chrstgtr

As in stone towers? I don't think so.

Related, it might be nice if there was a civ bonus that let players build their players build in allied territory. This could be in the form where one civ can build in any allied territory or where one civ lets any ally build in their own territory. This could make for some interesting strategies where a team can push really hard on the enemy because of decreased spam walk distance.

Thanks. I see it now. I didn't see it before because I was trading 100 back and forth. That results in net 0 res creation. trading 200 back and forth also creates net 0 res creation. (Note, that while the total amount of res stays flat, the amount of individual res can increase or decrease--effectively allowing mace to trade any res for any other res. Maybe that needs to be revised, but that isn't what's at discussion) The problem begins to develop occur when you trade 300 res back and forth (and it seems to get worse as you trade higher amounts back and forth, at least for a little while). I don't think this is a problem with Mace as much as it is a problem with general trading functions. I suspect this means that players should always trade larger amounts of res because the "value" is greater with the larger amount that you trade. That doesn't seem right and seems to say "you'll get better value if you flood the market with unwanted res." This should be visited, and I suspect such a revisiting will fix the "Mace" problem.

I still don't see the problem with the Mace bonus. I just checked in a single player game and without any prior trading the baseline trade value is 100:98. So the mace player actually loses 2 res by trading. Sure, other players can cause the value of res to result in above 100:>100 trades, but that can happen for any civ and when that does happen the opportunity to arbitrage will quickly disappear.

Thanks. I’ll have to look, but I thought that arbitrage disappears pretty quickly

What's the issue? Is it just that you can "create" res by trading with yourself? Doesn't that quickly disappear as rates get adjusted after you trade a few times?

Tell me what their third hero is without looking? I can’t. That’s a problem. Even still, that is just like 1/3 of the civs

Better: make other civs have useful heroes. The problem with ptol is that they are basically the only civ that could be considered “done.” I’d much rather just change the house/storehouse bonus from being a discount to being something that is more similar to a23, which was free but slower to build. Right now, ptol is just easier to play. There is zero additional thought or trade off that goes into their play because it is just cheaper. Before there was a real trade off with how many workers it took to build all those houses and players would frequently get pop capped if they weren’t careful. I would propose changing ptol houses/storehouses/farmhouses to be the way they were in a24 except take 2 seconds longer to build

A building that is only useful for one tech--that is rarely researched--for most civs isn't a useful building. See also Wonders.

I've been saying this since the first days of a24: the globalization of the siege factory was a bad change. It made mace less unique (no more siege rush strategy, which was offset by Mace's inability to kill enemy rams). It also made the game extremely on dimensional where it its mostly quick p3 at 80% pop cap-->skip fort-->siege spam-->hooe you win the first push because the person who starts destroying buildings first wins. It's more than that: it's extremely hard to beat a quick siege spam strategy because siege can be built quicker than multiple forts. This is a direct result of siege workshops existing for every civ.

Again, here we are debating whether we should basically just revert the game to a23. I want it basically exactly as it was before: forts let you immediately train champs, barracks let you train champs with a tech, and a few civs have "champ spam" strats available because they have special buildings that train champs (with the tech the barrack requires and the champ buildings are easier to make than forts). The problem with the current status is that training champs from barracks totally clogs your unit production pipes because champs train slower than regular units. So if you want to go for champs that often means that you have to risk quickly dropping your population and then hopping the enemy doesn't just spam steamroll you while you slowly rebuild your pop with champs. Relatedly, there were a ton of p2 champs and buildings that were eliminated form a23-->a24. None of this should've occurred without an adequate replacement. The game was better when it had more options and civs were more unique.

A lot of people miss that. Now if one person drops then it is over. What happened above was people joining by IP with different names that mimicked other players

What you are proposing is to totally change unit balance. That is the way balancing slides backwards. We’ve tried it. It’s failed. No one, including you and me, should think that were magically going to be the first to succeed here. The reason why I suggest changing speed is because (1) I said your proposal doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t address the problem (melee’s inability to actually engage in fights) and (2) it is the logical extension/refinement of what we know already mostly works. That isn’t what I am saying. I am saying that javs kill melee before the melee ever reach the javs. This happens with 0 micro and efforts to micro don’t help (no matter what direction the melee come from they still die before they reach range units) Increasing melee dmg will only mean that melee units may die faster to each other. That doesn’t change the current meta because range will still do the bulk of the damage and melee units still won’t be able to reach the range units before they die (ie they’re still a meat shield)

If spears engage in direct fight with javs they easily win (i.e. start a fight where melee and range are right next to each other). The problem isn't the damage melee inflict. The problem is that melee can never inflict that damage. Changing dmg rates will do little to change the status quo. If you want melee to play a bigger role, then you should increase walk speeds. It also makes sense in the current structure--units with largest range have the slowest walk speeds and units with the shortest range (except for melee) have the quickest walk speed (i.e., archers are slowest, then slingers, then javs). For whatever reason though, all melee is slower than the slowest of range units. That should change.

Wrong. Lot of people just don't like smurfs. It's not hard to understand why. It's pretty easy to just accept that fact and not contribute to the problem.

I haven’t played them. But I’m sure by the time I do they’ll be the same as every other civ. Perfect (lazy) balance

If you don’t have speed differences then it does become hit and run and it’s impossible to beat except through spam. The lack of speed differences was one of the major causes for archers being OP in a24

Different approaches to the same goal. I also don’t think our approaches are mutually exclusive

I’m being facetious. In all seriousness, though, with the exception of some unit balancing, which still isn’t perfect, and a few random changes, such as the field changes, most of the proposed changes over the last 2 alphas seem aimed to aimed at undoing a lot of a24. Edit: I see you spent a lot of time typing, so I’ll actually address. I liked champ buildings in a23, but I’m not heartbroken over the state of it now. Globalizing the siege workshop is actually one of the things I really disliked from a23–>a24 was the siege workshop because it made Mace way less unique (ie they no longer have the unique quick p3 and siege rush strat). It makes more sense now, but it came at the cost of civ differentiation edit 2: of course there is also the occasional person who just wants to delete every feature that isn’t perfect.

How many alphas until we’ve reversed all the changes and are at a23 with a couple unit stat adjustments?

Fair. Restrictions have their place. I’m more just against Every. Single. Civ. looking exactly the same and then calling that an “innovative change” when really it is just a “change” that makes things more uniform and restrictive. Making something new while taking away something old leaves us with the same amount of stuff (no need to rehash the stable complaints of a24, but thats a good example of where we went from 2 buildings that can make cav to 1 building that can make cav. That doesn’t increase diversity)

I would also be interested in this (or the range as I say above). (Or either for Han and then bring the other to some other civ) (really I was just never a fan of the stable being a global feature)

I would like if such buildings were a civ differentiator for 1-2 civs that have a lot of range units. Kind of like how stables were for Persia in a23 (and before). Making a global change like that, though, takes away doesn't actually improve diversity: it replaces something that is uniform with something else that still uniform but more restricting. just my two cents, but having a lot of extra buildings that limit what can do isn’t much fun. If those buildings come with some other benefits (ie it’s not just restricting because there are benefits that come with restrictions aka a trade off is created) and are unique (ie a civ differentiator) then maybe there is some potential

Cool. Good to knowthere is progress

I would like that. I think everyone would like if the balancing was done by teams, which would make TGs and 1v1s "fair"