BreakfastBurrito_007

I agree that saidrdz did do some dancing once the game was lost. However this is not the whole story, in fact your account starts being problematic right here: the game went on for about a minute until it was ddosed, with vinme having left and re-entered the lobby. This is just what I observed. vinme was irate in chat at the host that he had been kicked and not Saidrdz, so he kept trying to verbally confront the host in lobby chat. The host just wanted a new game so a new one started and filled up, but got ddosed as well. A third game started and this one took about 3 minutes before being ddosed, and people were able to rejoin the same host this time I took this screenshot of when vinme joined that host after the ddos did not fully take down the game. It is true that I should have taken more of them when he hinted that he would take action against the host player. I think every third party in that host (spectators, players) will agree that even if vinme is correct to accuse saidrdz of breaking an unspoken rule (dancing), that his over-reaction including insults to the host and other players as well as ddos attacks constituted a worse offense than saidrdz' dancing. I hope this clears things up for anyone interested.

I don’t mind vision ranges being reduced, because once everyone is p3, I get the impression that everyone can see everything. Perhaps the game is a bit predictable at that stage, but also I find it very hard to surprise anyone. maybe vision range upgrades for p1 and p2 should be considered along with a broad unification and reduction.

I read the discussion on the code page thing, and @chrstgtr had mentioned about 17 women full upgraded farmers was equivalent to garrisoned cows for one set of values discussed there. I am a bit worried about the balance results of this feature relating to cavalry, Persians (new food trickle buildings), and raiding. I would like to see the system have some kind of management aspect to it, rather than it being “set up and forget”. I know there is no precedent for such a mechanic in 0ad, but what if the trickle built up at the corrals instead of going directly to the bank, and you had to send a woman to collect it or “milk the cows”. I am thinking the woman would gather it at a super fast rate from the corral and then walk to a dropsite.

Perhaps an account creation date would be a good way to help players make their own judgments about smurfs. I was thinking the account info sheet could be expanded to help this.

Wow that would be fun but also really hard.

I had no issues with the minimap we currently have, and I am a bit worried about those larger markers covering up certain info

I thought this only applied to towers and defensive structures, but I had never investigated it.

Why is that? + yes this map design looks awesome and I think it was cool that you shared how you did it. One topic of discussion among TGs in multiplayer is berries/hunt resource randomization. This is not topical to the first post but makes sense from the title. In 1v1s there is feldmap which balances total hunt/ berry resource amounts between players, this works great for 1v1s. In Tg's usually people accept a bit more randomization, but I think it would be better to reduce the standard deviation of food resource spawns available in p1 and p2, so that we see less of the extremes of resource randomization like 5 berry versus 0.

yes these are all very helpful and OP. XD

Ok this helps a lot, thanks for the clarification!

Idk what to say, this is impressively toxic wow! Also crocodiles are outstanding creatures, Salties in particular , they can be eaten ofc but we should not eat too many. It might be nice if a player could initiate a vote-ban system, but of course these things can be abused and they rely on the majority of players being good people who make a proper decision.

I would support some way of upgrading spartan hoplites or some kind of training aura for surrounding units, but I don’t agree with the “young Spartans” system. It seems overly complicated for the gameplay benefit it might deliver. I think this system is straying from the scope of 0ad and I think there are simpler and more elegant ways to incorporate Spartiates’ social and military roles into Sparta as a 0ad civ.

@LetswaveaBook the main thing to consider is how useful that is in p1. It can be a source to train women, consoldiate forward wood control, defensive qualities, or extend to berries. It also only costs 160 of each non-food resource, so with decent timing it might help you boom too. Does the colony have a smaller territory footprint in p1 like the standard cc? It sounds nice and is probably my favorite so far, but maybe we should let a few more ideas for civ bonus in before we start narrowing them down.

are you sure about weak? doesn't it say from each of their markets. Maybe its a typo and means upon completion of one market, because that would be busted if you could get 10 metal/s from making 10 markets.

Agis 3: infantry +15% movement speed 45 m radius and +1 pierce armor 45 m radius (He died from a javelin +sad) but also maybe it means he was fighting against ranged units which might justify the aura. It seems he commanded some mercenaries but sparta has no mercenaries to work with such a bonus. Chandragupta I liked the unit training function of chandragupta, but I am not sure if eles fit the bill. It would be a bit more awkward to see a whole ele pop out. I do think it would be epic to have a batch of like 5 eles training and then they pop out as soon as hero reaches the fight XD.

A unique feature of a civ is one that departs in some way from the established trend of other civs. Creating an entirely new area of functionality for a particular civ, as was done frequently in Aoe4, is bad and gimmicky, if not impossible to balance. People often complain that Aoe2 civs are "all the same" but it is because they fail to realize the significance of a small bonus or small unique feature or upgrade to certain units or structures or economy. We don't have to do wild new changes in the name of differentiation. We need smaller, but key distinguishing features that players can use to beat one another.

LOL I actually like this idea. It could be thought of as a yolo hero. Unfortunately I think most of the time he will just get sniped. That doesn't sound fun. Would they go to Gaia or just stop working? either way it would enter the player into a death spiral.

Some people will say this is op, but this champions in p1 will be very hard to get since there is so little eco available then. I am a little confused about this one. if I understand it right, the skirms have a reduced attack but increased gather rate for grain around the sissitia. If I understand it correctly, it would mean that sparta can have a great defense of its fields, but up to a point where skirms are weaker than the invading force due to that negative damage part of the aura. @borg- Since spartan hoplites have been described above as members of the ruling society rather than just military people, I wonder if it makes sense to add a house type of spartan estate to add to build limit of spartan hoplites. Spartan estate would be a place where spartan hoplites could gain xp at a faster rate and become an Olympic Champion. The estate could cost 80 wood 50 metal to offset spartan hoplite cost by 20 wood 10 metal. +5 build limit per estate. Since their relationship to helots was respective to their land as described by @wowgetoffyourcellphone, perhaps it makes sense to give the grain range aura to those estates rather than the sissitia which would just train them and make upgrades. Overall I think the meatshield role for melee units that we largely see right now would be reduced by players having a commitment to keeping champions alive (so they can become olympic) and investing in melee damage that they can exploit with the movement speed upgrade. @borg- I like a lot of your ideas, and I think this is a good way to go about civ differentiation.

Ah, I had hoped that one was getting booted, will it have the same range and damage as crossbow infantry? Given how powerful horse archers are, I am worried about how powerful crossbow cavalry would be if they had longer range than slingers and skirms, and were used similarly to how horse archers are use currently. Imagine how OP a horse archer rush would be if they could kill women in one hit? I understand that they are slower, at 14.4 m/s, but I still think non-archer infantry would have no way of countering them. I am very worried about this unit. @AIEND says they should get booted from the roster, and I think archer cavalry will be easier to balance too.

@maroder they don't have javelin cav right? It is quite powerful to have both spear and sword cavalry, but I think not having javelin cav makes that less op. It is a good roster, but I think its ok. My main concern is the individual balance of particular units such as the Pike(Ji), crossbow and the champions. Kush are another civ that has all three of the main melee inf types, but they have only one ranged CS inf, the archer.

One comment I have for ministers is that all of their eco buffs seem to be very small (2% per minister), and the most effective way to use ministers seems to be to garrison them in the ministry For the Minister over the Masses: I would prefer it to be some non-percentage based bonus that requires some management, like if its garrisoned in a storehouse or farmstead an extra 1/10 of the quantity dropped off by a unit will be added to the player's bank. For example: 10 wood dropped to minister occupied storehouse will result in 11 wood added to bank. For horse with 20 meat, 2 food will be dropped off. Garrison limit of 1 for storehouse and farmstead and docks (ministers only) Building speed one can stay but I think it should be increased to 4% per minister, this would be significant enough to allow unique building rush strategies. Ideally different uses for minsters could be used at different times, and for different strategies without one particular use that is better than them all. I am not sure if the dropsite garrison feature is possible, but it would be nice to have some more non-percentage based upgrades in the game. I think the garrison in ministry should be kept since a Han player might not always have time to manage the other bonuses, so garrisoning them in ministry might be a "safe" option for them to keep their huge investment 900 f 900 metal safe.

crush damage is basically negligible against units, so I think 9.2 pierce/s is more accurate for slingers.

@maroder that change would be assuming crossbow training is removed. Even if it is not removed, then 10 pierce/second would be greater than the slinger dps which is 9.2 pierce/second, so I would argue for a range reduction to 40 meters to accompany your change, or perhaps an accuracy disadvantage compared to slingers. The unfortunate result will be that the unit will play very similar to slingers (but with some key differences), despite seeming so unique. @real_tabasco_sauce told me he would be willing to work on a repeat crossbow concept mod similar to the quote above as a potential long term solution, however his computer right now is busted. I think a repeat crossbow is the best way to achieve a uniquely played ranged infantry unit for the Han. Another thing to look at is the Han champions and heroes, but I have heard there were already changes in this area. There has been some concern about p1 swordcav for Han. I don't think it will be the end of the world because javelin cavalry, spear cavalry and home infantry will be ok at countering them. It is possible that a fast rush: (no stable, no barracks, cav from cc to chickens, attack before 2 minutes) will be quite OP for Han, so I might suggest that swordcav can only come from the stable and not cc. I have only seen a few swordcav rushes in the RC, and none have been chicken-based like we see sometimes in a25, so it is something I will look out for in future RC multiplayer tests.

@Gurken Khan with enough tries I could reproduce. I have heard this one for as long as I can remember in 0ad, it does seem to happen more with cavalry than with infantry.

In any case, the crossbow unit should not be "trash" with low stats and low cost. A civ with bad CS infantry and OP cavalry and chamions will be impossible to balance and I would call it a flawed design strategy for that civ. I think the crossbow training tech is a way to accomodate that design, so if that design is changed like I suggest, then the upgrade should be removed or changed to not influence damage per second. No matter what happens to crossbow training, it should not apply to champions. The main issue with Han is that they have no high damage short range unit like slinger or javelin, other civs have javelin cavalry which can be used to overcome those limitations, Han do not have that. I would suggest making the CS crossbow into a "repeating crossbow" type unit. I am no historian, but on wikipedia glance I saw no shortage of mentions of repeating crossbows in China at various time periods from 400-800 BC and onward. Majority of those weapons seem to be hand held Possible stats of repeating crossbow: -50 food 40 wood 10 metal -40 range, 8.5 pierce damage, .75 repeat rate (unless this makes performance problems), and very low accuracy. This means that the have damage per second of 11.3 compared to 12.8 for skirmisher and 9.2 for slinger. This unit would fill in some gaps for Han infantry and allow other areas like champions or cavalry to be balanced without making the civ overall more vulnerable.