chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
32 minutes ago, maroder said:
An alpha version does mean that there probably will be changes, which will change the current meta. Which is hopefully for the better and if not, then the next version should try and fix that.
I don't want to get into the weeds here as I think I have already said my piece here, so the last thing I will is this:
Just because a game is in alpha doesn't mean all of its pieces can or should be up for reconsideration all the time. If that was true then the game will never exit its alpha phase because everything will always be considered in flux and changes will always be getting made. It also means that we shouldn't revist things that have already been considered in the past unless there is good reason to do so (i.e. some other new feature has fundamentally changed the way the game relates to the subject that we are considering changing. For example, slingers were too strong in a21, so cav was made stronger in a22. But cav was too strong in a22 so cav was nerfed in a23 and slingers again became too strong. etc.). Fundamentally changing the way a city looks has apparently been considered several times throughout the years, but no action was taken. This indicates a choice that we are ok with the current arrangement. Additionally, this isn't like it is some feature that just hasn't been implemented yet--it has always been around but hasn't been changed. Nor has some new feature had an external effect on the way cities are built. Revisiting the same topics over and over again only distracts from the projections completion. And, saying the game is in "alpha" doesn't automatically justify changes.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, maroder said:
On a side note: I actually thought that the fact that these changes reward aggressive play and rushing (maybe even with infantry) would be a positive thing?
My point is that no one actually knows how this will change things. But we do know that it can change gameplay a lot. It will be harder to protect fields. It will slow down gameplay a lot because you will now need to build a farmstand on the outskirts. Sentry towers and palisades won't be great at protecting fields at the start because those take res and time (which you will already be short on) and have their own deficiencies (i.e. a sentry tower can be quickly captured if men aren't closeby to engage in the fight; palisades can't stop archers' arrows)
In short, it forces a radical change to gameplay to fix what is essentially an aesthetic problem. If players really want their cities to look "real" then they can still build their fields on the outskirts. There are also smaller, more incremental changes that can be made to encourage more spread out farmlands that don't entirely disrupt the current meta (i.e. Vali's suggestion of reducing the number of farmers). But changing the entire gameplay meta to fix a small problem like this doesn't feel wise.
-
2
-
-
On 16/04/2021 at 4:59 PM, Yekaterina said:
The Mauryans are currently too OP, mostly because of their worker elephant. There are many situations where a Mauryan player can steal resources from the opponent easily and deny resources. Also, in savanna maps and Persian Highlands or Belgian Uplands the worker elephant is also an unfair advantage. Therefore, to nerf this we can limit the worker elephant to only travel in your own or allied territory. This way other civs stand a chance on maps which have sparsely or unevenly distributed resources.
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.
On 17/04/2021 at 3:40 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Indeed. My preference would be to boost the other civs, not nerf Mauryas. That said, it's possible to nerf the Worker Elephant slightly without overdoing it. I think requiring a Storehouse first or other such thing wouldn't automatically "cripple" the ele. Simply removing the free one at start might be enough.
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.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I know you're a good player and you like the way things are in the game, but frankly this game's past and future development is measured in decades. The developers need to build a game for the future, not for how some people liked it in one of its past alphas. You're just going to have to adapt to change.
On 11/03/2021 at 3:32 AM, smiley said:Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for.
Developers are entitled to end users, not the other way around. That is of course, if the objective is to build a solid community around the product.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
It's not just historical reality, it doesn't make any sense at all.
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.
1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:Some of us like roleplaying to play.
There isn't anything stopping you from building fields away from the CC if you so desire.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, maroder said:
And again: the goal is not to make the game hyper-realistic. With the right solution we don't have to sacrifice a fun gameplay. The goal is to find a solution that is fun, but looks better/ and is more realistic than the status quo.
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.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, borg- said:
Bonus 3 - Civic centers give +10 pop cap bonuses, bringing back something similar to the bonus we had in a23, giving the chance for an early rush.
Because celts were inherently raiding and looting civs, I think it makes more sense to give them a bonus that let's them sustainably raid rather than one that just provides for an early raid. See link for discussion on providing a loot bonus.
23 hours ago, borg- said:Bonus 1 - Turos marus. Can build fortress in neutral territory. Fortress has root territory, so it should be possible to build some small attack bases, encouraging the use of chariots (mobility), small attacks and being an aggressive civilization. It also seems like a lot of fun.
I like the idea, but I think it would be suited better to a different civ that had a lot of colonies or something.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Lower vision range while gathering makes a lot of logical sense and gameplay sense. It would behoove a player to station a few guards to spot incoming raids.
@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.
-
On 30/03/2021 at 1:32 PM, maroder said:
From a pure logic standpoint I would vote not to reveal it, because if you're unit doesn't have the vision range in the first place, why should it suddenly see something that is further away?
Edit: indicating from which direction the unit is attacked or only getting a sign/flag would be nice.
Edit2: Why exactly do women have a lower LOS that other units? I would think it would be good to unify it for non-cav units.
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.
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
I would like to suggest the following bonus for Athenians: Fertility Festival is 50% cheaper. I would like to strengthen this idea with the following points:
1(Gameplay): In competitive play, I know of 2 ways to boom on land maps. A: build a barracks asap while maintaining production. B: research Fertility Festival(from now on I refer to FF) asap. From my experience, option A is the most popular. I think it would be interesting if that choice would remain the same if FF would be cheaper. Researching FF early comes at some rewards(better boom) and risks(being rushed). If you research FF early, you will lack the barracks which you can compensate for by making men from the CC. Personally I think it might turn the mediocre boom in one of the top booms, however it comes with the risk of being rushed. On the other hand, it is a bonus worth only (125F.50W,50S) so I don´t think it makes them OP. It would be nice to see if cheaper FF would lead to adjustments in strategy.
btw: I need to give credits to the devs that originally added FF to the game.
I like this idea for the reasons stated above. FF is currently a rarely used tech because the boom described above is almost always worse than a normal barrack boom. It would be nice to see another boom choice introduced to make more strategies (i.e. make a FF women boom faster than a barrack boom but still dangerous enough that a rush can ruin it).
I would like to see this tech applied to some civ (even if it isn't Athens, which already has some nice features being added for next a25).
-
2 minutes ago, borg- said:
But two men and a trunk is a siege weapon and can also be used in stage 3 effectively. Just as we have techs for rams, we can have 2 or 3 techs exclusive to them, or an upgrade for four men and a larger trunk, are many possibilities. Ram removal is a key point here for diversification. Algo Stone throwing or something like this (comhampions slinger?) can be very effective vs buildings, maybe with fire balls, like iber champion.
I would be fine with that. I just don't want celts to become "win by p2 or lose by p3" civ. So if siege is removed, I would want to make sure it gets replaced with something that can still allow celts to win in p3.
-
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:
Conquering is: to take control or possession of foreign land, or a group of people, by force.
Actually the Celts did that. Multiple times.
There is a big difference between breaking down the walls by force and taking over a city that was abandoned, which is how the Brits effectively "conquered" the Romans.
More to the point at hand, I like @borg-'s idea to also give celts some lite-siege in p2. But I don't want to totally take away their ability to be a threat in p3, so I would want to see some ram (or something similar) remain in place. As it is, celts are already weak p3 civs because they only have one siege unit.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, borg- said:
It depends on the point of view, you can have a weak p3, on the other hand you have an extremely strong p2. If 2 man + trunk is strong enough, ram will be little missed.
That might be true in 1v1s (if players don't successfully turtle like Edwarf said above).
But it won't be true in TGs where help can easily come from allies.
10 minutes ago, borg- said:Also have other ways to compensate It, like druid ritual give bonus damage vs buildings and capture attack to melee units for example.
This seems just like a ram by another name. It tries to get around the historical fact that celts didn't have siege by inserting another fact that didn't exist in history. In reality, celts weren't able to conquer civs like that. They "won" by simply annoying enemies enough until the enemies had to make a decision: invest more to defend or leave. And the enemies (e.g. Romans) left.
In the end, fidelity to history has to bend somewhere to create a balanced and fun gameplay. If gameplay was truly faithful to history then Romans should beat Gauls, Spartans should beat Athens, Mace should beat Persia, etc. Having predetermined outcomes obviously isn't desired.
-
1 hour ago, Edwarf said:
I think it's a good idea to give them tiny ram phase 2 (two men and a trunk)
But i'm not sure about removing their current ram phase 3. a weaker ram phase 3 (as discussed here : D3319) is enough.
If they are too weak in phase 3 it make this civilization gameplay predictible:
They will have to do their push phase 2 otherwize it's game over, opponent can plan defense for min 8 to 12.
I agree with Edwarf--eliminating siege for celts would make them effectively useless in games that last longer 10-12 mins. That obviously isn't good for gameplay.
-
1 minute ago, Nescio said:
Indeed it was (and it's still true).
As for your suggestion, it's not only doable, it's actually quite easy. Add a json file under simulation/data/technlogies/civbonuses with the following content:
{ "genericName": "Interesting Name", "autoResearch": true, "description": "Historical justification.", "requirements": { "any": [ { "civ": "brit" }, { "civ": "gaul" }, { "civ": "iber" } ] }, "icon": "special_treasure.png", "tooltip": "Soldiers gain +100% resource loot.", "modifications": [ { "value": "Looter/Resource/food", "multiply": 2 }, { "value": "Looter/Resource/wood", "multiply": 2 }, { "value": "Looter/Resource/stone", "multiply": 2 }, { "value": "Looter/Resource/metal", "multiply": 2 } ], "affects": ["Soldier"] }
Great, thanks. Let's see how others feel and then we can make a patch if there is interest.
-
9 minutes ago, Genava55 said:On 25/08/2020 at 1:39 PM, Nescio said:
I'm not sure that's doable. There are two related nodes, <Loot> and <Looter>. <Loot> is what destroyed entities grant to the player that destroys them, <Looter> is what entities give to their owner whenever they destroy an enemy entity. Both are fixed amounts (integers). Technologies (and civilization bonuses) typically affect your own entities, not those of other players. I guess it can be done via local auras (which might be costly performance-wise), though that would not achieve exactly what you wrote: if an aura increases the <Loot> of an enemy structure, then anyone who destroys it gets the increased loot, not just gaul players; and if an aura increases the <Looter> of your units, then you get increased loot from anything you destroy, not just structures; as far as I know it can't be limited to specific targets.
I agree on the idea but it seems to require deeper development.
I don't know the specifics of the code, but it seems that this feature already exists elsewhere in the game. For example, Viriato provides +50% loot only when that hero's player kills units. Likewise, Brennus provides +15 metal only when that hero's player kills units. Also, half of @Nescio's response was only about how the loot would apply to all things that are destroyed and not just buildings like the previous suggestion. This would be a little different and would only need the aura to apply to your own units (kind of like how women gave an aura to men doing eco in a23 or the heros referenced above).
-
As discussed here and elsewhere, celts need to be better differentiated from other civs. Currently, Celts are weak because they lack unit types that other civs have (e.g. archers, ele, cata, bolts, etc.) and do not possessive many strong unique units.
History
Celts were raiding and looting civs that used warfare and violence for their own economic gain and to disrupt enemies.
Proposal
Provide Celt civs with a loot bonus for each unit/building killed. Ideally, this looting bonus would be large enough to encourage raiding as a self-sustaining strategy that would not sharply disadvantage rushing players in team games (i.e. an effective raid would provide the raider with enough res to make economic sense and would not slow the raider's eco during a team game because currently a successful rusher can still be easily killed by a booming pocket player). In other words, I would like to see the loot bonus offset the economic opportunity cost of doing raids (when the rush is effectively executed). I, however, am not sure what the proper loot bonus should be to achieve this aim. Perhaps start with something like 100% bonus since loot is set so low (a 100% bonus would be result in 20 loot res for most killed units, which feels about right given that Brenus provides +15 metal for each kill)?
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, borg- said:
Having multiple heroes is something that the code doesn't support at the moment I think.
That's what I figured. Oh well.
2 minutes ago, borg- said:The heroes can be moved to phase 2 but I think it would be a problem for balance.
Yes, balance would be difficult. I think the only good way it could be fixed would be make heros very expensive. But that would impact late game if you have to make a 2nd hero. Also, may make Athens more of a p2 civ than a p3 civ.
3 minutes ago, borg- said:It is not perfect yet, but I believe it is better than the current situation.
Agree.
-
1 hour ago, borg- said:
Some changes in the patch, please look.
I'll think more, but I think it's probably fine. It will definitely make athens a very quick civ (my guess is similar to how to how brits/gauls were in previous alphas) since Athens will have lower phase requirements, will be able to continually produce units from the CC and won't need to stop to phase (since phasing tech will now be in the prytaneion), and the patch for cheaper techs will make Athens naturally faster.
My main complaint now is that it is basically just a way to phase quicker/cheaper/earlier, which is fine but less exciting/interesting.
I liked your idea of having multiple Athens heros more.
I also really liked the idea of having p2 heros, except, as I have already pointed out, I think it will be tricky to balance.
-
5 minutes ago, borg- said:
The bonus looks good to me, but I don't think it encourages build new CCs.
Yeah, it would be very marginal impact without making the bonus too OP.
ETA: it could also be made into a tech since Rome doesn't have a specific tech right now.
-
Ancient Rome was renowned for its vast territory and its extensive network of roads that connected its territory. The primary purpose of Rome's roads was to allow for the quick travel of its military to different parts of its territory to quell uprisings and raids.
Proposal: Roman units move +15% quicker when within their territory limits.
This bonus would have the effect of encouraging roman players to build more CCs to expand their territory just like ancient Rome. It would also allow them to more quickly respond to raids just like ancient Rome.
This bonus could apply to either just Roman units or to Roman units and their allies.
Thoughts?
-
4
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Edwarf said:
-> In order to balance regicide games: is it possible to provide a similar hero to each civilizations ? For example a cavalry hero with better resistance and less attack than standard cavalry heroes and with no bonuses. And this specific hero don't stop the possibility to train a standard hero during phase 3. This would be even greater if this can be set as a game option, Standard Regicide / Balanced Regicide (Yes random games are still fun)
Alternatively, if you could let players choose their hero at the start of the game.
-
3
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:
What about taking a page from Aoe2 and giving rams and maybe catapults splash damage against buildings too? So against single buildings the damage is the same but against buildings built right on top of eachother, like pallisades, the siege weapons would be much more effective. I really don't like the idea of putting limits on walls and such buildings
That could be a good middle point and is something that I should should happen anyways.
I still think palisades will need to be nerfed some (probably through build time/cost) but that can wait for another alpha to see if it is necessary.
-
3 hours ago, wraitii said:
Can you detail what the problem is exactly compared to A23? I don't recall much change wall-side, but I certainly forgot.
----
Wall Turrets are absurdly OP and will be nerfed in A25 whatever happens, that's on my list.
It was a problem in a23 too. People do it more now because defensive structures are now OP.
Basically, palisades/walls are very cheap and very quick to build. They also cause lag and mess with pathfinding. Even when you have siege, it takes a while to destroy walls/palisades. Walls/palisades also convert very slowly and much slower than other buildings (e.g. houses, barracks, etc.), so you can't even delete them to clear your path after you control the territory that they sit in. As a result, some players will spam walls/palisades. When spammed, they are built without any strategic importance aside from "i can build quicker than they can destroy."
Take a look at the attached replay for an example. Blue was all but dead since min 10 (at least 50 pop lower basically the entire time. At one point around min 28 he was down to about 40 pop but me and my ~15 unit siege army simply couldn't advance quickly enough because palisades blocked me) but because he built spammed walls quicker than I could destroy them (even though I always had a ton of siege). It took me about an hour to actually kill Dizaka, which I was only really able to do after his flank was killed.
Simply put, a defending player with like 30 pop should not be able to so effectively slow an attacker that has max pop, a ton of siege, and control of the defenders' terrority.
Edit: there is another thread on the forum that I can't find that displays a similar effect but with a stronger effect on pathfinding. The replay was from a23 and Stockfish built a ton of half built palisades that caused units to do a lot of running around in circles while trying to attack. With an almost empty bases Stockfish was able to defend for a couple of minutes against a full attacking army
-
1
-
move fields away from the CC
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by chrstgtr
And again I cannot believe I have to explain this--devs should play the game and interact with players. Forum posts and comments that exist apart from the actual game only are important insofar as those posts/comments reflect actual gameplay/player experience no matter how self-important those posters/devs feel they are. Again, I'm not trying to indict the entire development team as there is obviously a lot of great work that is done and this isn't a pervasive opinion held by all the devs. But the attitude expressed above is simply toxic.