Economic technologies dilemma

[Classic-Burger]

5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Literally none of this requires a tech pair instead of just adding more techs. 

When you research a tech matters. You all both looking at this from a one dimensional view of if it can be researched and ignore all timing dimensions

As if prices and time couldn't be changed.

[chrstgtr]

15 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

As if prices and time couldn't be changed.

Which is actually an appropriate suggestion if the problem he say exists actually existed. I think more expensive eco techs with shorter train times probably make sense at some phase(s). Right now, you get little benefit by forgoing techs to phase faster and that shouldn’t be the case. 

My big point is that tech pairs are a really awful “fix” to basically any problem. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

My big point is that tech pairs are a really awful “fix” to basically any problem. 

That is true. I'd only use them as a design decision, not as some kind of fix for something. 

[chrstgtr]

6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

That is true. I'd only use them as a design decision, not as some kind of fix for something. 

I think they theoretically could make sense. For example, if you started out as a base Hellenic civ that you couple develop into Athens or Sparta with unique features then that would be pretty cool. But for simple techs I think it takes away from the cat and mouse game where players adjust their strategies in response to the other because tech pairs, by definition, eliminate future choices. 

One of the main problems I have is that people want new, novel features and never consider whether those novel features actually make any sense. 

[Classic-Burger]

12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

That is true. I'd only use them as a design decision, not as some kind of fix for something. 

That's why a design has to be done from the outside and not with what already exists.

 

Tech tree mod, something.

 

[Classic-Burger]

22 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

basically any problem. 

Any innovation, and the multiplayer purists come and jump.

You tell me, there's nothing to fix.

And the answer is if the game, apart from the performance, has nothing but incomplete mechanics, because the game is incomplete.

It lacks mechanics and any new mechanics, they all come to defend the holy sacred balance (of an incomplete game).

[chrstgtr]

15 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

You tell me, there's nothing to fix.

“Purists” say that because people often come with assumptions that are just plain wrong. You can see that in this thread.

Multiplayers often have this perspective because they naturally see more strategies than any single player can. In one game, a multiplayer can see 8 different strategies while a single player can only see one. Multiplayers also push one another to become better in a way that doesn’t exist with SP.

It’s not unreasonable to say learn what already exists instead of crowing for something “new” that already existed and might break the game for others. 

[Classic-Burger]

I'm not going to continue arguing if it doesn't lead to anything.

If I'm going to leave the popular thinking of RTS, of the majority of players and this happens since StarCraft 2.

There's many reasons RTS are a niche genre. E-sports obsession of devs, publishers and investors.

Micromanaging every unit, to the point it feels like babysiting and not strategy.

Nerfs, nerfs, nerfs and even more nerfs. This unit is 00000.01% better than other units? —Nerf it into the ground!

Listening only the 1% of playerbase, because they're "better at the game".

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

I think they theoretically could make sense. For example, if you started out as a base Hellenic civ that you couple develop into Athens or Sparta with unique features then that would be pretty cool. But for simple techs I think it takes away from the cat and mouse game where players adjust their strategies in response to the other because tech pairs, by definition, eliminate future choices. 

In DE, I've actually pared down the number of paired techs significantly over past alphas. But one paired tech I've kept and that could be particularly interesting for EA in some capacity is in the Forge:

The tech isn't required, but presents an interesting choice that helps you as you tech up. Since EA doesn't have the glory resource, the cost for Forging could be time, while Metallurgy costs resources but low/no time. 

[chrstgtr]

3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The tech isn't required, but presents an interesting choice that helps you as you tech up. 

100% agree. I actually suggested something similar the other day in another thread for how we could improve Ptol’s library. I don’t think it has to be a paired tech per se but it makes a lot of sense for it to be one. Maybe these meta techs are places where paired techs work well in general. 

Nice to see you implemented something similar. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

16 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Nice to see you implemented something similar. 

It used to be an unlocking tech, so that you were forced to choose cheaper techs or faster research before the full Forge tech tree could be enabled. Had that for a long time, but then decided it would be nicer for the player for it to be a choice they could make whenever it was convenient. The effects obviously have less impact the later you make the choice, but who knows what may come up. 

I agree that Special Buildings are a great place for such pairs. 

[chrstgtr]

6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It used to be an unlocking tech, so that you were forced to choose cheaper techs or faster research before the full Forge tech tree could be enabled. Had that for a long time, but then decided it would be nicer for the player for it to be a choice they could make whenever it was convenient. The effects obviously have less impact the later you make the choice, but who knows what may come up. 

I agree that Special Buildings are a great place for such pairs. 

I like the way you have it now. (I generally don’t like techs that have a negative effect on something else but I recognize that’s mostly a personal pet peeve)

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I think listening to competitive players/esports players results in improved gameplay. High level players like a game where they can continue to improve and as a result of their level continue to beat players who are worse than them, this is why aoe2 is still alive. Good gameplay mechanics are ones that are easy to learn and very hard to master. Aoe4 was seen by some as a sequel to aoe2 but the developers dumbed down mechanics as much as possible and the result was twofold: civs looking different but actually playing mutually equivalent having no baseline to stand out from, and there being no skill expression. The strategy of the game was basically boiled down to the series of decisions made while aging up. A key example of this is that you can't walk thru an enemies raised gate, its an infallible passive filter. Aoe4 as a result has been vastly less successful than aoe2 has despite aoe2 being old as the hills. 

Maybe this seems elitist but I promise you its not. A game which features skill development is fun for all ranks. So having features which could be seen as "competitive" is actually just good game design.

Edited 6 hours ago by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Classic-Burger]

The problem comes when you start to become obsessed with balancing.

Early RTS games weren't supposed to have such strict balance. Eventually, you're supposed to nerf everything and the gameplay gets boring. 

A seemingly balanced game is not the same as an overbalanced game.

This happens not only with RTS.

Fighting games are like that, seemingly balanced.

StarCraft I wasn't like that. Even in AoE I there were very OP units like the centurion.

The other thing is always the lack of exploring new mechanics.

So the innovation is in the mods, they have no one to criticize them.

The balance before was that there was 1,2,3.

The balance now is that everyone must be equal, all must be 1.

I'm not saying it's good that Gaul Fanatics are broken. Previously, what was done was to create an Achilles heel for a strategy or unit.

returning to the main theme of the mechanics of technologies would be better if there were many technologies that cost little were much more, in the form of a path, the path would be a strategy, but it is an idea an approach.

 

And for the technologies to be useful it is simply necessary to make them work differently than if they were not there, that is to say that they have a real impact on the gameplay.

It's not strange and it makes you think, that people do not use the technologies because there is no real impact on the gameplay.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I absolutely agree, we can be balanced without being symmetrical (as in aoe4). We have been through reduction eras in 0ad such as a24. We have come a long way in introducing varied gameplay mechanics and we need to continue doing that even if there are situations where things are imbalanced. For example fanas can be powerful at times, perhaps even op and perhaps in need of a nerf, but we should not revert their cost back to include metal as that is what differentiates the fana so much from other champs.

[Deicide4u]

15 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

StarCraft I wasn't like that. Even in AoE I there were very OP units like the centurion.

Starcraft 1 is full of OP units, in fact. That might be why it became "balanced", every race had some nasty OP units. 

I'd say Scythe Chariots and Chariot Archers were more OP than expensive Centurions.

17 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

The balance before was that there was 1,2,3.

The balance now is that everyone must be equal, all must be 1.

True, sadly. 

8 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

We have come a long way in introducing varied gameplay mechanics and we need to continue doing that even if there are situations where things are imbalanced.

Definitely agree here. You can always nerf the most blatantly OP units.

10 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

we should not revert their cost back to include metal as that is what differentiates the fana so much from other champs.

That, and the fact they're naked. As in, without armor naked. 

[chrstgtr]

8 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

The problem comes when you start to become obsessed with balancing.

Early RTS games weren't supposed to have such strict balance. Eventually, you're supposed to nerf everything and the gameplay gets boring. 

A seemingly balanced game is not the same as an overbalanced game.

This happens not only with RTS.

Fighting games are like that, seemingly balanced.

StarCraft I wasn't like that. Even in AoE I there were very OP units like the centurion.

The other thing is always the lack of exploring new mechanics.

So the innovation is in the mods, they have no one to criticize them.

The balance before was that there was 1,2,3.

The balance now is that everyone must be equal, all must be 1.

I'm not saying it's good that Gaul Fanatics are broken. Previously, what was done was to create an Achilles heel for a strategy or unit.

returning to the main theme of the mechanics of technologies would be better if there were many technologies that cost little were much more, in the form of a path, the path would be a strategy, but it is an idea an approach.

 

And for the technologies to be useful it is simply necessary to make them work differently than if they were not there, that is to say that they have a real impact on the gameplay.

It's not strange and it makes you think, that people do not use the technologies because there is no real impact on the gameplay.

You’re arguing against a straw man. Very few people want to eliminate things the way you’re saying and most that do get ignored (for good reason). 

The loudest the multiplayer community ever was was right after a24 got released and a lot of that was because features got eliminated. Note, when that happened a lot of SPs and devs initially dismissed the complaints before coming around later. 

The most you hear now from the MP community now is that champ cav is OP, which no one has really found solution to. The other recent thing I’ve heard is reza saying fana is OP to which most people told him he was wrong. MPs will regularly say things like certain techs like “spies”are useless but even there it’s not like the SP is saying how great they are. 

[Atrik]

54 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

Eventually, you're supposed to nerf everything and the gameplay gets boring.

I think you don't like the calls to "nerf" units , but that doesn't mean making the game more boring, to the contrary : what MPs players don't really like are too anchored 'metas' that make all games a bit too similar... Because one build or tactic is too hard to counter, and that therefor a players can repeat it regardless of the opponent being aware of what you he'll do.
Ideally strategy, improvisation, adaptation would be rewarded over mechanically applying a cookie cutter build. You get a better experience from a game where you have to use your brain, teamwork, rather then just trying to be fast fast at spamming broken champ cav for example.
Idk how exactly that translates for SP, probably just not being incentivize to make an army of 1 unit type, because it's stronger and isn't at risk to be countered, is already kinda giving the game an extra dept. Pretty sure that it's universal that players play RTS for the Strategy part (Even if I've been told that "Real Time" means it should be about being fast clicker or what not).

[Classic-Burger]

1 hour ago, Atrik said:

, rather then just trying to be fast fast at spamming broken champ cav for example.
Idk how exactly that translates for SP, probably just not being incentivize to make an army of 1 unit type, because it's stronger and isn't at risk to be countered, is already kinda giving the game an extra dept. Pretty sure that it's universal that players play RTS for the Strategy part (Even if I've been told that "Real Time" means it should be about being fast clicker or what not).

There should be chivalric civilizations with broken cavalry.

Too broken but not that one class is above the rest.

There will be tiers of units.

We already know that missile units are support for infantry fights.

But it's a shame that the forge technologies don't feel as powerful as they do in other games.

RTS are fantasy games of power. Command powerful armies, feel the power of being a general and an urban planner.

Armies should feel powerful by upgrading their weapons.

There are no technologies for LoS, there are no technologies for repair...

There are barely there are technologies for capturing buildings.

The nerf thing happens not only in 0 AD, but in many competitive games.