BreakfastBurrito_007

The game is not this simple. It matters how you buff the melee infantry of course.

Those sound like great solutions. reducing pop from 220 to 200 would not be a great way to nerf the civ considering there are only mauryans and persians that get that bonus besides Han. I was basically just trying to summarize the problems, causes, and options and I definitely think the options you guys brought up are top contenders.

Many players are concerned about Han being OP, here are a few remaining hot points about the civ. I know some have been brought up before but this is kind of written based on how it is playing comm mod in the lobby right now (Jan 8, 2022). cs xbows: best sniping unit, easy to mass (perhaps put cs xbow in p2 in barracks, maybe change cost to 50 f 40 w 10 m) crossbow training tech: combined with other production speed bonuses, its too fast (change to something else) 220 pop is a lot for a civ that has such powerful citizen units (remove this depending on severity of xbow nerfs) cc upgrade is currently too strong (I suggest removing or decreasing hp boost and leaving arrows unchanged) divided and cheaper will to fight (tweak cost as was discussed earlier) potential buffs to improve gameplay in certain areas: come up with team bonus fix rice paddy physical size improve ministers usefulness and gameplay role with focus on situational use or opportunity cost champion building cheaper or maybe faster production rate (I haven't looked much into this, just heard from some player that its not easy to go champs as han) Tell me what you think! I hope this sort of summarizes Han gameplay issues and some possibilities for changes.

I could imagine designing imperial Rome as a fourth phase for romans, but I am not sure how badly people want to make a fully separate civ for imperial rome.

I think civilization design should be allowed generous room to follow a civ through some centuries of development, and having different versions of the same civ for different time periods decreases the flexibility of mechanic design and civ differentiation (republican and imperial rome).

I guess the value of melee damage versus ranged damage is its own problem, and that this is partially a symptom of that.

@alre I hope I can clarify: We are only comparing Han's Will-to-fight with other civs Will-to-fight. Hans is simply superior. I know that everyone would prefer to keep unique aspects of the civ, but the options are adjust/rebalance the upgrades, or revert to standard will-to-fight.

Another suggestion for Han: "Will to fight" is separated for Han, with a ranged version of the upgrade and a melee version, each with about half of the regular resource costs. Because the vast majority of general damage in the game is done by ranged units, the ranged version of will to fight is better than the melee one, and consequently better than the general "will to fight" that all other civs have. Those upgrades need to be either adjusted or merged into the standard "will to fight"

I think a good start would be eliminating the champion unlock tech for champions that come out of dedicated buildings like gymnasiums. I also agree with @chrstgtr and @real_tabasco_sauce in general about melee vs cavalry champions.

Keep in mind if we ever have some kind of moving buildings for nomadic civs, then we don't have to do it as badly as AoE4 did. I don't know if you ever saw clips of Mongol-douche, but it was extremely cheesy. Suebians sound cool, and I think including Mayans at some point should be an obvious yes.

@chrstgtr in regards to the difficulty getting rank 3 units for centurions. A few ways to do it come to mind: winning a sniping battle since your melee will survive longer, garrisoning in barracks (you only need 8), or training rank 2 from army camp. I agree there is a range between there being some planning and skill involved to get centurions and them being too hard to bother getting. I am not sure where the current system falls on that range to be honest. real tabasco actually managed to get them a few time and he seemed to find some success. I have not been playing as much since my main computer can't work with the new TLS encryption problem, but I would certainly also give them a shot as well. Han are a great civ when their crossbows can snipe, because if they take out your ranged units they can win a fight. I think a great use case for these centurions would be to focus on CS swordsmen in army mass and upgrade choices, and as they try to snipe your ranged units your swords would live long enough to reach rank 3, upgrade to centurions and then sway the fight from there. Rome also has a +1 armor hero that can help melee infantry live long enough to reach rank 3. @real_tabasco_sauce I would recommend adding an xp trickle to units garrisoned in the roman army camp, equal to barracks rate.

This issue is not totally game-breaking, but I must admit I have been tripped up once or twice because of it. It seems almost everyone is able to replicate it too, which is interesting.

Survivability also affects the damage output because they need to take damage while walking to a target. You need at least some disparity in % attack buff and %survivability nerf in order to even out the overall capability of the unit.

I was thinking more like 15% 30% the same way you ordered it. I would not mind a net buff for melee units to be honest.

As far as I am aware, the last remaining dancing form is hero based, and even it can be avoided at times by using alt/option to individually task your ranged units.

Case closed. I am pretty sure @shft has demonstrated the problem perfectly to the necessary people in these forum posts. I don't see any need for more comments.

I looked at the auto-update history of windows 10 and it seems like none of the listed updates happened near to when the TLS problem started. @Norse_Harold was suggesting it could be a windows update, so perhaps there are some hidden ones not listed? Right now I am doing the "wait" method. Thanks @Stan` for taking a look at this.

lmao I don't think being better than other players is an excuse to insult them. That being said you also launch tirades against players better than you after you intentionally sabotage your own team. It seems you have an unstoppable urge to feel superior to other players and I think this is the problem at its core. My advice would be, to quote Ol' Teddy: "speak softly and carry a big stick". In this case, the big stick is your skill, and speaking softly is your treatment of worse players. Keep in mind there are many players who adhere to this: basically everyone except a few players that the forum is about.

I think it is important to remember that in a team game there is usually only one of these people and 7 others who are there to have a good time. The offenders are out-numbered and if we all demonstrate unity against the verbal abuse then it can help. Issues can arise when the offenders use the natural competition of two teams as a way to ensure they are not singled out as being an offender. An interesting case to think about is when an offending player refuses to unpause the game in order “win” some argument. I have only witnessed it a couple times but I think it’s outlines the difference between people who play 0ad for fun and people who take things too far.

I think there is a difference between politeness and being a good person. Many people are polite, but very mean, and I don't think many people fail to detect the meanness behind polite language in those cases. At the same time, many nice people use rough language, it is just more common in different vernaculars. Overall I don't think censoring particular words prevents mean people from being mean. In the case of JC and Shyft, they are both bad people (racist, nazis, ect) and use rough language as part of their efforts to feel supreme. Banning their use of insults will just make them use other words to pump out hate to other players.

I predict that the next time #3 goes up for a vote it will be shot down again, with the same vague reasons given as this time. I just want this written here so that I can quote it when it happens.

Yep let us hope that the mod contributors are still willing to progress the game despite having their best work outvoted by people privileged to have both no work invested in patches and near total ignorance of the patch itself. Its a shame that people are denying this effort a chance to even be tested. A26 was a fine alpha even before the community mod, aside from the han fields bug. People must understand that there was a risk of the Athens team bonus being OP for example, but we voted for it because we wanted to try it out.

I would like more people to have this mindset. People are saying that all the upgrades in the system being bundled together is a bad idea. I suppose the alternative is to have 23 fractions of the system all in series in the poll. If you support this way of voting for the system please state the advantages.

That blame should go to the boring players who resist anything they don't understand. Keep in mind that to understand it all you need is to read the link that is posted and ask the author a question. That would be very twisted indeed if you got blamed. If I remember correctly the Team bonuses were almost rejected last time and have since been quite successful in terms of player feedback.