BreakfastBurrito_007

Yea, in a23 their cost/power relationship was not very distinct from CS, but still balanced so they were usable. I feel mercs should either be rank three and cost roughly the same as skiri or be rank 2 and have same cost from a23. I also would support some way to train mercenaries in p1, since this would allow some rush options that are not also economic, and add nuance to the usage of the starting metal (do you want mercs, or eco upgrades?).

I feel it is a fun thing that has the potential to improve gameplay. But there are big problems with it that need to be addressed if we want to make the bug into a feature. Adjust run speeds so that some things are not OP when charging for example: pikes Some way to allow charging when not in a formation and when the right-click attack command is used.

What should mercenaries cost? I am of the opinion that the pure metal cost is not beneifical to gameplay. I feel the 60 metal cost could be acceptable if the mercs were rank 3. The main thing that makes the 60 metal cost so big compared to champions cost/worth is that all players enter p3 with an existing food/wood economy that can pay for the high food and wood cost of champions. So as soon as you can afford the 60-80 metal of mercenaries, you can also afford the 20-40 more metal for vastly more powerful champions. I think mercenaries should cost overall 10-20% less than skiritai commandos, with price adjustments depending on if the unit is cavalry, sword, sling, or whatever. This seems appropriate to me because they will still cost plenty of metal, but will be economically feasible and powerful enough to justify their purchase, unlike in a24 and perhaps a25. In a25 as I have seen it so far it may be possible to have a large metal mining rate, and buy a moderate amount of mercenaries, while slowing down food and wood to buy less citizen units. However, only ptol are capable of this since they have the hero that gives -35% metal cost to mercenaries which is a problem itself.

champ anitram is cheaper than mercenary antiram in a24 currently My proposal would be to detract some metal and add some to either stone wood or food depending on the unit. Also, making them rank three would put them in-line with skiritai, which are a powerful, but well-rounded unit.

Thanks so much @Stan`, @seeh! I'll try Stan's approach this evening!

Hello there seeh, I tried to build with svn like you did above but I couldn't complete the make step. The error says i'm missing "boost/version.hpp". I looked for this file but didn't find it anywhere. Perhaps this is the problem you were referring to? This file is needed for source/lib/pch/pch_boost.h Any help would be appreciated!

Ok well it seems Apple did a cool thing and removed SVN from the most recent OS. It seems that it is still possible but it will probably take me until RC3 is released to do it lol. Could you guys just give a run-down of how the game went balance-wise? -GGs

I am worried that only 1 or 2 of us will have the right version. I also suspect that very few of us have played any multiplayer RC2. I think our testing today will be more successful if we just use RC2.

We should call it "The Bush" end of story XD

Are you guys willing to play on RC2 Tomorrow? My thinking is it will be easier to install and we have a higher likelihood of a bigger TG. Also, there are many changes affecting balance even just in RC2, that it would be worthwhile to try it to assess what the balance issues could be. CET is Central European Time, for me it converts to 10 AM Pacific Time.

Thats great to hear. To be frank, the pathfinding and unit responsiveness from a24 was a lot more tiresome than getting owned by Rauls' micro every game of a23.

If micro and formations become more important you can consider me killed lol.

I can make it. Are we testing RC2 or should we try to build a more recent version ourselves?

I think many of the old players that had the patience to stick through the peak ddos era (through July-December) last year, finally gave up upon seeing what the gameplay of a24 was like. My hope is that some of those players will be impressed enough by alpha 25 to come back. A24 games are by and large predictable among other things, and some excitement and skill depth can attract more players to 1v1s and TGs on multiplayer.

Ah, well that explains a lot. It seems when I set them to violent and just walk the formation without the attack order, they charge after they reach the move order destination. Could you imagine using skiritai like this? :O

@Yekaterina I went into single player for RC2 and tried doing the charge vs AI, but I could not seem to make it happen. Will formations be required to use the charge mechanic?

I am wondering if damage buff in the 5-10% range for archers and slingers, combined with proper adjustments to run speed for things that would otherwise be problematic is enough? Is there an RC3 or would I need to figure out a build to test the charging mechanic?

I have played fairly consistently over the past year and I observed a few big things that lead to loss of many long term players as well as less retention of new players. DDOS epidemic which used to impact nearly every game (not as bad now) issues with alpha 24 that made it less exciting and lowered the skill ceiling such as unit movement, building strength/ turtling, extremely long games, OP archers and eles and metal costs/availability. Many players (including myself) have less fun on an average a24 game than on an a23 game.

I like the upgrade system as it has been implemented and suggested before, but I feel that it would not make the gameplay better in this case. I like the ship classes and roles you gave, but I think these are fine being trained straight from the dock rather than all starting at "light". The main problem that I can find off the bat is the need to upgrade those ships and wait for the upgrade while you are under attack from other ships.

Reminds me of that old Italian fellow with the different sized metal balls.

@Yekaterina I think one of the benefits that the charging feature could supply would be adding depth and skill to the battle micromanagement. Do you think the charging feature (if its problems get worked out) will make ranged units obsolete, or could they become a powerful units that usually need some protection from melee attacks? If it eventually works well, then it could certainly make melee units mega-op given the damage/speed/attack rate/ health that they currently have. Because the melee/ranged balance has been done all this time without the inclusion of a charge mechanic for melee units, that means the addition of such a feature will require a revisit of the ranged/ melee balance. I am not sure how things will go of course, but if ranged units die become obsolete from dying too fast, then I would advocate for adding some damage across the board for ranged units. My thinking is that this will make them valuable enough to make, yet vulnerable enough to melee charges to not make up the bulk of an army. This is probably already being considered, but perhaps heavier armored units should gain less speed from walk speed to charge speed, like pikemen. Perhaps this is also a mechanic that could help make a gameplay distinction between lancer cavalry and spear cavalry.

@azayrahmad Sorry for the misunderstanding about the video. Have these features (like charging) been added to a more recent RC? If so I would definitely want to know where to go download that to try them out. I downloaded the Release Candidate 25808 version and I have not found a more recent one to try.

@azayrahmad I see the point your video makes, thanks for sharing it. It is true that pikes+ skirmishers are a powerful combination. However, I am unsure what gave those pikemen such high speed? was it a charge mechanic? Also it is worth noting that in each situation, all of the damage of the red army groups was focused on the pikes, allowing the high dps of the skirms to come into effect. Most players would recognize this problem and attempt to kill the skirmishers first, and then exploit the limited mobility of the pikes to kill them. For example, in Battle #1 the archers should have been told to attack the skirmishers, and then move on to the pikemen. Because the archers did not do this, the skirms were able to kill the spears, and then the pikes were able to move on to the archers. @LetswaveaBook testing showed rank 1 swords to be able to beat rank 2 pikes, it is a good indicator of how inferior pikes are in direct engagements with other melee units, including spears. What do you guys think about the +40% hp to pikes hero for ptol? I think it is quite powerful and I would be in favor of reducing the range of effect to make organization with the pikes more important and less easy.

@alre Don't skirmishers do more damage?

Keep in mind that pikemen are very good against archers and are very helpful in masses. In a25 it is expected that archers will be less OP and people will use slingers and skirmishers more often. Skirmishers are better than archers versus pikes, so my guess is that pikes will not seem as indestructible in a25. Perhaps adjusting the +40% ptol hero bonus is a good idea, but otherwise I don't think general pikes are mega-op.