[Discuss/Brainstorm Ideas for Lobby Improvements [LOBBY] (We need you!)]

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).

[Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)]

40 minutes ago, wraitii said:

All fair points. The thing is that I'm reading that P1 techs are rather easy to grab - and I'd agree. IMO, we could cut them from the game entirely and increase base gathering rates proportionally, and P2/P3 techs could both be increased proportionally.
From what I've seen of FeldFeld play, for example, the fruit tech needs to be researched ASAP, which makes basically no sense, it should just be removed.

Edit: that being said, if it seems generally agreed that city phase needs higher resource collection, I'd say you're right and we should just increase the gathering rate there.

----

My main concern with ever increasing gather rates is that it increases the importance of shuttling disproportionately - and it's already a very important factor in 0 A.D. Ideally, I'd reduce gather rates & costs accordingly, which would make shuttling times matter less to gathering efficiency.

I disagree with ever taking away player choice. If there is a problem with a tech because everyone always does the tech at the exact same time then obviously something should change. But I would prefer that change take the form of a cost change because that preserves player choice and introduces an additional trade-off decision into the game. 

However, the techs you point out are not researched by everyone at the same time. Many people don't research berries because they do an early rush and can't afford to spend the wood. Similarly, people delay p1 wood/farming techs in order to rush, build, make add'l units, or build a tower. These are all strategic decisions and not everyone has the same strategy. For example, borg and stockfish often doesn't research berries because they make early cav. 

Edit: for shuttling (I assume you mean carry time from res to storehouse), we can adjust the basket tech to change how many res a unit can carry at once. This is actually my favorite a24 tech revision as it makes the p2 and p3 basket tech worthwhile, so I would not recommend changing that. And, again, here is an element of choice: a player can build more storehouses (a cheap, short-term fix) or can research the basket tech (a more expensive, long-term play)

[Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)]

1 minute ago, wraitii said:

From a purely economic perspective, I think our eco techs remain good enough that you want them basically as soon as they are available - it's almost always better to research them than to train a resource-equivalent # of gatherers (even P3 techs are 600/300 -> about 12-15 gatherers, so if you have 80+ workers you're good, though metal conversion is arguable). Now I could be wrong here -> I'm not sure what the typical # of gatherer is at each phase.

That is further tempered by the fact that those gatherers can also defend, and thus in the context of a tight game with a lot of skirmishing, you'd probably prefer the latter, possibly forever.

----

What I'm reading by @chrstgtr is actually that unit costs are too high across the board / gather rates too low (but I'd rather change the first in that case).

No, unit cost/eco is fine early game when in the build-up phase. 

Unit cost/eco is a problem late game when fighting. Thus the need to increase eco late game. 

This would revert to a similar schedule that we had before while addressing the complaints that some people had before.

 

Besides, adjusting unit costs is a huge change that would affect every aspect of the game (techs, buildings, and units) and would be subject to error. We could very easily again create a situation where players are floating way too resources during build-up (this is primarily a problem of the longer train times in a24, which we agree should be reverted) and not have enough resources late to supply the army (this will become a bigger problem once train times are reverted). It is much easier to just adjust only where the problem exists (late game). 

[Discussion: a24 Walls in Multiplayer]

On 08/03/2021 at 10:19 PM, Dizaka said:

Multiplayer a24 walls (palisades/normal) can be spammed.  Walls are great.  Wall spam isn't that palatable.

Suggestion:  Multiplayer option to set "Maximum Wall Length."  This would apply to the specific game being hosted.  It would limit the number of wall "units" that can be actively held by a player (including GAIA, once GAIA maxes out their wall then walls don't convert to GAIA.  This means games are capped at [number of players + 1]*x wall units). 

A wall "unit" can be identified as the "Turret" and actual "Wall."  Therefore, 20 "wall units" will be 20 Turrets and 20 Walls in game per player (1x for palisades, 1x for general walls, therefore total of 40 wall units).

I really like this. In TGs multiple layers of walls are spammed solely to add destruction time without any strategic relation to units' attack/defensive positions.

As stated above and elsewhere, walls/palisades cause serious problems with pathfinding and lag.

In general, walls/palisades are spammed way too much and are way too strong relative to their cost/build time.

Also the fact that they take forever to convert means that a player can be killed and lose all their buildings in their base but retain control of their walls/palisades that are now located in an opposing players base. This means that, at a very cheap cost, a player that has been eliminated can still seriously delay an enemy from advancing on their allies' territory (during which time the ally also builds walls/palisades). 

[Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)]

49 minutes ago, Nescio said:

What I would recommend is start with reverting D3404 / rP24719. That would mean a return to the total gain of A23 (1.25^3 = 1.953125) while preserving the technology behaviour of A24 and allowing players to free up population earlier.

Further adjustments (e.g. cost changes) can be done later.

Below is the 25/25/25 schedule analysis with my proposed costs. I totally agree with @borg-'s comment in the D3404 thread, which predicted half of the eco tech problem I see in a24 (the other half of the problem are the costs). 

Please note a 25/25/25 schedule favors rushes in early p1, late p1, or late p2 and disadvantages quick p3 pushes. This means that a player with a moderately successful rush could see that lead evaporate when they make a p3 push (in this situation the defender would have basically the same eco and pop and just wouldn't have siege when the rusher/attacker makes their p3 push). Meanwhile, a 20/25/30 schedule makes each push stronger than last and doesn't have the same issue where a early p1 or early p2 rush lead could disappear. 

I don't think a diminishing schedule (e.g. 30/25/20) makes sense for the reasons stated above. 

[Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)]

It seems like most players are generally in favor of reworking the eco techs and/or disagree with the justification for change from a23-->a24 (to give players that stay in p2 a better chance to beat p3 players). How does the below reworking look?

A few observations:

1. The overall speed of resource collection would be higher than in a24 still slightly lower than in a23. This should free up more units late game to actually fight instead of doing simcity eco in the background. 
   • 1.728 (a24) vs 1.95 (proposal) vs. 1.98375
2. The increase from p2 to p3 wouldn't be as dramatic as it was in a23. This should prevent the "first to p3 with techs wins" problem that some thought a23 had.
   • .288 (a24) vs. .45 (proposal) vs. .66125 (a23)
3. The rate change and % increase per resource does not drop off as greatly between p2 and p3 as it does in a24. This should make researching p3 more worthwhile
4. The cost of metal will be less burdensome since it only increases by 50 each phase instead of 100 like it does now
   • 300 (a24) vs. 200 (proposal) vs. (150) a23

In total, this makes researching p3 techs more beneficial and viable than they currently are but doesn't create the "first to p3 with techs wins" problem that some people thought a23 had. Basically, it strikes a middle ground between a23 and a24 and attempts to address everyone's concerns. 

Separately, Vali and I talked about changing the p1 metal costs to food since metal basically isn't useful in p1, so the upgrades come "for free" without requiring any trade-off. Meanwhile food is obviously important in p1. This would also help address the extreme metal scarcity issue since it would save all p1 metal costs. I think that makes sense, but I didn't want to complicate the proposal too much. 

 

Let me know what you think

[Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)]

 

On 12/03/2021 at 5:52 AM, Nescio said:

Moreover, those are the rates per worker; players tend to have few gatherers at game start and more units and a better economy in late game, therefore the total effect is greater, which is why later technologies are more expensive.

I don't think this should be a concern. By the time that you would research p3 techs you won't have a lot of units doing eco because you are fighting. 

Having more units on eco means that there are fewer units fighting. Less attacking units means its harder to actually kill players. This leads to stalemates, which has been a general complaint about a24. Also having a greater portion of units on eco is just generally less fun since you basically set the units onto eco and then forget about them. Moreover, it makes it more difficult to do sneak attacks on bases since there will always be a larger portion of units at the base doing eco and the attacking force is smaller (before you could prepare for these sneak attacks by voluntarily keeping more units back).
 

[Civ Differentiation: Athens]

Another potential idea:

One of ancient Athens most notable features was its democratic system of governance. In its democracy, leaders were randomly selected. These leaders basically ran the administrative tasks of the state for their term of a year.

To represent this random selection of leaders, there could be random "leaders" selected that provide a positive aura to those around them. This aura could be something like nearby workers get 15% work bonus. To make it more interesting the aura could vary depending on the unit type (i.e. slingers provide a 15% boost to nearby stone gathers, spears provide a 15% boost to metal gathers, women provide a 15% boost to wood gathers, etc.). Or something like putting a leader near a barrack makes the barrack produce units 10% faster. Also, if it is possible to change the "leader" every 5 minutes, so players can't just "set and forget" the leader on a particular resource. 

[Event Notifications]

On 13/03/2021 at 4:55 AM, Nescio said:

While I'd like to have these notifications for all players by default, I think there should be a game set-up setting to opt out (cf. “Disable Spies”).

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

[Blacksmith rework idea]

11 hours ago, Nescio said:

Perhaps, I'm not sure. We could give it a try, of course. However, there are already many structures in the village phase and few in the town and city phase. Maybe the barracks should be postponed to the town phase then?

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. 

[Suggesting rework of "Espionage"]

11 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't see how extending it to all support units is a nerf

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. 

[Suggesting rework of "Espionage"]

43 minutes ago, maroder said:

You never know, maybe this time they put the farms in front of the battlefield.

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. 

[Suggesting rework of "Espionage"]

36 minutes ago, Nescio said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3565

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.  

[Event Notifications]

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. 

[Wonders seem unfocused and unnecessary]

1 hour ago, Palaxin said:

What about instead of the population bonus, wonders allow you to research one of three (cf. heroes) possible endgame technologies that are designed to end a close match:

• economic boost: 1500 food, 1000 metal, 500 wood
  for women: +50% carry capacity and gather rate, +25% construction/repair/walking speed
  for citizen soldiers: +25% carry capacity and gather rate
• defensive boost: 1500 stone, 1000 wood, 500 metal
  for buildings: +25% HP, capture points and capture regen rate, +5 HP/s regeneration
  for units: +25% HP, +1 HP/s regeneration
• offensive boost: 1500 metal, 1000 food, 500 wood
  for units (including siege engines, ships): +30% attack and +15% speed

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). 

[Wonders seem unfocused and unnecessary]

11 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

They are worth it, but are forbidden in multiplayer games because more pop => too much lag. Or at least that was the case back in A21, players seem to just have forgotten it now.

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)

[Bring back a23]

21 hours ago, borg- said:

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision.

Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share.

Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants.

Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%.

Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2.

Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows.

Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16).

Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav?

It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

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. 

[Special Unit : Scouts]

12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

What if everybody starts with some free (weak) Sentry Towers (see: Age of Mythology; Delenda Est)? This can be a toggle option in game setup.

I prefer just to have some men. 

Also, a capture of the tower (which is currently quite easy) could be a disaster and nearly impossible to defend in some cases.

Maybe I'm missing it, but what is your opposition to CCs making men? It seems like something only a few people want but those that do really want it. I don't particularly care one way or the other, so long as it doesn't create abusive rushes. 

[Special Unit : Scouts]

18 minutes ago, borg- said:

How about scout, women and basic melee infantry?

Scout can have a weak damage however considerable to hit some ranged infantry units.

Assuming everyone still stats with their initial military units (2 melee, 2 range, and 1 cav), I think that might address my concerns. Starting with only range military units would be even better.

I think it should be rigorously tested against quick archer rush, though, especially if the melee units are slow pikes. 

9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

How about CC trains Basic rank units, while barracks/stable trains Advanced rank units?

I think this is a decent alternative, but that will create a lot of level 2 units in the game. 

 

Another good alternative could be something where the CC can only make a limited number of military units (something like 10-15 units so that if you can't survive a rush after the initial push and get a barrack up in the meantime it is your own fault). 

[Special Unit : Scouts]

 

On 04/03/2021 at 1:22 PM, borg- said:

CCs can train only women and scout.

I don't think this is a good idea. At best, I think this creates an extra step where one is unnecessary. Players will have to basically immediately build a barrack or else a handful or archers will win games at minute 2. It would also make it nearly impossible to comeback if you are rushed before you build a barrack and produce units. It would also require you to build barracks within the cc range or else a quick barrack capture would similarly mean GG.

Even if the foregoing doesn't prove true, it would provide players that get a lot of wood close to their CC a major advantage because they can women boom without fear. 

It would also create weird civ imbalances with civs having 5 unit houses potentially being able to get a quicker barrack/boom much more quickly. 

[Bring back a23]

30 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Hey @hyperion

Thank you for the response.

I feel the late game stability is much stronger than you stated it to be, at least in the 4v4 setup that is most common. I do not have any replays to post because I don't know how to do that, but I am sure that you have heard of or even played one of these endless 4v4s. In retrospect, the a23 level of instability was a bit high during 15-25 minutes, but not quite the spike that comes with a24 at 18 minutes (due to the speed at which multiple eles and rams can be acquired). Usually there are 2 outcomes to a balanced 4v4, the game ends at 20 minutes and things are labeled "OP" or teams are considered "imbalanced", or players survive the 17-21 minute instability spike and then the game becomes stagnated and endless.

I think that while these things are considered and debated for a25, we should talk about how we can change our 4v4 setups so we can still have fun in a24. 

• Larger maps could enable more movement which would make it more unstable, make metal more available late game and let more players access enough gold. This change would also reduce choke-points, reduce effectiveness of defenses ( since you already need to build way more buildings in total than in a23), and make archers' vulnerabilities more pronounced and exploitable. Larger maps also make more lag, so this would not work for every 4v4.
• Perhaps playing with only 1 fort allowed at any time, (if it is destroyed can rebuild). This would prevent some overwhelming fort spam. In one instance, @Dizaka built forts around the edge of the map faster than @chrstgtr could destroy them with large numbers of siege (he made it about (2/3)*pi around the circle).  I am not as sure about this one so someone could convince me that it might be bad.

This is one thing that I think makes AoE2 such a good game so long after being initially released. It seems to be slightly unstable throughout most matches, so you could expect game-changing decisions and developments to be made at any time. I think a slight instability rewards action and creative strategies, but does not guarantee more success like in the case of too much instability at 17 to 21 minutes in a24,. I understand that it is incredibly complicated to design a game to have such an ideal and controlled level of stability/ instability, but I think it is an aspect worth improving for a25.

disclaimer: I never played AoE2, have only watched some videos of team games and 1v1s.

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. 

[Bring back a23]

9 minutes ago, badosu said:

@ValihrAnt@borg-We need to think less of stats balance in themselves and more on unit roles.

In this case the melee role as meat shield or archer counter is preserved, it's still effective. The problem is that skirmishers now can't fulfill theirs (infantry support). So thereby I think buffing skirmishers in general in such a way that they can actually handle archers is better than nerfing archers, otherwise we just get back to that state where an army of 20 archers take ages to kill a single spearman.

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. 

[Civ Differentiation: Athens]

16 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

Yes, I like this very much.

Additionally, I really liked having a P2 champion meant for head on fighting. This is something that was removed together with the stoa, but from what I understand the unit itself wasn't too problematic (Rhomphaia/Black Cloak). So what about moving them to the barrack and having a tech to unlock them in P2? It would also mean that Athenians will now have atleast 1 trainable champion between the barrack and the stable.

This could also, of course, be done for the Macedonians or a different civilization it'd make more sense for. I just really like the idea of having a P2 champion for direct fights on top of the naked fanatics meant more for raiding.

Kind of a different subject than the thread, but I agree there should be more civs with p2 champs, especially since champs are now becoming more viable as a strategy. Just need to be careful not to make them too op. 

[Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)]

13 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

Later upgrades being worse from a cost benefit perspective makes sense, just the metal cost for these upgrades seems a bit too hefty to me currently.

I agree metal is the problem on the cost side. 

But I also think p3 techs should provide more benefit than they currently do. Going p3 provides very little eco benefit right now and it causes a drag on games because there the lack of economic benefit means that more soldiers are stuck doing eco and not attacking. 

Last alpha there was a lower cost/benefit to p3 techs from a pure resource perspective but it wasn't as dramatic as it is now and p3 techs also provided a larger benefit in the form of freeing up units to fight.

I think  schedule like 20% for 200w and 100m in p1, 25% for 400w and 150m in p2, 30% and 600w and 250m in p3 could work. This would be turn out to be somewhere between the old regime and the current schedule in terms of both productivity and cost/benefit. It also addresses the hefty metal cost in the current schedule. Basically it is a refined version of the old model that should get rid of its arguably abusive aspects. 

[Civ Differentiation: Athens]

Athens was the intellectual center of the world for awhile. Giving them cheaper techs would make sense. Almost like they automatically have a library.