Jump to content

alre

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    742
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by alre

  1. I agree with the principle that, when trying to make something unique, we should rather risk making it weak than OP.
  2. what me and my friends did to balance team games back in the time, was to use fgod to access game replays list without exiting the pregame page, and then search for the names of the players we didn't know, if we had any previous encounter with them, and look at games summaries for clues about how they played. that was the best!
  3. it shouldn't be hard. i remember @edoput and friends (ping @Mentula) tried that already maybe a year ago, I could definitely edit the ranking algorithm to include team games (multiplayer is not the correct word btw). we have mainly two problems: - this could multiply the cases of ranking offence claims - everytime a change to the ranking system is discussed, it never gets out the bog of discussions. I'm not sure how or if the lobby code is maintained.
  4. why? because they are not contemporary? it is said that part of the beauty of the game is that it allows factions who never met to encounter in fight, wouldn't be nice too to have two great kings of Sparta fight alongside? attention must be paid to balance though.
  5. that's nice. also the complex of Naqsh-e Rustam is worth considering if you ask me. maybe it would seem weird to "build a mountain",but it would be appreciated in the end.
  6. we have the model for the alicarnassus mausoleum somewhere in the forum, but that's not really persian, neither it is the current wonder, which depicts the hanging gardens of babylon. by the way, how was persian architecture excellent actually?
  7. I have been thinking exactly about this and I have a lot of ideas. If your concern is that spartan champions may be too strong in p1, but relatively weak in p3, we could just have a series of technologies for pumping them trough the ages. Greek historians give us a lot of clues for interesting technology names. About the next ideas I'm going to share: many require coding, but I'm just brainstorming ideas, consider them as such. Helots Spartan women are costlier than other women (they are decent fighters) and maybe limited in number (if spartiates are also), but you can trade male helot workers, they can't defend, and are limited in a number that depends on spartiates. For instance, every new spartiate could raise the max number of helots by 2. Spartiates would be important for economy as well as for war, forcing them to be more than meatshield strategically. It would be even more fun if helots rebelled everytime the max number of them would go under the current number allowed by spartiates. Bonuses Civ bonus - Two kings: Spartan can have two heroes at the same time Spartan enduring system of law established the coexistence of two kings at any time. Team bonus - Leaders in war: all spartan heroes have effect on allies too Spartans were regarded as war specialists in Greece and all over the world. When called to fight by allies, they were given the command. Leonidas rework Spearmen hero 300 Spartans: all allied melee infantry gets +20% speed, 2 pierce resistance, +2 hack resistance, +20% damage. 30m radius. This ability only works when Leonidas is engaging an enemy. Last stand: when Leonidas is engaging an enemy, he cannot be ordered to disengage.
  8. my suggestions for thematic flares: - enemy menace here: symbol is either an exclamation point or an interrogation point, automatically selected depending if the signaling player has current visibility on the signaled point. - please engage here: symbol is a sword/banner planted on the ground. - pay attention here: ideally, this uses a more relaxed sound clue than the above, and the symbol is a dot with rays around it. I think any flare used currently can fall in one of the three categories above. ideally, the sound clues would be differentiated.
  9. I think strong features should have strong motivations. asymmetry in civs should be designed so that players are not confused by features that feel out of place. For instance, I think it would be immersive and fun to play spartans unlike any other civ, with champs in p1 maybe, and women who can fight, why not, they were actually tought to - not just the men, all the women from spartan family as well. For Persia instead, the role of women is not associated with war at all. There are exceptions, but it would just play weird to me if they were the only civ where women use bows, that just clashes with the reality of an essentially patriarcal civilization and empire.
  10. apart from historical justification, what is the gameplay reason? I can understand "more varied is better", which is true in between bounds by the way, but why in particular would you give persians eco extra defense? I can't see it. the same claim about some women fighting and even leading armies could be made for many other civs, like celts and numibians.
  11. ptole have horse archers in p1, that's not the point. and none of those counters is more common in p2 than in p1. if they are op in p1, they are op in p2 and 3 as well.
  12. after some thought, I ended thinking that it's unnecessary and complicated. I'm not arguing about diminishing returns in general, just about farms. they are unnecessary because in the end we never see good players building more farms to distribute workers and increase efficiency. also, because farmers don't automatically spread among fields, it's an eccess of lame micro to avoid diminishing returns. by the way, I support the aoe model "one worker per farm", indipendently on the diminishing returns issue. also en passant, I find it unnecessary and unexpected that fields can grow themselves. is it like this in a26?
  13. By the way, is there any plan on the off chance that a check is implemented, that pops up an advise to download the latest version of the mod, anytime you join the MP lobby without the mod or with an old version?
  14. very good news. I hope the mod gets to be really used by the community. if this is the case, obvious unbalances (like carth merc cav or iber fire cav) can be fixed promptly, and also gameplay can evolve more rapidly - provided that the adoption of the mod is wide enough. how the "balancing team" will decide to organize itself will also be fundamental to the success of the experiment. I hope everyone gets very practical now. these discussions still belong to the forum I think. hopefully they can lead to a new updated design document.
  15. unnecessary. slingers and archers were also used with success against cavalry.
  16. is there any reason to believe persian ice houses were used outside settlements, for hunt? just add hunter huts buildable directly by cavalry, in neutral territory.
  17. consider that persians are already strong in late game. saving pop space and boosting corrals are both late game bonuses (additional to pop bonus).
  18. yeah, @wraitii corrected this in A26. I had the impression that it's not enough, but I never bothered to test a new set of parameters. If you want to, check this discussion:
  19. that's not how it works unfortunately. by slowing the pace of the game the mechanics don't change, micro-management only becomes more important because you can give your units finer instructions with the added time.
×
×
  • Create New...