BreakfastBurrito_007

If you trade back and forth between the same resources, the rate behavior increases, so it is pretty easy to generate resources.

There’s no way that’s not a bug tho right? Surely we can come up with a more creative and more balanced hero aura than -10 hp/second. This will either be too little range—> useless or too much range—> game-breaking. What is the historical context for the hero? Wei Qing was a leader who remarkably rose from poverty to take on his roles. Perhaps this can “inspire” his troops and they rank up 1.5x as fast as normal. I think this is way more balanced and has implications for the units you select for his armies.

Perhaps at 2/3 the rate of ptol food bonus since it “wood” be more OP in early game. ^weirdjoke for you lol I definitely think we need competitive and creative economic team bonuses. Britons Persians Carthage Athens

Good point. Sometimes, the power of particular units is hidden by trends in gameplay. Before fall 2021 few players did "merc rushes" with cav or inf and at the same time there were lots of complaints about consular bodyguard. I think after all the merc-cav proliferation, Romans are less able than ever to get their champions because they need to fight earlier in defense or offense because of extra p2 activity that is caused by mercenary attacks. I would argue that consular bodyguard are still OP (too much armor), its just we don't see them very often due to mercs. I am not saying that merc rushes should not exist (they are very exciting/fun), just that it obscures other balance issues.

For TGs at least ( I am a bing bong who does not play 1v1), Mace is stronger overall because the merc is more OP in general, in terms of counter-pike, mace have a great option with the crossbows, while seles best one I think is mercenary archer. Macedonians biggest downside I think is their lack of antiram, which can make for situations that are very unfortunate. I like the seleucid cavalry especially with hero, but they have no "bread" to spread their melee cav champions over, like mace and romans do. I have a lot of fun with seles but mace win more I think.

+minimap OP

I can't take that much hate XD. iber players get used to walls so it does not slow them down.

I liked firecav in a24. It was not as easy as it is now since you had to trade to get them and also navigate a sea of fortresses and towers with overlapping ranges, as well as being blocked by enemy units. Back and forth would go on for 20-30 minutes without a real attack, then ddos XD.

What if the woman and spartan go in at the same time? Maybe just keep track of your units and beware of the value/cost of entering the walls if you sneak in. I have never seen anyone get this heated about iber walls. In my opinion, the only OP thing about iber walls is that you can keep all your farms inside there and you are safe from raiding in late game which happens in about 80% of TGs. If cav become less survivable in a26, then this will be less important. Firecav need nerf, we already know. I have played some iberians with firecav banned and I can say it is great fun. + I love trapping people in walls and it 1000% is a good mechanic.

@Yekaterinawolollwow, the player, was named after this Monk conversion sound feature from AoE. It became a meme.

If chariots are slower than most cav it would probably be ok.

Is there any way to limit the degree range of the "turret" function of those chariots. I was thinking front 180 degrees would be nice, since that way they would not win running directly away. Making them from siege workshop would be interesting, and I think if they are stationary, the guy driving the chariot could also be a javelineer or archer. I am interested in this topic and I think it would be nice to do it for Axemen too, (or are they already their own class?) Right now axemen are basically swords with a little crush dmg. Axe is easier to learn than sword, so maybe less xp to rank?

Mmm, I was hoping that acceleration would be a feature that does not affect infantry units, but rather just cavalry. Hopefully it can look more like this after we play pre-release versions.

Please understand: There are games with actual gigantic budgets that don't perform as well as 0ad. Developers work hard on lag and performance issues, but they are not easy tasks. Some maps have more lag than others. When units try to path through overlapping Baobab trees it causes a lot of lag. I think the least laggy map is mainland with subalpine biome. Also, if you are on multiplayer some lag can be from players with bad connections. I hope you can manage the lag and continue to consider the game.

True but none of those are as noob friendly as Indibil. XD

My preference would be to add champions to fortress. But to leave champions in barracks but have the upgrade only apply to one barracks/ stable at a time. Add 150 stone 200 wood to that upgrade. Same way towers are upgraded to stone tower. Animation not needed unless someone is up to the task. I think this would increase the time to mass champions to an unbeatable level. Champions are intended to supplement army or do specialty missions, so we would see more reasonable usage with these changes. Edit: well champ spam is not so bad apart from a couple broken cavalry types. So perhaps such a change is not necessary for barracks.

One time I saw FRENCH_GOD join a 4v4 as spec. I said immediately "Hello Dakara", and he asked if I could see his IP, lol. I never even saw the account before. I can ususally tell if I know them well enough or if its obvious enough. I think it is fun/funny to guess on smurfs, but I dont think they should be subjected to the "smurf inquisition".

I am not sure what the benefit of friendly fire would be for 0ad. Some ideas for breaking the melee=shield, ranged=dps situation are: attack-ground increased melee inf dmg 9% charging for melee units minimum range I could imagine friendly fire on catapults, but this would require more control over them from the player.

A few things that are in consideration: Acceleration already exists. Ideally, when it is tested we will decide to give cavalry a slower acceleration than inf, so that cavalry can get trapped, and more spearmen hits can be scored against them. When I tested acceleration in december 2021, I noticed that cavalry were slower when making 180 direction changes, and they faced less acceleration issues when making smaller turns. merc cav cost increase pike nerf, also people have argued about ptol hero nerfs, but I am not sure if there has been any agreement.

As far as adding gameplay mechanisms, there are many more areas where a simpler mechanism can get us much more gameplay improvement. Attack ground melee charging ship mechanics improvements cavalry momentum and accleration Alternative resource gathering systems changing/adding civ/team bonuses

? We have individual units that move and can be selected by the player. I don't see how it's too hard to select a building that does not move.

@Philip the Swaggerless This sounds interesting, but I think I feel like it might get a little frustrating if we dont know what to expect from our strategies (will team do this or nah?)

On ranged units yes, it is possible that a skirmisher can infinitely outrun a spearman and kill it, but there are situations where that does not happen. A 9% boost would also affect melee on melee engagements as well, and perhaps dethrone the meatshield from being the only measure of melee inf value, which would undoubtedly be good.

It has been raised many times. It is a continued effort to find the best solution to the issue. Thank you for joining us. Right now in a25 players are learning how best to target slingers or skirmisher when they are behind pikes, fighting the units' tendencies to default to the nearest enemy. I am not sure how much melee damage would need to be boosted for melee to be a higher priority target. Even if they have super high damage, or if ranged units have super low damage, the fastest kills will still happen when targeting ranged units. I think the best way to proceed if we dont have attack-ground would be to buff melee infantry damage by 9% as suggested by letswave earlier. This would make melee inf damage less negligible during fights and would help players at lower skill level who don't know micro skills to *try* to beat the pike meatshield.

@LetswaveaBook honestly I think the cost and build time should be the same, as well as farmer occupancy. The reduced area is a fine bonus and will make it easier to manage and defend Han farming eco. My estimation is that if farms cost extra wood, that Han will have to wait for food eco if they have no extra berries or hunt in p1. It would be a huge disadvantage to have to wait to collect wood to build the extra farms. We don’t want a civ design to add to the disadvantage of 0 starting food bonus res.