MarcusAureliu#s

@ffffffff we can only !fpray

CIV 5 CIV 6 Endless Legend Cities Skylines Cities XXL Dorfromantik Chess Planetary Anihilation Crusader Kings 2 FIFA 09, 12 as a kid

I think one of the main things that need to be considered for balancing is, that for every advantage a civ has, there needs to be an equal disadvantage compared to other civs. This is ofc present in the game: Persians have a slow eco and "weak" archers in the early game, therefore more pop, and cav techs that could make them strong in late game. In some cases it is present in theorie but with too little effect. For example Ptolemies are supposed to have weaker buildings. This is not big enough of a deal compared to both economic and military advantages; if u cant defeat the enemy army u will struggle to destroy many buildings. I see little to no reason why i would pick seleucids over ptolemies in competitive multiplayer. Roman variety for siege and camps for example just dont really make up for slower eco and a lack of pikes rn. Therefore there should be a concept/overview for all civs, on where they are strong and where they are weak, each strength opposed by a weakness. Then the second step could be to make sure, things that are considered a strength and things that are considered a weakness are actually strong or weak respectively in relation to other Civs. I have tried something like that in the past. Just to stay within "meta".

@user1 @Stan` @Dunedan Maybe you could make a disclaimer in the multiplayer Lobby as it was the case for former events. Maybe the competition could also be shared on social media. @ValihrAnt @mysticjim Maybe you can mention the event in some of your videos `?

I would argue 8 - eow

Decger might be even more up on that list as he is one of the most op team players i have seen, and even vs good other players his flank usually is fast gg, but he doesnt play 1v1 for example. Emperior, Lorenz and Wendy arguable also deserve honourable mention

All time most op players: 1.borg eae 1.Feld 1.Vali here 4.Ophudar 5.Stock 6. Camelius 7.Boudica 8. Decger 9.Jofursloft Honourable mentions x.Rauls x. StarAtt x.Vinme x.hanibal.Barca x. Schweinepriester x. LetsWaveaNub x. nanub x. bandich x. weaerdJokes x.chrstgtr x.chrstms x.faction x.Edwarf x.Darkcity x.fgod Just to be mentioned x.jc (before he got corona and became nub) x.NubZic Players i dont even remember well enough, but they might belong to top 8: y.Romulos ( could even be anka lul ) y.Liberty y.DefenderBenny ( havent seen eough games of new account) y.franksy

I agree with the first part

Eventually the enemy team: CarelessLikelyAdder-mobile.mp4

@juarca ragequitting when he is in trouble Denethor_death.mp4

Yeah, making concrete suggestions is ofc the next step, this table is just supposed to be a compass to doing exactly that I would for example suggest that roman units have higher price, but better armour, especially champs. For example roman sword could cost 50food + 50 metal + 10 metal, but have also 10% armour increase. P3 eco techs could also give higher bonus, then for example p3 celt eco tech, who could get higher bonus in p1 eco tech. Just to give suggestion where i wanna go with this eventually

Yes, there will be discussions for sure. The point is though, that right now there is not even a rough balance inbetween civs. For example Ptolemies have very good options in all phases, military as well as fast boom and no later eco disadvantages. Can you name a single aspect of the game, where seleucids are superior to ptolemies ? Maximum is heros with different abilities. Also i have tried to characterize existing civs, so their actual advantages should be improved upon, others should be added, or nerved, so that if you compare two random civs there is at least room for argument which one is better in which situation or phase of a standard game. Paying more attention to the pure existence of relative balancing would improve the game a lot. Like for example the ideas of: Sparta: stronger units, but less pop space, Maury weaker units but more Pop space. Gauls better boom, less siege options. Alll those things will need to be expanded during civ differentiation and more of such differences should be added in order to differentiate. Therefore such graphs can be a guidline, on where these differences could be added, and a reminder to keep paying attention to having significant advantages for each civ in relation to other civs. I think this is maybe not the AoE 2 approach of having just minor differences, but i think the game will be more fun and versatile

First of all i think it is important to notice, that rn players who get banned are those, who have 10+ smurf accounts, so it is generally possible to smurf, there are just limits to it. For the sake of the argument, lets assume smurfing is generally allowed. It would mean that all not so well behaved players would have to be banned manually, possibly for each new smurf account. As it has been described above, there are certain ways smurfing is beeing abused, for example by bad behaved players or players who like to surprise others in rated games which can lead to frustration etc. 1) It is probably hard to distinguish between "good" and "bad" smurfs. 2) Even it is going to be hard to agree on rules on that. Is it for example ok not to reveal real identity/strenght and mess up balance ? 3) Who has the time to investigate wether a smurf is a good or bad smurf in every case ? In comparison to a state, 0 AD has no professional law enforcement, and people who work on it are doing it in their free time and bots cant do it. 4)As a result it implies the objective decision that having "bad smurfs" is the lesser evil compared to having reducing "troll" or "protection of identity" kind of smurfing. "Trolling" is just not such a vital or even intended part of having funn with the game, while "bad smurfs" can reduce the comfort for all players drastically by serious offense. Most legal systems, created through democratic processes, containing objective decisions on values would consider honesty, reliability, respect, offenses to peoples personal honour and dignity in the worst case of higher weight compared to very specific, non - life essential ways of having fun. Therefore it seems to be a better solution, to keep current second account policies, and allow exeptions, for example when the same IP is shared between two different persons. It would assumingly be less work to handle, as players first have to come up with arguments, whose validity or at least plausibility could be analyzed more easily. For example in Yekaterinas case, you could just see replays, of them playing 1v1, or TGs ( one was uploaded to yt even) to have prove that two players are involved. Or if people want anonymity for maybe being molested with their original account people could explain their situation aswell.

#freeKate @user1

Actually i was thinking here on a more abstract skale, defining targets for each civ, where they should become strong or weak compared to other civs, more then giving actual exact numbers. Specific values should follow after and will need to be defined in relation to other civs numbers.

Unfortunately that messes up the layout, you should be able to open it with Excel/Open Office @LetswaveaBook I can upload it as a pic though

Eae. While the game is more balanced overall in A25 there are still generally strong and rather weak civs. Therefore i started a table to outline possible ways to give more individual character to each civ, which should make some historical sense and also take into account Balance by including targets of relative advantage compared to other civs for each phase.This is a work in progress and could be expanded and discussed, to eventually give an overview and provide a pool of ideas for future developement. I hope you find it somewhat useful and intresting. Civ Differentiation.ods

Trigger points dont allow relic spawns, but eliminate the error message, i will solve it by placing thematically fitting Gaia Entities, like columns or something

Hi, i am working on a new skirmish map. It is a bit narrow and looks like a labyrinth and features no buildings, just hero and units for players, no res. Although there should technically be enough space to spawn a relic, i get an error when starting the game, relic mode active ( 1 relic) stating that there was no spawning point found on the map. Can someone educate me on the specific spawning requierements for relics ? Thank you Edit: Now i added Gaia Walls ( error spam ) but Relics can spawn Labyrinth.pmp Labyrinth.xml

Nice ! @ValihrAnt is my smurf btw. If u say cant be bc MarcAurel is a lot more op, let me tell u that as ValihrAnt i play intentionally worse

If you narrowed it down and there is a known player on the list that you dont want to accuse in public, i would be intrested in your pm

Otherwise i agree that 0 AD looks better, or maybe just more realistic overall. Also i dont see why i should spend 60€ if i can play 0 AD for free.

Maybe they prefer players to tell pos by compass direction instead of clock or campaign says attack "enemy in north" instead of at "12"

A25 seems to be the best Alpha so far. It is alot better than the "camel rush and sling" alpha 23, as it offers more dimensions. P1 rush - P2 cav rush - Champions - Ranged focussed army - melee focussed army - i mean i havent played a lot, but seems more balanced so far. I kinda had the impression Camel rush very strong strat, especially with faster game, but it remains to be seen. Edit: Also i like the new path finder a lot

I might have time