BreakfastBurrito_007

@Dakara This reminds me of AOE 3 with shipments. I think that if mercenaries are to be expensive and only cost metal + small food, then there needs to be some options to get more metal than is logical to have mineable on the map at the start of the game. I think a combination of tax tech like @wowgetoffyourcellphone mentioned where each unit gives a trickle of metal, but works more slowly for every resource, and a storehouse tech, where double the metal can be extracted from 1 source like @Dakara said. The bonus of these upgrades is that they have drawbacks, Dakara one would be very expensive, wow idea would force a decision to dedicate to mercs (high risk). The nice thing about these upgrades is that they allow you to choose the amount you expect to be making mercs: a few for antiram, a bunch for small battles and raids, or a closer to full composition. It will be very hard to balance these upgrades and mercenaries themselves right.

This is a good consideration, perhaps some kind of color change on the market icon is good. It should not be too easy to adjust, but then again, the most scarce resource may not be the one the player wants. The main thing I want to know is if people think this is a good gameplay mechanic that should be implemented or tested in a mod.

This is true, and because of this now I am thinking it is better to keep expertise in war at rank 2 so that skill is needed to keep them alive to see veteran rank. I think reducing metal cost by 20 and adding 40 wood, 40 food or 30 stone to the existing costs is a great way to fix the usability/power problem for now. The mercenaries would still cost plenty of metal but would be worth the buy. I also think that 2 metal mines should be available to a player, one maybe a bit further out.

I think they are great ideas as long as they are balanced well, and metal distribution becomes more equal. You could call the tax increase upgrade "Opulence" or maybe "Big Government". Also I think this is a good example of improving historical accuracy and expanding gameplay depth and quality simultaneously.

@Lion.Kanzen Do you see any value to the changes to mercenaries in a24 or should the whole idea be scrapped? I quite like the prospect of having some middle tier unit available in different varieties in difference civs. As for more outlandish (still great) ideas like from @wowgetoffyourcellphone, they are less likely to be accepted by the multiplayer community and I am not sure how I feel about them myself.

I don't know about the patch, but I am almost certain the reason for the change was to differentiate citizen soldiers from mercenaries.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone At first I was upset reading some of this, but now I see it reflects some of the societal changes that people might associate with hiring a mercenary army. These changes could potentially be quite good added to the game. I could see varying levels of availability of these techs depending on how much of a "merc civ" the civilization is. Upon seeing this: Could be a risky choice for civs that don't have a great selection of mercs (this is ok, risky gameplay is exciting) Will be very hard to get adequately balanced as an overall tech and will need to be carefully tested and reviewed. Also, for these things to exist, we need to make the amount of metal available much more for all players as well as less variable.

Hello everyone! I had an idea that would be easy to implement and might make traders a more interesting and less predictable economic unit to use. At a given point in the game, the resources available for barter in the market have different values. Most often metal is by far the most valuable, but this appears set to become less extreme in a25. In alpha 23 traders were not even considered in 95% of games due to the fast paced gameplay and need to be ready for fighting at all times. In a24 barter rates immediately slam to value metal, further disadvantaging people without metal mines. This seeks to bridge the gap and make market gameplay a big improvement on both. If traders got more resources for each pass when they were trading for the most valuable resource, this would (maybe) make some economic sense because traders would want to take more value on each trip and this would be found in the most scarce resource. For example's sake (the values can be changed) a trader gets 100 of each resource when barter rates are equal 100:82. This is the default setup when no one has bartered, I call it the equilibrium rates. If someone barters all their resources for metal, the value of metal goes way up and now each resource is 100:1 with metal (maximum disturbance), this means the trader will get 100% more metal than before. Ideally, each addition of disturbance past equilibrium rates has a smaller and smaller affect on the traders. This is so that the effect is both tangible on small to medium price fluctuations, and not insanely profitable for large price deviations. The relationship would be proportional to a curve like the example attached where the x axis is a measure of barter price disturbance for a scarce resource and y axis is profitability of the scarce resource in barter trade. I chose the curve as an example just to show the behavior Im looking for. Possible benefits of the mechanic: sometimes rewards for the risk of putting metal into traders around 15 minutes instead of upgrades or champions or siege grants flexibility in strategies requires some micromanagement/ at least paying attention to prices. lessens the problem of certain resources being overvalued. I remember some civ has a trade advantage, this could be a little trick that they are good at. Serves to counterbalance barter rates and allow them to reach equilibrium sooner. Makes market decisions much more complicated. Do I barter everything to get traders so I can use the good trade rates I created? No, because you wont have a short term army and someone with excess metal may use the barter rates you created to trade their metal for other resources to mount a huge short term attack against you. I think this mechanic would be super dope. I don't see any downsides to it that can not be eliminated by adjusting relationship values. I feel this will make trade economy less hands off and more interactive and skill based. I am excited to hear what you guys think!

I think the idea to make mercenaries cost more metal as well as become more powerful and lose resource gathering abilities was a great idea. The important part was to make mercenaries a more unique unit class. I think a variety of changes in different amounts could be applied to make mercenaries a fun addition to the game. A mix of: Pivoting cost a little away from metal, perhaps in exchange for a 20 decrease in metal cost the unit would have 40 more food 40 more wood or 30 more stone. Making "expertise in war" go to rank 3(and maybe affect cost?) or maybe just cheaper upgrade (300 f, 100 m) to go to rank 2. Perhaps it could be a tradeoff of some kind. Making some heroes that currently are awful have a merc bonus as a stopgap until they get historical bonuses. (be careful with Carthage -35% metal cost heroes. A more complicated, but less problematic issue with a smaller total resource cost is that it makes mercenaries the cheapest option in a full trade eco game, because the gather rates of traders are the same for each resource. It is extremely rare for games to become full trade eco games anyway, so I think this is not really a problem. I think some mix of these changes could make mercenaries a great option for civs that were intended to have good mercenaries, like Ptolemies and Carthaginians.

For me, and I think most players. (...) is my personal thoughts and suggestions The good slingers nerfed blacksmith upgrade applications. Universal siege shop all civs stables-----> (even if civ is not a super good cav civ, it is an option in certain situations) champion costs mercenaries cost idea ---> (I like the idea for mercs, but buffing the merc upgrade and adjustments to merc cost will help make them worth it) The bad stabilized gameplay "turtle" feeling in most games especially after 16-17 minutes (leads to endless games) archers OP archery tradition lost tradeoff qualities --->(maybe it should be + 20% damage and plus 10 m range but plus min range and minus HP) and free. archer eles too cheap/powerful buffed effective damage, range, and health of forts and towers. archers can kill catas and bolt shooters too easily Metal cost huge for everything, stone excess goes to powerful defenses Mercenaries cost much metal -----> (maybe move some metal cost to an asymmetric increase in food and or wood for different civs/units) size of cities because of many new buildings and stone excess and slow training----> (civ specialization/rushing --> cheaper barracks (sparta) or stable(pers) unit train times-----> (made it necessary to have 100% more barracks on average) I hope this captures many peoples most general grievances with a24, and I want to know if anyone agrees or disagrees with my suggestions! I have seen the changes being considered for a25 and I like the work going forward. Great work!

I'm sorry that he said those things mate! I hope you get some justice.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you @Stan`, I successfully put 0ad on windows this afternoon, checked it out and it worked just fine. I went to install the mod, but I am having a hard time extracting it to anywhere, much less the correct location. When I use the "extract all" function it immediately says it was interrupted, and gives an unknown error, this also happens whenever I try to copy the .json file anywhere. I tried extracting it straight to desktop to see if it could be extracted at all, the error showed up, and the extracted files were there, only without the .json file. I am assuming that the installation folder is just the folder I created to install 0ad into. Do I need to extract the whole downloaded package to that install folder or just a part? Any help would be great. Apologies in advance if what I am asking is obvious.

Hey @Stan` this is awesome of you to try this out. I have windows on bootcamp on my mac. Windows should not be a problem for me because I think I can install 0ad on there and then get the mod if/when it comes out.

Hmmm, Thats too bad. Hopefully at some point the topic regains interest among the balancing advisors and developers, and some progress could be made with this. I feel it would be a great way to make battles more exciting as well as balance the different units. Thanks for the answers about this @bb_!

In all the 4v4s I have played, a combo of cavalry has been the most effective thing against archers in some cases. But these changes would make archers more vulnerable to smaller groups of cavalry, but also make cavalry trappable in some cases like giving them no way out of a pocket except through some spears, archers could even be used as bait lol.

Hmm, I read through some of the comments on that link, and it seems fairly accurate to what I was describing. Any chance someone could make this into a mod so people who are interested could take a look at how it goes in game. I'm imagining you have cavalry going at full speed and then some spears block your path and you have to choose whether to skirt by them and go to whatever is behind them, or turn all the way around and go through the process of stopping and turning and accelerating away. Players could do a 180 turn without stopping or slowing by simply making a series of clicks in a circular order.

Hello everyone, I have an Idea for cavalry gameplay that may help with realism and the dancing/ turn time debates for cavalry. I am quite excited about it. I noticed that the iteration I used of @ValihrAnt mod had a slower rotation rate for cavalry than other units. I am thinking that adding acceleration to cavalry movement could be a great thing, even if it is challenging to program and a somewhat distant vision (I am not smart computer man). I am thinking that when moving in a straight line, cavalry should accelerate until they reach max speed. Perhaps cavalry should start off as fast as a spearman but then reach max velocity after somewhere between 1 and 3 seconds. If unit rotation can be made to happen while moving, and is tied to unit velocity, then depending on how the pathfinder calculates the turn the unit will make, the horse slows down to a pre-calculated velocity for that turn of a certain radius. If a player wanted to reduce how much the cavalry slowed over a given path, the player would avoid using waypoints, which shortens the radii for which turns happen. If the ordered movement was greater than 90 degrees in either direction from where the cavalry face, then the cavalry would have to do a (current speed) stationary rotation. Example: cavalry attack group of archers/spears, cavalry try to run away, so they start from fighting position (stationary), rotate to face the click, and then accelerate away. Exciting Benefits of cavalry acceleration: 180 degree turnaround for a group of cavalry, like in a retreat or an attempt to turn around, is slower and potentially costly (entrapment). Cavalry are more disadvantaged on clogged parts of the map than infantry. Players using cavalry would need to be more careful not to get trapped or engage a bad environment. Players could not use the fast disengagement speed of cavalry as a crutch for bad fight decisions. Cavalry would no longer be used the same as infantry but with higher hp and speed, and would now be a more complicated choice to make. Cavalry would be made to have higher damage to account their more restricted usage envelope (disadvantages would peak in cities and forests). Cavalry would be given a greater top speed such that for the standard ~1200 player, their speed would be the same as it is in a24 on average. Could create cause for " heavy cavalry tradition" or available for civilizations that have spear-cavalry: free, instantaneous, p3, tradeoff tech: citizen spearcav +(1 to 2) pierce and hack armor, +3 seconds of acceleration time (from spearman infantry speed to maximum cavalry speed). Also, it would become harder to use masses of 100+ cavalry because the cavalry would have to turn around more things, meaning that 25-45 cavalry could be very effective as part of a diverse army. This change would also make cavalry less spammy and less OP in large numbers, but also more powerful in smaller numbers (this would also encourage p1 rush which is very weak right now). Creates a high skill ceiling unit rather than simply a stronger, faster version of the corresponding infantry unit. Makes it possible to use pikes (which should be better than spears vs cavalry, but maybe worse against other melee) against cavalry by flanking and encircling a group of attacking cavalry before they have the chance to accelerate away. This should not be easy in every situation, but more likely in suitable environments. I think many of you may say that even if this is possible, that it is too complicated a mechanic to have in the game. I disagree, if there are good animations like horses leaning into turns, rearing to turn around as they do the stationary rotation (like in the movies), people will understand the limitations of horses fairly quickly and won't be that upset about the changes. If it is super frustrating to use horses because of how much of the map is covered in cliffs, trees, and cities, then perhaps making tree-bunches smaller (more wood per tree) and cliffs smaller would mean that general movement is easier and then also more possible for cavalry. Another change that will help this is reduced city size (in a24 slow train times and new building types (arsenal and elephant stables and cavalry stables) and defensive building spam have practically doubled the size of cities from a23. These map simplifications and changes would make more space and make the map feel bigger and less frustrating anyway, even if there is no cavalry acceleration. I am curious to see what you guys think! And especially from the smart computer people who know how to do these things, how challenging/ possible would this mechanic be to create?

I think P2 gameplay development (making it more interesting and less of a rush to 200 pop and p3) would also be a great way to help with civ differentiation that is being sought for a25. There is also the need to consider the prioritization of the more frustrating problems that the community is more unified on, such as archer adjustments, metal usage, defenses power/spam, and the more elusive but still very problematic late game turtle situation.

I think p2 rams could be a legitimate mechanic to help enable the possibility of overcoming a tower rush or resource denial, that usually does not get addressed until p3. Important balancing considerations should be to make it nearly impossible to kill a main cc using p2 rams, and very challenging to push deeper into enemy territory where a greater variety of units, even ranged ones could take them out fairly easily. P2 rams could be a ~200 wood ~100 metal option for certain civs (mace would be a good option), that has roughly the following reference metric: ~20 skirmishers can kill one before it kills a barracks. I don't know if you have ever played a 4v4 in 0ad, but frequently map control in the small space between 2 opposing edge players is extremely important. It can provide a low idle time deterrent from attack, it can stop or deter building rushes, it means that if u are about to be attacked you can most often continue gathering wood. A ram with enough capability to threaten these buildings could be of great strategic value depending on the value of the target (for example: tower denying metal), a player needs to decide if it is worth it to kill this tower in p2 or to race on to p3. The player wielding p2 rams also needs to consider how important that tower is to the enemy (is it pre-garrisoned?) (are there palisades around it?) (did your enemy move troops just to defend it?). P2 champs could be fun options for p2 attacks, but I feel that if p2 rams are put in, then no civ should be able to access p2 rams and these p2 champs at the same time. I totally understand being opposed to p2 rams, but saying that ram units in p2 would have no utility to a player's map control or economy does sound right to me.

@alre If we put rams in p2 (maybe just for some civs, perhaps a well needed buff for mace) then we would definitely need to give all civs some swords unless the ram counters change. In AoE any unit in a significant quantity can destroy early rams before they can take any type of key building, but the threat is still there. In 0ad it can be frustrating to be caught in a situation where even 100 skirms can not kill a single ram before it takes out a barracks or cc. Perhaps instead of making p2 rams super weak in attack (not that they should do as much dmg as p3 rams) they can be made more susceptible to a greater variety of units. Perhaps the general level of balance would be that 30 skirmishers can kill one p2 ram before it takes out a barracks by itself. If we add both these p2 rams and p2 champs to the game, they should not both be accessible to the same civs (Garrison naked fanatics in p2 rams? XD)

Most players in a 4v4 don't start off spamming forts and towers, but the feel the need to once they lose a battle, especially if it is against a player with their own fort. Often, there is excess time because most people are waiting to be attacked rather than attacking and excess stone because it is not an upgrade cost. The stabilized game state I talk about means that an attack by either side usually results in retreat and rebuilding army while waiting for the enemy to try their luck versus ur defenses.

Hey guys, Thanks for considering my comments, and it is great to hear the changes in store for fortifications and archers. @ValihrAnt has a great new mod out that brings back ranged unit speed differences, not as severe as the differences in a23 but enough to make a difference. If you guys are opposed and/or not sure about the changes we can arrange a 4v4 or 3v3 to test out his mod and see if we think unit speed differences help or hurt the game. My theory is that since archers are great for defending buildings and for big battles it should be hard to simply cover your territory in towers and forts and be able to defend each one from an attack. Not only have towers and forts been buffed of range and HP, they have enabled/enforced wide-area turtling not seen before a24. It used to be that a fast and powerful attack on a weak point in defenses would lead to a large and urgent threat to the base and economy, but now it results in a 2v1 encirclement of archers/spears. My hopes for a25 are that p3 fighting is as dynamic and exciting as it was in a23, but with the good changes from a24 such as blacksmith and general melee/ranged balance. The changes should encourage movement, maneuvers, and risk taking, not resource hoarding, turtling and endlessly waiting for the enemy to attack you so you can use your local defenses to win that battle. I agree, I think if rushing is a viable strategy, then the games are less likely to reach that endless and inalterable state I have talked about. I think we should definitely still consider the mechanics that cause the game to reach such a stable equilibrium too. Do you guys get what I mean when I say things like inalterable/over-stabilized game state?

Ok, I just re-compressed just the .json file and then it worked. Many thanks @Stan`! @ValihrAnt I tried just doing a couple single players and moving the start units around, it seems like good changes. I noticed that the cavalry units seemed to still have the same rotation times but perhaps it was a smaller reduction for cavs. I look forward to trying this in a game if we can get enough people to download the mod. I think the best way to evaluate the effects this will have gameplay and how much of a positive change it is for the game will be to do a 4v4 with ibers and sele and mauryans and persians mirror match. Perhaps we should arrange a 4v4 or 3v3 here to test these changes?

Hmm, everyone seems to be talking about rushing and how to make it viable again. Could someone explain to me how a lack of rushing from 2:00-10:00 contributes to turtleing in minutes 13 and onward? I have the feeling that turtley gameplay and endless 4v4s are caused by (see earlier post) unit speeds, stone availability and defenses power. If rushes happened more and they were equal on both sides of a 4v4, then I feel the game would reach the same inalterable state just at a later time. Although a successful rush by one team could potentially put a player out of the game and make the game winnable on a short term.

Hmm, I am having trouble installing the mod. The error says: mod failed to install. Is there some specific instructions or details in the installation for mac OS?