chrstgtr

Totally off topic, but I agree. Right now players don't make sword because melee is generally used as a meatshield and no one wants to waste metal training units that never even make it to enemy lines. If swords are quicker then they would more quickly close the gap and engage in fighting where they could do real damage.

If all range units move at the same speed then archers will always win with good micro. It will be the same as camels in a23

Of course they have different gathering rates. But that isn't a bad thing. It introduces different dynamics into the game. It introduces choice. It introduces strategy. Let players build more storehouses. Or research techs. Or just make different units that are quicker gathers. Or make units that counter quicker gathers, so you can try to rush the other player that is going for boom. What you propose eliminates all of the aforementioned choice and strategy. One of the main lessons to be learned from a23-->a24 is that making everything the same and uniform is a stale, lazy way to balance and is actively disliked by players. What we have now isn't broken. Let's not try to fix what already works.

I don't see any need for this. There is already an incentive to build more local drop sites to limit shuttling distance. Likewise, you can just research basket techs to carry more res. I also don't see why it unit speed matters--if a player makes all of one unit type then that unit type should be rushable. A properly built eco will address all the problems you describe, and if a player doesn't do it then they will have a worse eco. To me, all this does is necessarily take out strategy in what units are trained, what buildings are built, and what techs are researched.

I'm fine with the way trading works now. It reflects demand insofar as players actually use it--less desired resources fetch a low trade-in value, high desired resources fetch a high trade-in value, less desired resources demand a low purchase price, and high desired resources demand a high purchase price. I'm also fine with the way traders work now--they are a long-term investment that is very expensive on the front end but ultimately very efficient at generating resources. I would like to see the speed tech comeback as there doesn't seem to be any good reason to take away player choice, but that is another matter.

Players don't build regularly build army camps this alpha. This alpha army camps can't produce siege and as a result are only only useful if they can shoot arrows at enemy units. That means that camps are only useful if they are placed in an area that will be the center of fighting. Except it is difficult to place buildings somewhere there is constant fighting since your builders will get killed in the fight and the defending player can more quickly spam to a location in their own territory. This ticket (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3668) will also make army camps less useful because the arrows won't even be as effective anymore. Camps can be built in enemy territory for offensive purposes. In order to actually use camps for that offensive purpose they should have the ability to produce siege. Otherwise, it is just a bad version of colony.

Many people are having difficulty when trying to download and install mods, which make them less played. How can you add a mod to the download mod/install list in the game menu? Specifically, I want to have Vali's mod added

It is better to start them off at the difference that make sense to balance the units and then offer speed tech. Otherwise you just make archers OP until a jav based civ can afford the tech. Units should start balanced without techs and end balanced with all techs. @ValihrAnt’s mod balanced archers well.

Making a game purposely annoying shouldn't be a result of intentional design. Palisades should be much more expensive than they are now, which is about as close to free as you can get from a resource cost and build time perspective, and much more quickly destroyed. Area damage to palisades has been suggested many times by many people and it makes total sense to me.

Turn times are a problem even when the defender doesn't have archers. Rushers are unable to do hit and run attacks now because it takes too long to turn around rushing units and defenders only have to hit h to kill rushing units. If the problem was only archers then players would still effectively rush non-archer civs but that isn't happening. As I have said elsewhere, though, you are correct that archers make the problem particularly acute.

Just providing feedback on the mod itself--I played a couple games on the mod and I am a huge fan. Game is much, much more balanced, and a lot of fun. A lot of the strategies that disappeared in a24 like rushing are possible. I encourage everyone to give it a try.

This is another solution to a different "problem" that we don't know will work. Reverting to old train times will work to fix the problems that were introduced in a24. What you propose is a larger change to the whole meta, which is fine to propose but an entirely different topic. Any larger changes to the meta should be made from a point that already know works (i.e., a23 training time) and merits of your proposal should be considered within that context.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/search/?q=spam&quick=1 And, a ton of players complain about spam in game and in lobby. That is just to say the meta is to be efficient, which is kind of like saying the meta is to kill enemy units or to kill enemy CC's because, well, of course, it is. There is clearly less diversity of gameplay strategies now--that is indisputable. Regardless of what individually or collectively actually caused it, @ValihrAnt mod clearly addresses the current problem, and thus is clearly an improvement. As for the need for the a more incremental approach to changes, I entirely agree.

This isn't true. The current meta is worse because it allows for one good strategy--you to make a ton of barracks, spam, and boom. If you do not make a lot of barracks then you float a ton of res (which is inefficient) because of the long training times. In other words, a25 only allows for one good strategy--put down a lot of barracks and spam. In a23 more winning strategies were available with rushing and quickly phasing up. We've all played it, and the vast majority of people are upset by these changes. The people who complained about spam last alpha are still complaining. And, people who used to be happy are now upset. How can you say that reverting to a way that will make more players happier isn't an improvement?

I agree. Spam isn't a problem in and of itself--it is a strategy just like any other. It becomes a problem when it becomes the dominant strategy because it is both the best and easiest strategy. Multiple strategies should be encouraged. Eliminating a strategy is frankly just a lazy way to change the meta by limiting player choice advancing what should be the true goal--to encourage multiple strategies. If you want to encourage other strategies then make other strategies better. Player choice should also be fostered, stifled.

Two main things. First, longer training times mean that rushes come much later. This means the defensive player is more likely to have a barrack to produce from, which makes it easier to defend against rushes. I think this should be fixed by reverting training times to previous levels. And second, increased turn times makes it harder to do hit and flee attacks. This is particularly troubling for cav rushes. I think this should be fixed by lowering turn times, especially for non-hero units. The whole reason why turn times changed was to reduce dancing except almost no danced before with regular units, so the increased turn times are unnecessary.

This. But there should also be some incentive to rush in P1. Everyone making all women at the start isn’t good.

Even increasing loot would be a huge meta change--especially late game when you are near constant fight. I honestly don't know if it would work. It's a tricky problem to solve. Separately, I talked to Vali in the lobby and he agreed that he didn't think his proposal would work because it did not consider barracks like I pointed out.

Good assessment of the problem as always. But I don't think this proposal will work. The reason why players boom the way they do is because small rushes aren't effective enough or quick enough. Players can boom women until they make a barrack to make men. If a rush comes at that point they can fend it off with production from the CC/barrack. And if a rush comes before a barrack is up then the rush is so few men that it doesn't do enough damage and can easily be fended off with just a few men being produced from the CC. The difference in men and women training times also make women much more effective since they are both cheaper and quicker produce, so rushes have to kill a lot of women to be effective. I also think this proposal would actually backfire because most players will do the boom and reach late game earlier (because of better women) at which point they can punish players that slowed themselves by rushing. I think a better solution is to make rushing less economically costly, so rushing players aren't so far behind booming players. I think this can be done in three main ways: Increase loot for kills: this will make good rushes much more effective since you will have a better eco because you rushed. It will also punish bad rushes, which is the way it should be. Most importantly, this won't change the incentives for players to make more men early just to fight off rushes (i.e. this means rushes are still possible because players' won't turtle from the start without any penalty). This is my preferred change. Increase men's gather rates and/or decrease women's gathering rates: The change in rates would need to mostly occur with wood. This means that rushers would have a better eco because they had more men than women early. But, as I said above, this will also result in some people making men for the sole purpose of fighting off rushes, which means booming will still equal turtling. Make women and men's training times the same: This will mean women are less effective at booming, so rushing won't be as costly from a unit production time. But again, this will also result in some people making men for the sole purpose of fighting off rushes, which means booming will still equal turtling.

In my experience, wonders actually get built when a game effectively becomes 3v4 because one player either resigns too early or can't sustain full pop ( because border/at a new base or they're just not very skilled). The extra pop from a wonder allows one of the three remaining players to get extra pop and break the stalemate (Sometimes it works. Sometimes the player invests too much, ignores his allies too much, is unable to adjust to the new eco, and loses.) So the "extra" pop isn't actually more than the game is set up to sustain. Also, wonders are generally built late game after a lot of game features (i.e. lots and lots of trees) are removed from the map, which decreases lag. What often actually causes lag late game is players building a ton of walls, which increases lag a lot. Corrals can do it too, but there is a ticket to limit the number of animals and fix this. This is removing something that already works and replacing with something that we do not know whether it will or will not work. Extra population works. I see no reason to remove something that works. Adding extra techs is fine. But we shouldn't remove good features just for the sake of replacing good features with new features.

All of this. Also, the worker ele is now worse than previous alphas and almost never trained by the most skilled players. So then how is that when the worker ele was made worse Maurya suddenly became better? It's because the worker ele isn't what makes Maurya good. Maurya is good for other reasons--the main two being that Maurya has archers, which were buffed too much this alpha and hence the reason why Maurya is suddenly very good, and because Maurya's bonus pop cap allows them to have more archers than anyone else. There is already a ticket to nerf archers that will surely nerf Maurya.

I think it would be great if there was a game setting option that let players chose the amount of starting resources for each res. That would fix all problems by letting players decide what type of game they play. Doing anything else restricts player choice and assumes we know best for all people and all possible circumstances, which of course is impossible. EDIT: more to the point. This is a bandaid and doesn’t fix the thread’s topic of how the game design is currently flawed because at some (early) point stone becomes useless for many civs

There are game setting options that already do that. There are also options that provide more res at the start. We shouldn’t restrict player choice when it is not necessary. I see no reason to do that here. If you want to create a new starting setting (or better yet make a starting setting that allows players to input the number of starting res), I would have zero objections.

I have said in a few places that eco techs shouldn't be all wood/metal. It might make sense that you have to invest more of a res to collect more of it. So, for example, replace metal with stone for stone eco techs, replace metal with food for farming techs, etc. Alternatively, it may make sense to replace force players to spend time gathering more than just one resource, so the opposite should be done. For example, metal gathering techs should cost wood/stone and stone gathers techs should cost metal and wood. I personally prefer the second option that forces a more varied gameplay. It also makes sense to reintroduce stone into the military techs like it used to be. For this I would divide the current metal costs between stone and metal. The building and construction techs also make sense, but few players ever use those techs as is. And, if you are an aggressive attacking player then you will never use those techs. In short this proposal is insufficient to make stone useful again because a winning strategy (i.e., a strategy that requires you to attack) still won't require stone.

I don't think this should be a concern. Why should we treat civs that are stone dependent differently? There are civs that are metal dependent. And, there are civs that are wood dependent. Wood and metal are the two primary resources for techs right now. Every civ should have its advantages and disadvantages that vary from map to map and game to game.