chrstgtr

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

Do you mean the army camp? The castrum is the barrack. I would be in favor of the former but not the later.

I think the "players only make range units" is a self-fulling prophecy. Han is the most easily countered civ. All you have to do is make spears. But no one does so they have problems with Han’s sword cav and crossbows. I don't have a strong opinion on the new spear cav yet

I recommend you try using cav, swords and siege. Rome has good cav with a good hero. Their sword cav champ with hero is one of the strongest combos In game. Not all civs have swords so rome melee can slice through a lot of enemies. Siege is great. There are more options than just spam range CS

On a related note, I think this can also be a problem. I think an easy fix here is to make all possible current units actually available. So I would make champs, especially inf, more accessible. My first step would be to eliminate the unlocking requirement in barracks Honestly, I think it’s the level of game you play. It’s not the easiest thing for beginners to do. If you want to see what I am referencing, I would suggest watching some high level games, especially 1v1s

See all the games where players transition to range cav. Or skip ranged infantry and go straight to ranged cav. You're right that it is a tough balancing act. I don't know how to fix it. But I haven't heard anything to suggest that the meta right now is anything more than spamming cav early, often, and late. Just everyone can't execute that meta against everyone.

You're just too OP.

Jav and archer in both. Sword in late, at least. Maybe both. This is observable in many, many games.

Almost every high level 1v1 is dominated by early cav rushes. Often, the winning player wins because they do just enough eco to make slightly more cav or they manage their cav slightly better than the opposing player. To be honest, I cannot remember the last high level game I watch that wasn't won (or all but officially won) before p3. Many late p3 games are dominated by cav. A unit is not balanced if the strategy in early game and late game is to spam that single unit. Talking about stats is meaningless if experience shows us that a unit is OP. See above. Also, a game isn't balanced just because many players don't exploit OP units. Many players never made fire cav in a25. Does that mean fire cav was balanced? No.

Yeah, it's easier said than done. Also, we don't want too many options because then it gets overwhelming. Implementing some of these, showing proof of concept for the adopted items, and implementing for a27 could help with the winnowing the total number of open items.

The root cause is that a lot of patches have multiple components. People select the 3rd option when they are split on a proposal. An easy fix would be to break proposals down into their constituent parts (i.e., one proposal to nerf ptol her and one proposal for athens hero instead of combining both into one) and then making the poll binary. There's a lot of changes already. I would suggestion caution. Change by itself isn't good. And when there are a bunch of variables it is very difficult to tell what one proposal does and doesn't do. For example, the cav nerf could actually not have a big impact because smaller CC ranges significantly slow booms, which makes rushing (i.e., cav) stronger. I don't know if any of that hypothetical is true right now, but it's possible and I wouldn't be able to confidently terse out an explanation if it did occur. ------ Right now, we have more than enough support for several proposals to implement them. I think we should do that and see how it impacts the game/how people like them. If those proposals are good, we should actually make tickets to implement them for a27. Then we can figure out what next changes to do.

I'm fine with them for now. My problem is the base level health/speed advantage because those occur in p1 through p3. I think the upgrades are better as differentiators (i.e., when Persia was truly a cav civ in a23 because they had the special health upgrade while most other civs did not whereas now Persia's cav is nothing special), but I think the boat has sailed on this one.

Yeah, while I think this cav nerf is needed, it will be a bit of a meta shift (cav spam-->to something else, hopefully more strategic). So I think this merge, if it happens, should be done by itself so we can really know its impact