chrstgtr

Yeah. Those are great but mostly limited to p3. Differentiation should be more than tech trees and one of two unique OP units for each civ. We're running out of our ability to differentiation through unique units too as more and more civs get their own unique units (Romans got their own last alpha, same with Persia, etc.)

At one point, someone posted a video on YouTube of you can beat very hard AI with 300 women and clever micro. No one should suggest that women are too OP. It’s just that the AI isn’t very intelligent

I was more addressing the eco change proposal. But thanks for the feedback. Always good to have input. -------------- With respect to the actual forum thread topic, I would like to encourage others to try to come up with ideas that aren't just techs. Techs that modify an already existing template are a little gimmicky and lazy. Most techs also put us in a "race to push all the buttons." I would also say that the most interesting civ differentiators aren't techs. They are the inherent civ bonuses/features like Iber's walls, Iber's skirm discount, Athens' phrasing bonus, Mace's automatic tech research times, etc. These are differentiators that create really unique strategies and build orders, and are not just a "race to push all the tech buttons"

The community mod has a process to it. Someone notes a problem. Someone proposes a solution. It gets debated. It gets possibly modified. It gets voted on. If it receives enough votes, it goes in. Your proposed change hasn't gone through that process. I haven't looked at the thread for a long time, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't even a consensus that there was problem. I also believe some version of your proposal was previously debated and rejected (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3704) (if I recall correctly, I actually wanted something somewhat similar to a progressive system like you proposed but I was unable to convince others). Simply put, your proposal hasn't undergone the review that other items that are adopted into the game and through the community mod have to go through. Additionally, your proposal's effect would have an extremely expansive effect, which suggests a greater need for caution and the review described above. ------------

I tell you these things because this is the common route that almost every player goes through (including myself). At one point, I thought rams were too strong. At one point, I thought AI was great. Then I played a little more and realized my errors. If you aren't interested in other people's opinions then I don't know why you're posting here.

If you really want the game that way you can mod it and play it all you want in SP. But most of your balance complaints aren't really valid. They're only valid for your current level. As your skill improves, you will see why the game is balanced the way that it is. Ultimately, it would be great if 0AD had a better SP experience. But, as it stands, it just isn't there. The lack of a better AI system is probably the biggest weakness of 0AD and that item that keeps 0AD from gaining a bigger player base. As it stands, AI is often too difficult for beginners and way too easy for experienced players. The lack of a true campaign mode is another glaring omission.

I guess what you're saying could be relevant. But only if all units can't eco within the borers. Otherwise, it just spreads out an eco. So long as all units are working then you will still end up with too much res

I agree in part. But I would also say that maps with relatively less metal/stone and relatively more wood create inequity for civs that rely on slingers/mercs. It's always very sad when the ptol player runs out of stone/metal and is stuck making only pikes and camels. There has to be somewhere between "way too much wood" and "way too little wood" that would make it more fair for everyone.

I would like that. The slightly less wood part would obviously be an alternative to making a smaller radius--both result in slightly less resources within the territory footprint. My radius idea is just easier for my less programing savvy brain to understand because it doesn't require changes to the underlying map generator.

I agree 100%. But low wood is probably the #2 reason why some maps/biomes are unpopular (#2 after only the fact that some maps require the use of a navy). All I mean to say is that a reduction is radius size should be done carefully because its easy to overdo it and the potential for blowback.

That is unrelated. It doesn't change the fact that there is "too much" of certain resources on certain maps. Economies will be slowed but players still may end up with thousands in extra res on many maps. The problem is there is often no resource scarcity, which encourages unit spam and obviates any need to build additional CCs .

Agree. On some maps this is a huge problem. The ability to build over shrubbery has partially mitigated this somewhat for some biomes. Unfortunately, it's a tough problem to fix because you can easily tip into a scenario where there is not enough wood, which is often a frustrating player experience. Indeed, I think the player base prefers maps where wood is overwhelmingly plentiful. There is a happy medium in-between where we presently are and "not enough" wood but I think a slight decrease in wood could quickly go from "this is an improvement" to "this ruined the game." I don't know what you mean by "worker density."

Or just decrease the radius increase size with each phase. We did that some in the community mod but I think we could do it even more. It's pretty easy to run of of minerals, esp if you build a lot of slingers, mercs, etc. It's usually wood that there is "too much" of.

One of the lessons is: if you want to actually develop a game with new features do it as part of the main development team. Everyone would like to see new/more team members. the reception for rogue development is chillier.

You’re missing the entire point. Your opinion doesn’t matter if the people you’re playing with think that’s it’s cheating.

There have been so many posts in this thread (and that thread) saying that it is cheating. Just because it is public knowledge doesn't mean that it isn't cheating. There is no agreement on any of these items. If there was agreement it would be part of the vanilla game (and thereby not a "cheat"). The only reason why these cheats exist is because someone made the mod and no one can do anything to stop you from using it. Being transparent about cheating doesn't make you any less of a cheat. A cheat is anything that gives an advantage this is not universally agreed to. This mod gives an advantage to the user and is not publicly agreed to. This is a game with no referees to enforce the rules. The game relies on cooperation around the basic rules of the game. If we were to play a soccer match and I picked up the ball with my hands and ran it into the goal it would be cheating. It wouldn't matter that everyone could see me do it (public/transparent). And, it wouldn't matter if there was or wasn't referees to enforce the rules against against. No matter how public. No matter how transparent. A cheat is a cheat. And, players continued use of a mod in games where others call it a cheat loses any good will and benefit of the doubt those players ever had.

yeah, i'm not worried about nomads--those should be pretty unique by virtue of being nomadic.

Agree. There are already units like this. But I'd really like to get away from the "introduce a new unique unit" for each civ as a means of differentiating. Playing the same with every civ until you spam one, unique unit for that civ at min 15 is a pretty boring meta. Now, if the unique unit creates a unique build order, like free champs, siege, or something then that's a different story. I would just like to see civs play more differently than each other.

I think we should really focus on changes that will actually change gameplay/create different build orders. Right now most civs play basically the same (i.e., most civs are boom to p3 then spam the strongest units for that civ). Also, the most interesting bonuses right now are ones that actually cause you to play a civ differently (Sparta spear bonus makes players make more melee, Iber skirm bonus causes players to make more skirm instead of other units, Athens phasing bonus causes players to phase at different times, etc.). Doing something like introducing p2 siege or creating free siege, will actually cause players to change when they phase and what they do in those phases (i.e., staying in p2 longer and doing push with bolts or phasing to p3 faster to do quick siege push). Giving something like a metal trickle won't really change how someone decides to play a civ--it just makes using that civ slightly easier. The army choice option is fine, but I don't think it will change much in terms of play because it's just pre-determining what type of units will be made (and, at least right now, no one will choose an all melee inf army).

I would be fine with that if bolts were available--otherwise it doesn't change their build at all except it is a worse version than Roman camps. It might be hard to balance--imagine walking into a turtled mace base with 10 bolts at min 13. It's not that hard to balance with either longer train times or limiting the number of siege factories. It would just require testing. I just want to create different build orders for the different civs. Right now it's all the civs play the same--boom, get siege around min 13, push with siege. This did not use to be the case for Mace, and I think we should revive that quick siege push for them

Mace used to play different because you would rush to p3 to get quick siege from siege factory. Now Mace plays the same as other civs because everyone gets siege factory. Make siege free? Nerf with siege factory limits or slower train times. Giving them free siege would introduce new strategies like rushing to p3 to free siege but that would make them very vulnerable to early pushes.

I would do melee rebalance, ele changes, and cata. That is one really big change and two more isolated changes. I wouldn't do maurya hero auras (can't remmeber them exactly) because they may stack with any of the other changes and because that would be two changes for Maurya (ele and heroes). I wouldn't do building AI because that is another really big change, which will make the impact of melee rebalance more difficult to understand. If we knew that we had like 6 months to test then I would want all of them in. But with an undetermined amount of time, I don't want to get squeezed and not understand enough of the impact for anything. With three changes we should at least have a pretty good idea about each of them. We can revisit in another month or so to see if we should have another community mod update.

Seems like option 2 is potentially less work if we have to adjust anything/un-commit anything. Option 1 doesn't seem like it really saves any time

Thanks. It seems like we should at least do melee mod rebalance, elephant changes, and cata changes. Those are all straight forward balancing items that shouldn't cause bugs but need to be tested. Best case all get implemented before a27. Problem with testing in RC is that there is lack of players, which means less testing

Do we have a timeline on when a27 comes out? Thoughts on doing another community mod update for a26?