chrstgtr

@real_tabasco_sauce I think basically every map with water should have a bunch of fish unless there is some compelling reason not to. Compelling reasons include: (1) the water is extremely easy to defend and cannot be rushed (e.g., marsh rhinelands, which has tiny ponds that can be easily defended with a CC, towers, etc) and (2) a strategic reason why you don't want to encourage fishing (e.g., oasis, which already emphasizes control of the central water). Otherwise, I think fishing should be a compelling option anytime there is water.

Again, let's be honest about the genesis of ProGui. The reason why it was difficult to "ban" is because the community was overly deferential to ProGUI's creator who refused any requests to voluntarily stop using ProGUI. Look at its introduction thread. People were tripping over themselves to say how the creator's efforts were pure and to avoid the use of the word "cheat." But, when asked not to use ProGUI, the mod's creator declined the request. In game lobbies, people said they though ProGUI was unfair. But those same people didn't want to be "mean" and ban the creator, who, again, refused to voluntarily cease their use of ProGUI. The creator then would say things like "if you don't like it, don't play with me." At some point along the way, other players decided to avail themselves to the advantages of ProGUI and used the mod. In short, ProGUI wasn't banned because the creator relied on others' hesitancy to outright ban the creator. Then one day I decided to host games and ban the use of ProGUI. The creator, again, refused to stop using the mod (notably, every other player accepted my host's rules with minimal pushback). The creator was then was not allowed to play in games I hosted. The creator then told everyone how it was unfair that they were not allowed to play and how they were being picked on. Soon thereafter, most other host during the hours I am active instituted rules that banned the use of ProGUI. So, again, if we are honest about why ProGUI has been difficult to ban is because the creator refused to compromise at all. This is specious. Most users of ProGUI downloaded it. They did not create it. If you want to ban ProGUI stop letting the creator publish it in mod.io and advertise its github version on the forums. If you are really concerned with someone writing a patch to bypass checks then the obvious solution is to ban the creator of ProGUI, who, as I outline above, has been resistant to any rule making around their mod. @guerringuerrin's work seems promising to me.

There is literally just ONE mod that everyone is complaining about. All the rest of this is noise to make it look like we are not signaling any one person or mod out. Let's call a spade a spade and disallow progui. Everything else is overly complicated and/or incomplete.

No matter how many times you say this doesn’t make it right. Players should be allowed to chose who they play with and what advantages (mods) their opponents have access to. If you are cheating I (and others) don’t want to play with you. The end. If you openly cheat, I don’t want to play with you. If you secretly cheat, I don’t want to play with you. @Dunedan’s proposal is aimed at letting players decide what mods their opponents have access to. Your insistence on weakening that just further suggests that you somehow believe your wants are more important than the desires of anyone you play with. It doesn’t work that way. Multiplayer games are meant for everyone’s enjoyment—not only yours.

@RangerK Name and shame. Also, you are describing ProGui. I (and many others) consider it cheating. I (and many others) do not allow it in my (their) hosted games. So if you see it ever occurring in any of my hosts feel free to let me know and I will fix it. This is seriously concerning. Mods are supposed to go through the review process in order to go through a security screening. Creating a mod and advertising it on Wildfire's servers is a workaround to these security procedures.

Perfect

These are necessary too. But does it get at the issue that I am getting at and that you are getting at here: My understand is that 6948 was just meant to deal with the building vs. unit issue. A unit will still be high priority (despite not being hittable) if it is within min range.

This is all so specious and clearly only reflects how you don’t pay attention to balance changes, which really makes it odd that you even involve yourself in this discussion. In community mod (unlike alphas) you are told exactly what changes happen. In the community mod, bolts were rarely used, then used a lot, and now suddenly not that much. The change is usage reflects how good the unit was/wasn't. It isn’t OP. Also, in a22, common game rules literally banned bolts within about a week because they were so op. Players very quickly figure out what units are OP and then spam them. This has not occurred with bolts in their current form and we can therefore deduce that they are not OP like you say. You have to consider all strategies. Not considering bolts lack of mobility is akin to not considering cav’s mobility. It clearly gives an incomplete picture. This is particularly important here because the main nerf to bolts was changing their movement speed. Again, you need to pay attention to community mod changes to have an informed discussion. I’ll try to resend the replays when I am by my computer. In short, bolts stop working when some units get too close. It doesn’t matter that there are other units within range but out of min distance. The bolts just sit idle on stand ground or unpack to move away on aggressive. @real_tabasco_sauce describes this exact situation above. This isn’t desirable gameplay.

This is so not true. Bolts were hardly used. Then they got a buff and suddenly a lot of people started using them. Then they got a nerf and people stopped using them much. That isn't at all reflective of people stuck in their build order. The same story has happened for every OP unit. Slingers in a21, skirms in a22, archers in a24, firecav in a25, etc. People figure out what units are OP and converge on those units. The fact that this is not occurring with bolts indicates that bolts are in fact not OP. You are right. They were set on aggressive. But only because stand ground also doesn't work. If you have them set to stand ground the bolts will just sit there idle. Consider the two replays. In the 9/23 replay, I do exactly as you suggest, which resulted in all the bolts standing completely idle. In the 9/29 replay, I set the bolts to aggressive (after they froze idle in stand ground), which resulted in bolts packing and unpacking. In both replays, bolts were 100% useless the moment I got 2v1ed and units were able to walk within range the min range halo of the bolts. 2024-09-23_0003.zip2024-09-29_0004.zip To be honest, I think these were the last two games where I went bolts and both games resulted in an immediate gg because of the min range feature. This also isn't true. If you watch the replays, I would've lost all or almost all my bolts in both games with or without a min range. However, with a min range, the bolts became 100% useless and the game ended as a result. Your analysis also totally disregards any strategic considerations. Bolts were nerfed to be slower. Because of their speed, an enemy can often circumvent the bolts and take out the bolt player's base. The counter strategy to bolts should be more than dive bomb them and let them bug out.

If bolts were so OP then more people would use them. Instead, they’re the least used type of siege unit Regardless, I'd rather change other stats then have a function that looks like a bug every time units get too close. Also, removing a min range would do nothing to the main counter--rams.

On bolts, I think we should get rid of min range. If a player charges the bolts, it will cause the bolts to pack and try to move away in an attempt to get out of the min range. They do this instead of just finding a new target out of range. This doesn't function as desirable.

I don’t think Rome is OP. People just haven’t figured out how to deal with it yet. If Rome is OP, then give FF to another civ—Brit’s need one anyways. On FF stats, I would def make unlocking it cheaper and faster. I also might make women train a little faster. Not sure about being OP. 5% might be a better number anyways, which certainly wouldn’t be OP. Also not sure about that. Not sure I’ve noticed a difference with iber. With all this said, I still think it should be a 3x loot bonus for team. I would make the civ bonus cheaper units for p1. But that’s just me.

Don't think that matters. Athen's team bonus is "Democracy" but none of the other civs were democratic. Sparta's team bonus is "Peloponnesian League" but none of the other civs were members. Rome's team bonus is "Conscription" but Rome didn't conscript men to serve allies. Etc.

Could change. But fine. A general vision range would be nice. Meh. Also, doesn't fit with civ profile.

There is already a MP lobby that eliminates the need to share IP numbers through a third-party platform. Join the MP lobby. People are generally friendly and willing with play with new people.

This (and the giant map that you didn’t mention) is your problem.

Agree with @Effervescent. This feels like less of an addition and more a rearrangement. The whole sister civ idea is fine except we aren’t doing that for any of the other sister civs (Sparta and Athens, ptol and Sele, etc.) (note: brits need some new features for p2-p3 to make them more than a watered down version of Gauls with different heroes/bonuses) For Brits, everyone always says how they should be an ambush/raiding civ. Why don’t we actually do something with that? Something generic could be giving a speed bonus or a loot bonus. Something more ambitious could be something where you a p1 only bonus (ie, they get 10% cheaper units but only for p1 or something like that). If you don’t like that then why don’t we just make healers free? It’s the same idea of what is currently in place except free healers might actually have some game impact.

This will be fun.

Disagree. That is like saying melee bonus isn't good because you made all skirm. The tech does what it does. It is very useful when used correctly Your complaint with this seems better directed towards the sentries tech, which I find pretty useless in its current form. If the tech actually impacted CCs and forts then it would be useful/interesting. The iber hero is real good for this.

I agree. That is why I don't understand why the biggest change was done to Crenelations. I get that. But its a necessary tech in order for the building to have any real use. That makes those buildings incredibly expensive. It also kills the purpose of the buildings--if you are turtling because you are slow then you won't be able to research it early enough anyways and you'll never get a fort up to research your extra new tech. It just doesn't make sense. Good catch. I've missed how the non-random building AI worked with them--they were briefly playable again

This is getting complicated…why not make it an auto researched tech upon phasing? Clicking on a bunch of technologies isn’t fun. Nor is wasting resources/time to have a minimally functioning building that you already had to pay for/build. What you’ve done makes it complicated while actually having the same (or fewer) number of features just work backwards from current arrow strength in p3 against all pierce armor techs and have p2 be arrow strength if .85 of that and p1 be .85 of p2 (or whatever the percents are, I’m not by a computer at the moment) also, I would leave Crenellations untouched. It’s basically the only tower tech that is ever worth researching (although the distance tech would become worthwhile if non-random gets implemented). lastly. I would make all tower techs impact all defensive buildings. Having some techs effect some buildings but not others is an extra layer of complication without a ton of reason. Looking for all these techs in different buildings also seems like a complication without any real benefit/reason edit: with all these changes we can hopefully (finally) get a final yes/no vote on this. This has been exhausting for something that a very limited number of people seem to actively want. I’m skeptical (don’t agree with the premise that rush is too strong or that arrows are weak late) but you’ve tried to address my two primary concerns that I’ve been voicing for the last year or so (OP early and weak late). So let’s see

It is. Would be nice easy feature for vanilla

I talked to @real_tabasco_sauce a bit in a MP host. I misunderstood. I thought he was saying that it would take 10s to kill an enemy ship. Not 10s for it to die to its own flames. 10s (at most, will be less when absorbing dmg) to die to its own flames sounds a little fast when you consider how it will have to spam, get to wherever it is going, and then do dmg to another ship, which can run away at the same time. Maybe make fire ship super fast moving.

10s feels a little long. This otherwise sounds like how I always envisioned it

I like the bold. Don't care too much about the piece armor but it sounds fine. I think people will mostly adjust without any problems either way.