chrstgtr

I don't think this premise is right. If Mauryans are currently too OP (which I don't agree with--they are one of several good civs right now), Mauryans are good because (1) they have the best unit in the game right now (archers); (2) they have a higher pop cap than most civs; and (3) they have 75w houses. I've played a lot of games and I have seen resources "stolen" in very few games and in none of these games has actually changed the outcome. The fact that very few players actually make worker eles indicates that the unit isn't OP at all. The most immediate benefit (and arguably the most important too) of the ele is that you are able to start collecting res away from a CC without spending the initial 100 wood. Very few players ever make a worker ele and instead just rely on the initial ele plus storehouses that they build. So doing this would be a major nerf. @nani is right--we should make other civs better with their own unique features rather than eliminating the fun unique features that currently exist.

But it does. It makes gameplay sense because it will be very hard to defend fields that are away far from the cc in the early game (and possibly late game)e. This change will entirely change the meta. Frankly, it doesn't take a long read of the forums to realize that big changes like this aren't always appreciated or that big changes like this don't actually improve the gameplay. There isn't anything stopping you from building fields away from the CC if you so desire.

This feels like something that is a very small problem because gameplay diverges from historical reality, which already occurs in a ton of other places in the game. A lot of people don't even care about this "problem." Meanwhile, the change could potentially have huge gameplay consequences. I honestly don't think the game needs to be totally faithful to history insomuch as it should be inspired by history. For that reason, I prefer to keep the current setup.

@Nescio, can it be done with the code? @borg-and I talked about it last night and agreed it was a good idea but that code may be a limitation.

It makes sense for women (and men) to have lower LOS while doing eco because you will naturally be distracted while chopping a tree, mining, or farming and consequently less likely to notice a unit walking in the far off distance. I don't see how to say women/men have different vision ranges. I would prefer for LOS to be unified but for the LOS to be decreased when a unit is doing eco. (and maybe a intermediate LOS when a unit is walking/fighting/under attack) Edit: This should satisfy everyone who wants to see far off units when being attacked without creating weird situations where you can suddenly see farther than a unit is "able" to normally see.

Alternatively, if you could let players choose their hero at the start of the game.

It would be nice to have PM functions in the lobby. Otherwise, in order to privately converse with someone you have to create a room to talk privately (and kick out everyone else who joins that you don't want).

Agree on opt-out if implemented. I would never want this standard--it gives away critical strategic info that can easily be scouted.

I would strongly recommend keeping barracks in p1. This would make gameplay very static because rushes would become much less viable. This in turn would make p1 a bit boring. It would also make it more difficult it more difficult to come back from rushes because it would be harder to produce soldiers if you are rushed. It also isn't true that there are many buildings in p1 and few in p2 when you consider how basically every building in p1 is required to build pop/do basic eco. P1: house, storehouse, farmhouse, field, corral, dock (but it can only function as a storehouse or to make eco fishing ships), barrack, stables, sentry tower, outpost, and palisades. P2: CC, blacksmith, temple, market, tower, and walls (some other civs have other buildings like ele stables, lighthouse, pyramids, etc.) So basically there are only 5 buildings in p1 that do anything beyond eco. And two of those basically don't do anything but let you see more (outlooks)or block movement (palisades). So taking out barracks/stables in p1 would leave civs with just towers and eco buildings. This change would also lengthen games considerably because pop would be slowed. Given DDoS, unstable internet connections, and players that leave games randomly that could be very problematic.

Because it would result in a 2/3 chance that you see something worthless since is about the chance of seeing either women around a CC or an army that you are already fighting. As opposed to now when you get a 100% chance of seeing something useful that you won't intuitively know (i.e. traders and whatever they walk by which could be useful and isn't likely to where the fight is or the farmers). It should be given a buff because no one uses it now. But spending units to see a woman farming isn't a buff.

My point is that changing it to all units or something instead of just traders means you would have like a 1/6 chance of seeing a woman in a field. And a 1/2 chance of seeing a solider fighting your own army. So about 2/3 of the time you would get useless information. Current structure means you would never get useless information as knowing where traders are is always useful. Edit: a change would be nice as the tech is basically never used now and it's a cool idea. But the most common suggestion is a nerf that would make it even less likely to be used in the future.

Why would anyone want to do this? I wouldn't want to spend resources just to see that the enemy has a soldier fighting my army. Just like I wouldn't want to spend resources to see that my enemy has women farming by their CC because I already assume this. Making it so that it reveals ALL traders would be useful since it gives a more information than the base fact that a trade line runs through one specific point.

I feel like most of these takes out a lot of skill (i.e. noticing that an enemy is nearby) or disadvantages scouting (i.e. being told when enemy is building wonder). I would like if we got more notifications from allies after team vision is researched. For example, a notification that an ally has begun to build a wonder, a notification that an ally has dropped below 100 pop or a notification than an ally has less than 100 resources.

The only one that would really be useful is offensive boost (economic boost won't help because if you can build a wonder and research the tech then resource scarcity isn't an issue and defensive boost doesn't make sense because if you are at risk of losing your base then you almost certainly can't afford a wonder and its tech). Other suggestions in this thread like unlocking additional units doesn't sound like much a boost (most civs share multiple common units already and getting a few extra unit types isn't going to be much help whereas extra pop is a huge boost). I would like the option of offensive boost and/or a pop boost. Honestly a lot of other discussion in this thread sounds like it should either be already implemented in other aspects (i.e. giving civs more differentiating factors), already are in the game (wonder victory condition is already an option, so why would we delete a useful construct to make something that we already have as an option standard and limit player choice) or will not be nearly as worthwhile a benefit as the current as the simple pop benefit that it currently gives (bribing traders isn't done right now because it isn't very useful).

I will build them occasionally. No one really bans them anymore like they used to. They are often necessary to break stalemates but this usually only occurs in very long games And to answer OP's question, yes. They can be very useful for the pop bonus. Although they are less useful in a24 than before because they no longer give the the auto +10 pop bonus, so no real benefit occurs for at least 2 minutes after building even if you assume resource scarcity isn't a problem (although it usually is). So now it takes a long time to get the resources to build the wonder, a long time to get resources for the tech, and a long time to research the tech before you get any benefit. I would re-add the +10 pop bonus and/or I would increase cost and make the +20% bonus automatic. I didn't even realize there was a resource trickle until I looked up stats just now, so I wouldn't say it matters (especially because no one builds wonders unless you already have a ton of res)

I agree/like with almost all of this. Expand the tower nerf to forts and (maybe) CCs and literally all of my big balancing complaints would be gone. I have reservations about the pike/spearman counter vs. eles. This would mean that all siege melee siege is dealt best with by melee. I kind of like how rams are best dealt with by melee while eles are best dealt with by range. It forces players to have both melee and range units or else a single ram/ele could destroy an entire base. Instead I would lessen ele's pierce armor.

For reference I had 9 cata in that game. Dizaka was all but dead at minute 18 but because of turtle game lasted 60 minutes. Game would've lasted longer too if it wasn't for the Dizaka's other flank dying and him getting attacked from both sides. For color on how long the match lasted and slow paced it was, Dizaka made his suggestion on the forum that walls should be limited in number as he was simultaneously spamming them faster than I could destroy his city.

Increase unit speed--it will make the archers distance adv smaller and make it less likely that projectiles will hit. Skirms last alpha couldn't advance on fully massed archers, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Here again the problem is that many of these were not problems before. I will make posts in the other space (although, as I have previously pointed out, the one instance in which I did this several players, including myself, all posted saying the change was a bad idea yet the devs moved forward with the change anyways). An overarching theme here is that many players feel that a large portion of the dev team doesn't listen to players' concerns and feedback and the replies from many devs on this forum only reinforce that feeling. But I will try your way one last time.

Come on. My point is that it has been read and it has been dismissed (actively and/or passively) by devs on the forums. Maybe I and others didn't go through the proper medium, but why would we if we just get told we're wrong by every dev that is on the forum? Devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say that the feedback is substantively wrong when they get the input. Just like devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say feedback is procedurally wrong and doesn't count because it isn't written in the right place.

I've never said you're the problem, badosu, because I do not think it. As for civ differentiation, it used to exist. Now not so much. This is part of why this alpha feels so frustrating--it feels like a step back in many respects. Another major problem is that this alpha works well for 1v1s but can become completely miserable in long drawn out team games. This particularly true with my two other major complaints (turtle is way too strong and unit production times need to be sped up). These complaints I have been repeated many times over on the forum but never seem to be addressed beyond being dismissed. I hope that these issues are resolved sooner than later.

Read my post history. I've made many of my complaints known (primarily civs lack differentiation, turtle is way way too strong, and unit production is way way too slow). I have seen several of these complaints repeated in one form of another multiple times too (e.g. Dakara in this thread saying he wants more HP because fights are way too fast, which is a function of both turtle being too strong and unit production being too slow; breakfast in this thread saying that TGs are stalemates, which is a function of turtle being too strong as well as not being able to produce enough units to sustain fight, again slow unit production; many posters in other threads saying all the civs feel the same now). All of these complaints were basically brushed off or labeled wrong. Most of all many people have said the game is no longer as much fun because of the above reasons. We have tried making our complaints known and in many instances provided specific and actionable solutions.

See the responses below from devs (just from this short 3 page thread). Not trying to call anyone out but I don't see how the problem at this point is players not communicating their grievances. Also, compare these response to where many players have made very specific complaints with very specific suggestions for improvement (in this thread and others), which were either totally unaddressed or just labeled "wrong." Complaints exist. How are these being constructively addressed?

This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations?