LetswaveaBook

Some people have the role of balancing advisor. It is not obvious if they constitute a bunch of individuals or a team. If they are a team, they are at least a little disorganized. I would suggest that for the next alpha development cycle, the balancing team appoints a scrum master type. This person keeps a list of topics in the balancing team and tags the topics as "Must have", "Should have", "might have" and "controversial". Before topics get discussed, they need a tag. The scrum master would get the final say about what tag a feature gets, how a feature is phrased and whether two topic are the same or separate. Features should be phrased such that balancing team members have the freedom to design their own solution around these topics. (e.g: If "nerf sword merc cav" has the must have tag. A specific balancing team member thinks they are fine, then still some action is required. It does not specifiy how much action is required, so a minor action is enough. So a solution could be just to make units 20% slower to promote meaning merc cav get elite slower.) Also we need to know what the contributions of each balancing advisor can bring. They could be divided in 5 groups (or more) 1. Code masters. Those who can understand the limits of the engine and how differentials for all things in the engine are made. 2. Differential Creators: Those who can make differentials where a few lines of code are changed. 3. Balancing team modders: Those who can make mods such that features can be tested for balance testing. 4. Advisors: Those who don't know how to make mods or differentials. They are supposed to both give feedback and as well help anything to get anything with the "should have" and "must have" tag tested. Also they should try to encourage players from the lobby to try/adapt changes. 5. People who have no role in the balancing team. They might not be even needed. The balancing team should aim to address all "must have" topics for the next alpha. Then the scrum master would be responsible that an effort is made for those topics. The Scrum master should then probably also try to find someone that works on each should have topic. Depending on how many people there are in group 1 and 2, it should be judged which topics are "must have" and "should have".

That is actually useful.

If a novel would be written based on this woke-story, would LetswaveaBook be a good pseudonym?

To everyone who still has a good reputation: Ruining your own reputation is not appreciated. I honestly feel for Yekaterina, she might have made a number of second accounts. Though I don't believe she used them to troll others, evade bans or do other bad stuff.

For casual play it would be cool to be able to donate units. For competitive play it would be bad. It means that you don't need to help your ally and if their units get annihilated you just gift them 60 units so they can get their pop back up.

When garrisoned, a ship shoots +1 arrow per garrisoned infantry. Every arrow deals 35 damage. I haven't looked into it, but all ships are broken deal high damage. see

I think it might be more fun if it added extra range to ranged siege weapons rather than cost. This should be possible since it also was in earlier alphas. Especially the splash+extra range for mace might be nice. What do you think?

That is indeed a fair question However I feel that on those biomes gameplay also feels suboptimal as spamming cavalry there seems more important than phase advancements. For me the problem was that phase advancement to p2 does hurt to much if done early. That is something a biome can't change. However there could be experiments with starting with a free smith to encourage p2. That would only require to create an extra map and does not affect any other maps. Such a version wouldn't affect most players. It would only affect those who play on the special version of mainland. Maybe do the same as I did with cattle: Make them free but give them longer train time. Also this should require a limit on how many traders you can get. For this mod, I tried to be less conservative allowing a lot of different things. for proposed features mod - Page 2 - Gameplay Discussion - Wildfire Games Community Forums, I tried to be conservative and not add any changes that affect gameplay in a major way.

It allows you to use things you would normally not use and it gives a little extra benefit to unlocking these buildings/p2. Also it allows you to vary your playstyle a little. The Gallic, Roman or Ptolemaic team bonusses don't encourage varying your playstyle. The idea with the theatres was also basically a way to research city phase faster. It only affects those who have access to a certain unit, but the Kushite team bonus also only benefits those factions only with access to elephants. Some people want mace to be the siege faction. A bonus to siege would be nice for them. I think Iber and Ptol team bonusses are to strong, while Athens, Britons, Persians and Carthaginians have bonusses that are to weak. The Ptol and Iber team bonuses have a major impact on the game, whereas I think the faction specific bonusses your own faction should be more important than the team bonusses of your allies.

Naval is a concept that is not well developed and it is odd anyway. Unless there are major changes to naval warfare, I will just regard 0ad as a land focused game. Adding naval bonusses would be fine to me, but a faction should also have its perks on land. Finally, for me the focus lies to much on fights if factions have their team bonusses affect just battle capabilities. I would also like bonusses that are not strictly military related but for example culture related as well.

Any other suggestions are welcome, but this is what I have in mind: Brits: First healer is free, other healers are 20% cheaper. cart: Markets are 40% cheaper and first land trader is free. Persians: stable techs are researched in half the time. Also I would allow teatres in p2 and give theatres an extra aura: Technologies at the CC (including p3) cost -20% resources and -50% time. Athenians: Theatres are affordable.

Ah, that needs to be changed in the next version. However I won't upload versions to frequently, because that would also require people to download new version first.

No, I meant reza-meth.

@Yekaterina I don't know if this is a valid question: Who will spent his/her time to create a entrance test? Doing an entrance test before you can play ranked games does not seem so bad. I think this is a very valid concern. Finally, what is the goal and what is the method? If stopping smurfs is the goal then I don't know if the entrace test is the ideal method. But I have a better idea for an entrance requirement for OP TGs and it does not require a programmer. Get your 1v1 rating above 1500 or be kicked. Jokingly, I can't help to remark this: I don't know if this idea is fine with meth.

I did not consider people unwelcoming, except for the special one from Brussels. Also I clearly had some general mistakes that revealed that I am was not an experienced player. My story might not translate to other new people as they don't get the honor of being compared to Stockfish. Also when people said I really was Stockfish, I just played along saying things like "Stockfish is so good, I can't be him". I just want to express that not everyone considers the environment unwelcoming for new players. Fun fact: On Voobly for AoE2, real noobs get smashed really hard in the new player lobby. So before I joined online play, I prepared myself a little offline. I remember watching Stockfish play against Weirdjokes on Pyrenean sierra casted by tom0ad. Though I can't find the game anymore, so maybe I am wrong on the details. I think I remember the player names correct as they were weird and funny ones.

I checked the files and you also seem to reduce the build time to 150 seconds.

The idea was to allow the skiritai to bypass the opposing melee and strike for the ranged troops. In that case melee woulnd't die first. Unless there are to few skiritai, in that case skiritai die first. From my tests you need 1 skiritai for every 1.5 skirmisher for it to be effective.

For iber fire cav it is clear that they are what they are. Smurfs can be an unpleasant surprise. You can ruin your opponents rating. Playing half the time on a smurf account also prevents your rating from getting what it needs to be. The points that your main account should have gained, are not awarded. Thus your rating is kept artificially low. Smurfing might be as bad as quitting rated games.

We have to see if it makes a difference. I don't want to hypothesize to much, but timing is key. With cheaper techs, it is much more convenient to get the p2 eco techs early and I would guess if you reach p2 with more than 120 population, you should have advanced earlier to take earlier advantage of the eco techs. Skiritai were champs in A23, in A24&A25 they are rank 3 troops. This results in the fact that there was only one skiritai model and promotions would ideally require another model. Fast moving rank 3 units would seem over the top. I played a TG and was next to akazid. My plan was to build 2 pyramids, mine 50 stone and then build a stable to go for cav in p1. My aim was to get the pyramids early so I would early get their benefits. I wanted to build one pyramid right from the start next to my CC to benefit the berry gatherers and the future farmer. I started to build a pyramid right at the start. The unit that build this pyramid was not working which meant my wood income was low. When I had build my house, I build a storehouse and started to place the second pyramid. All the time spent building pyramids meant I did not have the wood for militairy, which was very painful when dizika attacked me early. I think building pyramids at the start is not OP.

I had given merc cav non integer loot, which apparently cause a bug. Hence I reuploaded the file.

Copyrights expired. I think the Swedish anthem has a similar style.

I like that. The beat wouldn't give you a cozy feeling, but the calm female voice brings comfort in the song.

Okay, I had a glass of wine. So the first lines could be: We will cherish all our units from the start. (11 Syllables) We honour (not honor) all the blossoms near our town. (10 Syllables) And the wildlife is a welcome sight. (9 Syllables-assuming life and come are 1) A house, is what we will first construct. (9 Syllables) Oh, mighty thirty diligent souls, (9Syllables) may you lay the holy foundations (9Syllables) for our proud rightfully empire. (9Syllables) Harborring a temple of marble, (9Syllables) is what our gods truly deserve. (9Syllables) Only with their help, we persevere (9Syllables) Thus true glory, will befall us all. (9 Syllables) Such is the reason, why we combat, (9 Syllables) To defend honours granted to us. (9 Syllables) Blood is spilled in the gods names. (9 Syllables) Should this displease our holyness, (9 Syllables, counting please as 1) then they surely wouldn't put me as flank. (9 Syllables, counting sure- as one) I've done the first 4 paragraphs. I think this is a good point to move to the next verse. Since 0AD is a community project I give all of you the chance to add paragraph or improve existing ones. Remember for a good anthem we need 10+ paragraphs.

Since there are many German suggestion, I will mention the first verse of the song Eisenmann by Rammstein. Mein Herz schlägt für Metall. Eisen gibt es überall. Die Familie der Metalle Ist die härteste von allen. Du musst mit dem Eisen sprächen. Ja, du sollst das Eisen lieben. Dann wird es sich zerbrechen. Wird es sich für dich verbiegen? --Beter goed gejat, dan slecht bedacht.

I think the different ranged units should ideally be well balanced. If the Iberian team bonus gives a major boost to skirmishers, then it upset the balance no matter how skirmishers are balanced. Currently skirmishers are a lot better than archers. Adding the Iberian bonus only adds insult to injury for the archer player. In A24, skirmishers with the Iberian team bonus weren't awful. However it meant that having skirmishers was no fun without the Iberian team bonus.