chrstgtr

I don't know if I have a problem with any of that outside of when cav fight spear head on and the cav wins. That's why I said a health nerf for champ melee cav, which decimate CS spear head on. Wrong discussion.

Sounds like it has potential. Do we have the coding capabilities to do this, though? I think this is a design question. I don't have a problem with cav dealing with dmg. If what you want is inf to be faster relative to cav then a cav speed nerf does the same thing without the other knock on effects for inf. Both of these would have huge other effects. Namely, a melee buff would impact inf balance and a cav armour nerf would impact cav battles.

@real_tabasco_sauce Making inf faster doesn’t mean they can attack more times. It just means they can close the gap quicker (if the cav decide to stop at all). @wowgetoffyourcellphoneis also right. A inf speed buff could have a huge impact on eco.

I don’t have any problem with skirm cav other than I don’t think that a small group of skirm should not beat a small group of spear (ie, 5 spear vs. 5 skirm cav with micro shouldn't result in 5 skirm cav surviving) (ie, there should be a speed nerf). Others have said they don’t see a problem with skirm cav too.

Honestly, it sounds like no consensus exists and the solution depends on who you walk to if you want a change (I, personally, do) then I would address each type of cav one by one. Talking about “cav” overall seems too divisive

Glad you're beginning to play with more diverse play styles. But what you describe mostly has to do with your skill level and that won't be changed by any of these changes. I suggest you watch some games with high level players to get better and see how units can be used. This is skill level. This is untrue, if used correctly.

Don't like damage nerf. Don't like inf speed buff (maybe it's needed for other reasons, but its application doesn't make sense here). Would do cav speed bonus instead. One of the most frustrating things with cav is when you "trap" them in a ball of infantry, but the cav still escape with minimal losses. This happens because cav have enough health to survive dealt damage and are fast enough to limit the number of landed hits. Slowing cav down means more hits can be landed on cav. Lower cav's health means those hits do more relative dmg. To start, I would slightly lower cav speed and lower champ melee health (melee champ cav shouldn't be able to fight with impunity against CS spears--otherwise there is no counter for them). I wouldn't change anything else unless cav continue to be a problem.

Yeah, that’s the effect of large maps generating with big forests.

+1 it’s not a huge change, but it makes it a bit more dynamic Forests are larger on bigger maps, which limits the impact in TGs All in all, I think it’s a slight positive. At worst, I don’t think it’s a bad

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.