chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
55 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
After a technology has been researched that increases the gather rate of a resource, the resource becomes less valuable due to ease of production.
This simply isn't true. Resources are only valuable in so far as you can spend the resource on units, buildings, or techs. The cost of those units, buildings, and techs do not change no matter how much of a resource you have.
55 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:The other alpha had it go from a 50 resource increase to a baffling 850 resource increase in phase three.
Perhaps this isn't the correct cost/rate increase. But the increase in cost was also accompanied by a huge increase in gather rates. The current alpha does not have any such corresponding jump in productivity for p3. In fact, later techs are actually worse from a cost/benefit standpoint--p1 tech increases baseline productivity by 20% for 300 in res, which means 1 res equal a .667% collection rate increase, whereas p3 increases baseline productivity by 72.8% (1.2*1.2*1.2) for 1800 in res (300 for p1 tech+600+p2 tech+900 for p3 tech), which means 1 res equals a .04044% increase. That means the p1 tech is about 16.5x better from a cost benefit perspective. This just doesn't seem right.
55 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:Potentially there might be the argument of having there be diminishing returns on the subsequent technologies. These are economy upgrades and shouldn't aim to work as massive power spikes like military ones can often do.
This makes no sense. Economies and militaries are necessarily intertwined. Economic technology becomes military technology and vice versa. How would militaries get stronger weapons if they lacked the blacksmithing ability to make stronger mining tools? Even if you set that aside, a stronger economy will make a stronger military because one of the great constraints of warfare is the production of weaponry.
And regardless of whatever is "historically" or "economically" accurate, the current iteration makes for far less dynamic gameplay as the benefit of phasing is almost entirely eliminated and many team games end up running way too long, partly as a result of attackers having fewer attacking units.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, badosu said:
Can't you see many issues pointed out are viewed as actual issues by the dev team as well? The thing is players will never know any work is being done, won't enjoy any of those fixes until the new release and will keep being disgruntled meanwhile.
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.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, badosu said:
Forum is not the proper place except for informal discussion, you're basically waiting for a dev to read your comment and decide to work on it?
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.
-
2
-
-
Currently, each eco tech improves production by 20% in p1, 20% in p2, and 20% in p3 (wood, stone, metal) or 15% in p1, 15% in p2, and 15% in p3 (farming) whereas previous alphas eco techs improved production by 15% in p1, 15% in p2, and 50% in p3 (wood, stone, metal) or by 15% in p1, 15% in p2, 25% in p3 (farming). The old alpha made late phase eco techs a huge boon to the eco and encouraged phasing/punished players who never did not phase 3.
Currently, the cost of each eco linearly increases (e.g. 200w and 100m in p1, 400w and 200m in p2, and 600w and 300m in p3) whereas in previous alphas the cost of each eco tech varied (e.g. 200w and 50m in p1, 250w and 50m in p2, and 1000w, 150s, and 150m in p3. In the old alpha this made p3 eco techs cost prohibitive in some instances if you did not have a large supply of a resource (i.e. you might not want to spend your metal on a metal upgrade if you only have 1 mine or you might want to spend 1000w on a wood upgrade in a savanna map where wood is limited). In this alpha, late phase eco techs may not be worthwhile because the benefit is much smaller relative to the cost.
As a result of these considerations, it makes sense for many players not to get late phase techs bonuses, which results in players needing more units on eco in late game. This means that attacking players have less attacking units because they have more units doing eco.
As a result, it makes it harder to kill players this alpha because a p1 player's eco might not be that different from a p3 players eco and the p3 players won't have as many attacking units compared to previous alphas. Consequently, games are more likely to get in a stalemate stage.
I propose we change eco techs to something more aligned with the previous alpha. Reverting to the previous alpha's setup, which provided a huge boon to p3 eco techs makes sense to me. Alternatively, something like a eco techs with the same cost and a 15%, 20%, and 25% collection rate improvement could make sense. If a constant collection rate improvement is seen as necessary, then the cost of the techs should at least decrease so as to provide some benefit to phasing earlier and make it more likely that the techs will be used.
-
3
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, badosu said:
I don't think you understand we're on the same side here, we know civ differentiation needs to be improved, that bug was reported and should produce a ticket to be fixed, etc etc..
How are we going to test this? After 6 months?
I will state for the last time: have some way to provide frequent fixes/balance changes weekly. If this is an alpha that should not be an issue. This should address most complaints.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.
-
3
-
-
34 minutes ago, badosu said:
To be fair, no suggestions for improvement or a qualified argument was presented. The closest one being stalemate on team games.
One can for example provide a suggestion to have units deal more damage or champions being more powerful on late game as finishers, there are many ways to address the issue (if there's such an issue), none were presented.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.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, badosu said:
Weekly lobby would address these issues imo, accompanied by a better way to discuss with devs (discord channel with slow-mode on perhaps?).
And yes, generally I agree balance changes are something that takes a while to settle before any conclusion can be reached while at the same time I also agree that we'd require some better communication.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."
On 09/03/2021 at 3:43 PM, Grapjas said:To say this release has been rushed is a little ridiculous on it's own to be honest.
On 09/03/2021 at 4:02 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:Would you mind explaining some of the things you miss from the previous alpha? I doubt I'll agree with any of your points
21 hours ago, Grapjas said:i said the devs shouldnt weigh to hard on negative opinions like these.
21 hours ago, borg- said:Yes, i don't really care about that kind of "criticism" anymore.
16 hours ago, badosu said:only people involved in development effort itself can truly appreciate what has been done
10 hours ago, Sundiata said:Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction.
40 minutes ago, borg- said:To be honest it seems much more lazy for some players to learn something new than really a gameplay / balancing problem.
Complaints exist. How are these being constructively addressed?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, 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.
This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate.
30 minutes ago, badosu said:Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.
There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.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?
3 hours ago, 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.
This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate.
38 minutes ago, badosu said:Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.
There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.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?
-
2
-
-
When I try to use the mute function it gives me errors.
-
1
-
-
There seems to be another bug where units get stuck on the corner of buildings that requires me to micro around it. Seems like this could be the problem here too. But the corner building issue never seems to fix itself on its own.
5 hours ago, wraitii said:Yes, anytime a unit cannot path somewhere (typically > runs into units) it'll take some turns to find a workaround path, in which it might not move. For A25 it should be less long as the turn length will be reduced in MP. It will also be improved if I end up merging Unit Pushing.
Edit -> that being said, I don't know if that's the problem here.
-
10 hours ago, faction02 said:
I have seen some spears set to passive before being sent to the battlefield in a24...
Passive can help save melee heroes that can be trained only once. I would guess that for an average player who have all his units in the same control group, having some form of security for his hero would be great.
About healers, I am not sure what is the best solution since it is has negative effects for both the owner of the healers that need to regroup them all the time with the rest of his army and the attackers who need to regroup his soldiers chasing them.
Just thinking out loud, maybe removing the running part of the flee sequence for military units (and healer?) could reduce the issue and prevent the abuse.
I get that people don't want their heros to die. But the onus should be on that player to properly micro or place their hero behind the lines in stand ground instead of on the attacking player who is trying to kill the hero. And in the grand scheme of things, losing 1 hero is much less dangerous than losing an entire army.
Healers could also have reduced HP if they actually cause armies to chance in a way that causes armies to die while following. Their health could be something like women, which die quickly before a chasing army can get destroyed.
But I agree changing the run/walk feature makes sense regardless.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, thankforpieOfficial said:
while i agree that civs should be different from each other, making ptoles and especially celts op again is not the way to go
these two civs were much stronger and more often picked than rest. it was not uncommon to play 4v4 game with only 4 civs, 2 of them being brits and gaulsThen other civs should be improved and given bonuses that are actually helpful instead of something like walls that no one uses. The ptol and celts bonuses themselves weren't OP as much as other civs just didn't have useful bonuses.
Also, celts and ptol were used a lot bc they of their unit composition (e.g. slingers and camels) bc those units were seen as OP as easiest to mass with celts/ptol. Those units should no longer be seen as OP and thus those civs should no longer be the only civs used.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
You know, I've noticed the same thing and it can cost you units. Like retreating from enemy area, a certain number of your units will break off and start fighting enemies on the way. Like they just stop and reassign themselves to the nearest enemy. Especially when you have a large group, some of them maybe get a little stuck behind other units, and it just seems to cancel whatever order you gave them.
I had forgotten about that, but yes I've noticed some units not retreating. I don't know if it is the same thing or if they were hit during their retreat which caused them to break command. Same with units walking off to attack when near the border, but I think those occurrences were the result of the known issue where towers shooting arrows outside their range
-
On 28/02/2021 at 5:32 AM, ValihrAnt said:
I'd also like to hear some thoughts on altering or removing the passive stance. The main problem is with units doing the weird run and thus avoiding shots and baiting the attacking units after them. Most noticable on healers and women with the loom upgrade as units will run straight into the enemy army to try and chase them. Then there's also players who put the hero on passive stance and position the hero in front of their army as an easy alternative to dancing.
Edit. Also with melee units becoming more usable and necessary, dancing should be far more difficult.
I haven't seen anyone abuse it this alpha. With that said, I see little point to having it for fighting units, so I would limit it to only women/healers (units that aren't meant to ever fight and also die quickly) or eliminate it all together
-
1 minute ago, wraitii said:
Do you use the default formation feature (or formations in general)? It's the one thing I could see interplaying badly in some situations.
It has happened when I had default formations on and off. I randomly get idle units now when I never did before.
-
1 hour ago, wraitii said:
It'd be good if you could get a more consistent description because it sounds _very_ broken, but we've not really had reports of anything like that except from you as far as I recall. Maybe try playing and recording your screen/input?
QuoteThis happens. Units seems to randomly not listen. It seems to happen with shift commands for me.
-
2 minutes ago, wraitii said:
The fact is that it's possible to dance with infantry too, using fancier methods. That being said, there was a lot of disagreement and debate about turn rates, as the dev that originally proposed this change wanted even slower values.
You might noticed that cavalry turn rate _is_ lower than infantry turn rate, though heroes haven't been particularly singled out.
I think we might increase global turn rates slightly, but there might be other changes in A25 that make these concerns irrelevant.
Not really. I've never seen anyone dance effectively with non-hero infantry--they die too fast. So even when it does occur, it is a problem for 1s instead of 1m like it can be with hero.
Anyways, my point is that limiting the change to only heros will eliminate 95% of dancing without introducing any other unintended problems. And a second focus on cav would eliminate most of the remaining 5% of problems if it is deemed necessary. And, good to hear about other changes that make it irrelevant
-
On 22/02/2021 at 11:02 AM, wraitii said:
They do search for resources near the rally point (that hasn't changed).
Really it's only annoying for trees on scarce maps, because units kinda move semi-randomly, but I wouldn't say it was great in a23 either - IMO 0 A.D. has annoyingly small forests on most maps.
Something is different now. I often have units that get very far away from storehouses when I never did in a23. Like the reference to the 2nd patch of chickens not getting auto-hunted in this alpha, something has clearly been changed.
This is a problem for all maps because it will slow your economy considerably if a chunk of your workers have to walk 3x as far as intended.
And, building extra storehouses isn't a very good solution because that is very expensive early on.
-
On 23/02/2021 at 10:13 AM, ValihrAnt said:
4) Unit rotation times have an unintended consequence that reduces incentive for early aggression. So, while food gather rates remain about the same wood gather rate is considerably slowed down, which leads to players creating far fewer farms and also requiring fewer units gathering extra berries. That makes it much more difficult to find value in an early rush as the woodline will be more reinforced and the smaller food economy is easier to protect with the Civic center or house garrisoning. (Not sure what's the best way to go about this one)
A relatively straight forward fix could be to only slow rotations on the units where dance is abusive (e.g. slow rotations for heros and maybe for cav). Most players that dance don't do so with regular inf and those that they fail. So why make whole rotation system slow to fix a problem that only applies to 1 type of unit?
-
Also, I was the one who did the rush. It was micro and unit production mismanagement by dakeryas and reza. Once you get ahead, it is easy to rack up kills
-
1
-
-
On 25/02/2021 at 9:54 AM, king reza the great said:
Food has more potential for storage than wood because u make buildings with wood.This is only true if you have bad eco balance.
-
4 hours ago, Sundiata said:
Sure that's absolutely true, but just realize that most people don't see the game as some sort of mathematical equation. Casual players tend to be roleplaying, pretending to actually run a small kingdom, build a "city", raise an army, defeat their dreaded enemy in glorious combat, while taking in the views and such. Not looking at stat sheets. The game needs to be intuitive.
If the priority is to make something that looks cool and historical, then the post referencing borg, feld, and vali's involvement seems entirely misplaced. And frankly, balance shouldn't matter then since that wouldn't be the purpose. But this obviously isn't the case, so I don't understand why you are defending that position. I will also note that this discussion has come up in the immediate context of me saying that I and several other players felt our opinion was completely disregarded. To which the reply essentially said: "you are not like other players, so your opinion does not matter." Again, not trying to be petty, but I do want to point this out, especially since this thread concerns how 0AD should look in the future and is involving player feedback and I (and others) now essentially have to argue that my opinion has worth.
To bring the discussion back to the purpose of the thread, even if the point was to just the game look cool and historical, it can be done in ways that also address gameplay concerns. Here, being that a large portion of players do not like this alpha for many of the reasons stated above. I hope it is properly addressed.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Angen said:
This does not make sense to me. If tutrling is so good why would not good player use walls?
I personally don't use walls because I don't like them and I don't think they should be in the game.
Strategically, I am rarely in a position where I need to use walls because I am usually the player on my team that makes the offensive push.
Regardless of whether you think it makes sense or not, it is empirically true that the vast majority of top players never use walls. If anyone uses anything, it is palisades, which the vast majority of top players never use. And there have been threads/complaints calling out the players that do use palisades for their abusive tactics.
4 hours ago, Angen said:7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:- I like rome camps and would give it siege again to make the difference more pronounced
and there will be complains for Roman's being op because they have siege workshop and camps to produce rams which most players don't know how to counter?
There were siege camps in the last several alpha and very few people complained about them being op.
And, the players that did complain about them being op were the ones who did typically did not know to use swords on rams. If that is the base level that you are concerned about then siege shouldn't be in the game or at least should be extremely difficult to make (unlike now).
4 hours ago, Nescio said:5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:This is my point, it is available to all civs now. This makes sele and persia less "special".
The Nisean horses technology (city phase) is still available to pers and sele only.
The techs have changed. The Nisean tech in old alpha is more analogous to the horse breeding tech that gives a 10% health buff in this alpha. Horse breeding tech is available to all civs now.
Before the Nisean tech used to be a 20% health bonus to all cav. Now the Nisean tech is a 20% health bonus buff, 10% increase in production time for champ spear cav only. Persia/Sele's bonus used to be relatively stronger/more versatile.
This without a doubt makes persia/sele's cav less special than it was before.
4 hours ago, Nescio said:On 24/02/2021 at 1:06 PM, Nescio said:Yes. Civilizations were already very similar in A23 and earlier releases and have become even more similar in A24.
This is unfortunate, I don't like it much either. The reason it happened is because it's more important to get the basics right and having a balanced core gameplay, from which to further differentiation later.
This isn't really necessary, though. There was differentiation before. The biggest problems with balancing was that slingers were too strong and archers were too weak. That problems were corrected this alpha. And, those changes have nothing to do with anything I have complained about or about the civ differentiation. In fact, I initially said this is one of the things I like most about this alpha.
Regardless, is having 12 civs that are boring and really just one civ better than having 6 OP civs that are fun and 6 civs that need a buff? You can ignore that 6 bad civs, but you don't get the choice is all 12 civs are basically the same. Regardless, as I have said earlier, a lot of the civs are basically the same as one another with extra features, which will eventually prove to make a new list of OP civs that everyone plays.
4 hours ago, Nescio said:5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:Not to be petty, but I and several other of the top players commented quite a bit on a thread or spoke to devs in the lobby about it. One player and some of the devs, none of which I have ever seen play the game, thought the idea should be implemented. All the other players thought it was a very bad idea. Nonetheless, the revision was implemented. As a result, I decided not to bother commenting on other revisions since my opinion (and the opinion of several other top players) clearly didn't matter. I spoke to other players who commented and several others expressed similar feelings.
What you propose is great. But a near consensus shouldn't be ignored lest you invite commentators to become disillusioned and withdraw from the process
I'm sorry your experience has been an unhappy one. We're all human in an imperfect world.
Gameplay and balance are discussed in numerous threads on these forums, as well as in private conversations and via other channels. It's impossible for anyone to keep track of everything. Moreover, making changes is a slow process, it's not unusual for a patch to be committed (or abandoned) months or even years after it's proposed, which means that even if some comment was read and replied to in the past, it may have been forgotten by the time a final decision is made. Therefore it's really important to keep the discussion unified in a single place: the relevant patch on https://code.wildfiregames.com/ , because it's there the actual development happens and commits are made.
In case you're referring to https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2507 : you left one comment there and disappeared. Others continued the conversation, on-and-off, the patch was revised six more times, and in the end several people agreed it should be given a try; it was left open for a couple more months and finally committed in December. If it turns out to have a horrible impact, then it can be reverted in A25, of course, though so far I haven't seen people complaining about palisades in A24.
4 hours ago, wraitii said:5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:Not to be petty, but I and several other of the top players commented quite a bit on a thread or spoke to devs in the lobby about it. One player and some of the devs, none of which I have ever seen play the game, thought the idea should be implemented. All the other players thought it was a very bad idea. Nonetheless, the revision was implemented.
Can you clarify which change you're talking about? We certainly want to avoid this type of situation.
QuoteAs a result, I decided not to bother commenting on other revisions since my opinion (and the opinion of several other top players) clearly didn't matter. I spoke to other players who commented and several others expressed similar feelings.
If you no longer voice your opinion, your opinion will _indeed_ be ignored. 'We' are not some secluded private studio with a completely opaque decision process: every diff and commit is available and open-source on https://code.wildfiregames.com. You literally have no reason not to voice your disagreement or concern with changes there.
It's possible a few diffs get committed without player consensus, but I want to highlight that this really isn't how things have been done in general in the A24 process: most if not all gameplay commits got some agreement from some top players, including usually borg-, feldfeld or valirhant.
it is water under the bridge. This was a hot topic for a week or so and I thought I had added more to the thread but apparently it was just talking in the lobby with and without devs. The general feeling was that we had been ignored, so we didn't beat a dead horse. I have been asked in lobby by devs for my opinion on other matters and felt I had the same experience. I am not trying to be petty, I am just trying to point out how in the ideal world we can all improve and in this instance that safeguard of borg, feld, vali clearly fell apart because in this instance only one liked the proposal and others did not.
1 hour ago, badosu said:Believe in the process, the first release that actually accounts for balance taking player experience into consideration will always be controversial.
It had to start from somewhere, remember all cav or all champ metas, how is it that different?
If you feel a game is slower you can make proposals, e.g. decrease economy requirements overall (buildings/training cost) etc...
Granted, 0ad does not make it easy to provide accountable feedback, no continuous testing mechanism or a better platform (forum is too difficult to track and prioritize channels and discussions). Testing dev version requiresdealing with SVNsome technical prowess, synced rev, etc..Hopefully with 6-mo cycle it will be more straightforward (though I'd better have a weekly release, make an AppImage for linux, exe for windows built by CI gg).
The only thing that has turned me away are the sounds, maybe I'm a bit autistic but I can't absolutely play with those sounds so preeminent in the foreground (unit selection, unit move, fight actions, etc).
Maybe I'll play when there is (or I make) a mod to have unit selections/actions sound fader.I have been around for multiple alphas. I remember when a22 was released and players immediately recognized that cav was broken. And, I remember when a23 was released and players immediately thought it was an improvement. I am not saying all changes are bad. But I am saying that some changes are undesirable. Regardless, the point of this is try to make the game better now that I (and a large number of other players) think we have taken a step back.
-
1
-
9 minutes ago, Nescio said:
Basically, there is a reason for every change, otherwise it wouldn't have been committed.
What conversations such as this show is the need for more people to frequently play-test the development version and give feedback before a new stable version is released.
Feedback afterwards is certainly welcome too, however, keep in mind the next version is months away and will also include (many) other changes.
Not to be petty, but I and several other of the top players commented quite a bit on a thread or spoke to devs in the lobby about it. One player and some of the devs, none of which I have ever seen play the game, thought the idea should be implemented. All the other players thought it was a very bad idea. Nonetheless, the revision was implemented. As a result, I decided not to bother commenting on other revisions since my opinion (and the opinion of several other top players) clearly didn't matter. I spoke to other players who commented and several others expressed similar feelings.
What you propose is great. But a near consensus shouldn't be ignored lest you invite commentators to become disillusioned and withdraw from the process
-
1
-
Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
Going to p3 forces you to sacrifice units. Last alpha you could go to p3 with 100 units at like min 9. That player doesn't have a great chance against someone who stayed in p2 longer and consequently has 150 units. Also, just because you got to p3 earlier doesn't mean you can actually get the p3 techs quicker than someone who stayed in p2 longer because you sacrifice eco/units to phase earlier. Because of this, the problem of a p2 player not being able to catch a p3 player is really only relevant in the team game context but there you will have teammates who are p3 and can boost you into p3 with the techs, so it really shouldn't be a problem there either.
Going to p3 is a strategy. It is a choice just as staying in p2 is a choice. You cannot say one is a more valid choice than another.