number but no one uses the ones that exist. But, yes, it is an area of potential--we just haven't seen anything for it that widely appeals

yes

I don't see a voting option. Maybe it is because I already voted? Maybe reset the poll so people can revote on the new stuff.

I like the idea a lot, I just question whether it ever really gets used. Rank 3 units are rare, especially for melee units.

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.

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).

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

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)

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.

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).

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).

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.