Who need stones ?

[seeh]

39 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Will archery range be in A25? 

archer not (always ?) a problem for very good players https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WrgHGJTjHo . (but btw, i ok with all your decisions. )

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by seeh

[wraitii]

It's quite straightforward: is the existing difference in building stone cost meaningful differentiation? Does it make the civilisations unique enough that it's worth keeping and re-balancing instead of just discarding and thinking of something else?

It seems to me that it fails to clear the bar. It's kind of a boring difference, and it makes balancing un-necessarily harder since it has indeed a large impact on resources available.

[Stan`]

8 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

These aren't bad features, but they are repetitive features.

I agree, and it's why I asked @Genava55 about giving different playthroughs of the celts (Gaul & Brit) depending on tribes.

8 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

To answer your question with another question: why do we keep eliminating differentiators and then racking our brains to come up with "new" ideas to differentiate civs in order to "fix" problems that didn't exist before the latest "improvements?" It makes a lot more sense to work within the current structure to balance what already exists and add differentiators as appropriate and as necessary. This is what was done to balance units this alpha, which is one of the most popular changes (and while still not perfect it is much closer than before). 

When you say this alpha, do you mean A25, or do you mean A24, I thought the changes were unpopular?

 

To answer your question the removal of the ptol bonus was apparently a forum request https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3329

Could still be some nice ideas in the design docs http://docs.wildfiregames.com/design/gameplay/civs/ptolemies.html#team-bonus

 

That being said, I'm a casual player, and I don't know much about balancing or how to make this game better with that regards, That's why I created this advisory comittee.

[Dakara]

18 hours ago, wraitii said:

Il me semble que nous pourrions simplement faire en sorte que toutes les civilisations utilisent la pierre pour leurs bâtiments.

Kill nomad   

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 minutes ago, wraitii said:

It seems to me that it fails to clear the bar. It's kind of a boring difference, and it makes balancing un-necessarily harder since it has indeed a large impact on resources available.

You might as well merge stone and metal into one resource or something. Or Wood and Stone.

 

EDIT: Or maybe I'm not understanding you.  

Edited April 27, 2021 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[wraitii]

3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

You might as well merge stone and metal into one resource or something. Or Wood and Stone.

I mean, it's been done. I don't really have a strong handle on how our different resources play together and whether having one more or one less would make a huge difference.

But here I'm mostly agreeing with you, I think. If we keep stone, it should probably have a well defined meaning, such as 'military, defensive buildings & CC', and not be civ-dependent unless we completely change it up for a given civilisation.

4 minutes ago, Dakara said:

Kill nomad   

What's the usual starting resources setting for nomad?

[Dakara]

Concerning myself, I often manage to find a use in stone.
Temple, Tower, Fort, Wall or at worst sell it. Besides, I find the selling prices of resources far too high for the first to use the market, at least it motivates people to pass the age since there is no more bonus when passing the age.

But it is true that for the common people the stone is useful only in small quantities.

Either we solve the problem or we don't (we buff the metal)

Resolution problem

Make civ more stone dependant but care to don't slow people for phase 3. But HOW?

Castel cost : +100 STONE

Center-Civc : Convert half metal cost to stone.

All tower +50 stone cost (iberians 250 to 300- orther civ 100 to 150)

Maurya wall : make stone cost to maurya wall ? or it not realistic history? in any cast up the cost of wood because too op only defend with wood.

 

Don't forget temple cost for a lot of civ 300 stone, and it good.

I don't know if just increasing the cost of buildings would be a good thing though. Going back to the stone cost of technology would be okay, but the stone dependent civ would be a nerf.

For end a funny idea: Make Road in all ally / neutral territory with only stone, unit and trade speed move + 25% on road lol

Buff Metal 

New tech in warehouse :

"Efficient Mining" This tech cost 200 stone and 200 wood 1 min research .  She give +100% lootable ressourcesd +

To buff the metal: New tech in the warehouse: "Efficient mining". This tech costs 200 stone 200 wood 1min research + 100% lousy resources (metal and stone). This means with 100 of metal you can harvest 200. This way less deadlock at the end of the game due to lack of metal. .

[chrstgtr]

6 hours ago, Stan` said:

When you say this alpha, do you mean A25, or do you mean A24, I thought the changes were unpopular?

 

I'm just speaking generally about the propensity to eliminate differentiating factors and to make these standardized. I understand why many of these things were done. But I think there are other, better ways to fix balancing issues than making everything the same except for a few bonuses or techs (i.e., if Maurya has difficulty killing buildings in a23 then maybe the solution for a24 should've been to make ele stronger instead of giving them rams). I know I am not alone when I say a24 is a lot less fun because civs are less unique than in previous alphas. 

With respect to the one specific thing I did reference in the text you quoted, I am referring to the unit balancing done for a24. A24 units are much better balanced than in a23. It's still a work in progress, but things are better now than before. 

[hyperion]

54 minutes ago, wraitii said:

I mean, it's been done. I don't really have a strong handle on how our different resources play together and whether having one more or one less would make a huge difference.

But here I'm mostly agreeing with you, I think. If we keep stone, it should probably have a well defined meaning, such as 'military, defensive buildings & CC', and not be civ-dependent unless we completely change it up for a given civilisation.

One resource is enough, some old RTS used credits, tiberium, energie or what ever. The purpose of multiple resources is to require planning and with that adding a new dimension to gameplay. The more resource types the harder it becomes.

To many types makes planning to tedious and impossible to present in the UI. It can also restrict balancing and map creation. So what is a good pick? Probably about a hand full. 0ad has food, wood, stone, metal, and if you will population. So the number is about right. Could be one more or less depending on whether to strengthen or weaken this gameplay facet.

An other aspect of multiple resources is how to procure the resource. 0ad has the same mechanic for stone and metal, so this differentiation is the least interesting (add to that the mines are right by the CC) and it might be nice to come up with another way of collecting for one or the other even if it requires renaming (gold washing for instance, salt ponds, even money trough trading). Food is the most developed resource, with farming, hunting, fishing, and picking.

Next, resource cost must not be dictated by "pseudo realism" but forcing the player to plan, to be over the top it's fine if a stone wall cost only food (meat shield ;)) if it makes gameplay more interesting. A23 was slightly better in this regard than A24 if I may say. Resource types are also a poor choice for fine tuning balance but great at upsetting it. Currently for the holy grail of balance any other aspect of gameplay may be sacrificed next / isn't off limits.

For the current lack of metal issue, there are many simple ways to tackle it. Less metal cost for various entities, increase metal per deposit, add more deposits to maps or simply drop the somewhat ridiculous metal cost of traders.

[chrstgtr]

6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

You might as well merge stone and metal into one resource or something. Or Wood and Stone.

 

  

6 hours ago, wraitii said:

I mean, it's been done. I don't really have a strong handle on how our different resources play together and whether having one more or one less would make a huge difference.

 

 

Let's not just eliminate an entire resource group...One of the biggest complaints is that the game is becoming too standardized. So yes, eliminating literally 25% of the entire economy will have a huge difference because now instead of balancing 4 resources you will only have to balance 3 resources.

Again, this was not a problem before this alpha. In a23 (and several alpha before that), stone was the 2nd most scarce resource for all civs. Several changes in a24 have since changed this (e.g., techs no longer cost as much stone, forts no longer cost as much much, catapults and slingers are no longer as good, etc.). The way we fix our new problem shouldn't be to make another change that assumes the current problem must exist when it didn't exist just last alpha. We also shouldn't take the lazy approach and say "this isn't necessary right now, let's eliminate 1/4 of the entire economy." Instead, we should revisit which changes brought us to the current situation, examine whether those changes are actually necessary, and make the appropriate changes. In part, this is already being done (e.g., there is a ticket to buff catapult, which will make stone more valuable). But there are other places where it can be done too (i.e., do we really need to make forts cost 600s/300w instead of 1000s?, do techs have to cost only wood/metal or should techs cost some mixture of more/other res, which includes stone). 

Edited April 27, 2021 by chrstgtr

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I agree with Dakara that removing the metal cost from Civic Centres and attaching a stone cost instead would be a good choice.  That all said, the point shouldn't necessarily be about making stone a necessary resource.  When was the last time a war was fought over a quarry?  

[Grapjas]

9 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Next, resource cost must not be dictated by "pseudo realism" but forcing the player to plan, to be over the top it's fine if a stone wall cost only food (meat shield ;)) if it makes gameplay more interesting

Massive nope from me. It will just set people off on the wrong foot and it's not necessary to do such weird gimmicks. 

Could make stone mines have less stone though. 5k to 3k or whatever. <- Meh nvm that one.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Grapjas

[chrstgtr]

5 hours ago, Dakara said:

I don't know if just increasing the cost of buildings would be a good thing though. Going back to the stone cost of technology would be okay, but the stone dependent civ would be a nerf.

 

I don't think this should be a concern. Why should we treat civs that are stone dependent differently? There are civs that are metal dependent. And, there are civs that are wood dependent. Wood and metal are the two primary resources for techs right now. Every civ should have its advantages and disadvantages that vary from map to map and game to game. 

[happyconcepts]

3 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Could make stone mines have less stone though. 5k to 3k or whatever.

I like this idea of reducing each mine's resources.

Stone mines were already reduced like this in Aye Pirates, but there is also a buffed trading mechanic for stone (it fetches a higher price) and the stone mines are spawned away from starting CCs.

So a few different deltas for stone... and it works ok for me atm so I thought I would share it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

on some maps, small mines should be increased.

[smiley]

I get the impression that everything interesting is being taken out and replaced with monotonicity. I mean sure, it does work. See AoE2 for a demonstration I guess. But it also makes the individual civs very meh. And unlike AoE2, there are no unique units.

Just the day, I saw a differential to get rid of the mauryan elephant from the CC. I last played A22, and back then literally no one bothered to even train them. And yet just as quickly, they are now OP and we need the CC roster to be identical.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose. I got no horse in this race.

[Stan`]

4 minutes ago, smiley said:

Just the day, I saw a differential to get rid of the mauryan elephant from the CC. I last played A22, and back then literally no one bothered to even train them. And yet just as quickly, they are now OP and we need the CC roster to be identical.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose. I got no horse in this race.

I'm personnally against it. I don't think it's OP just different.

I also agree with @Imarok it should be able to help building.

[wraitii]

19 minutes ago, smiley said:

Just the day, I saw a differential to get rid of the mauryan elephant from the CC

Diffs can be opened for anything, it means little and less.

----

Our current design calls for all resource to be important for all civilisations, in various doses. We could have a setup where some civs don't really need resource X but resource Y instead, but things are really not setup like that right now, and I agree with Thorfinn that the gathering differences aren't interesting enough to justify it.

I'm seeing some ideas that I agree with. Now we need to get real concrete and start making some diffs:
- Making CCs cost more stone, less metal
- Making military buildings cost stone for all civs - we can still make it slightly different depending on the civ, but it ought be balanced. Balancing against wood is likely a poor idea, since wood is much more accessible in general.
- Making more buildings cost stone.
- Making some techs cost stone ("which" is the question).
- ...

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I was just being cheeky about removing stone, guys. Delenda Est has 6 resources after all.

I have made many posts about how to differentiate metal and stone collection. Perhaps an intrepid forummer can dig those up. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, wraitii said:

Making some techs cost stone ("which" is the question).

The game needs structure and construction techs. Cost, build time, health, etc. These can cost stone and wood.

[chrstgtr]

3 minutes ago, wraitii said:

- Making some techs cost stone ("which" is the question).

I have said in a few places that eco techs shouldn't be all wood/metal. It might make sense that you have to invest more of a res to collect more of it. So, for example, replace metal with stone for stone eco techs, replace metal with food for farming techs, etc. Alternatively, it may make sense to replace force players to spend time gathering more than just one resource, so the opposite should be done. For example, metal gathering techs should cost wood/stone and stone gathers techs should cost metal and wood. I personally prefer the second option that forces a more varied gameplay. 

 

It also makes sense to reintroduce stone into the military techs like it used to be. For this I would divide the current metal costs between stone and metal. 

 

9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The game needs structure and construction techs. Cost, build time, health, etc. These can cost stone and wood.

The building and construction techs also make sense, but few players ever use those techs as is. And, if you are an aggressive attacking player then you will never use those techs. In short this proposal is insufficient to make stone useful again because a winning strategy (i.e., a strategy that requires you to attack) still won't require stone. 

[wraitii]

I think it might help to reduce the starting stone & metal, too. 300 stone covers a lot of ground.

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, wraitii said:

I think it might help to reduce the starting stone & metal, too. 300 stone covers a lot of ground.

There are game setting options that already do that. There are also options that provide more res at the start. We shouldn’t restrict player choice when it is not necessary. I see no reason to do that here.
 

If you want to create a new starting setting (or better yet make a starting setting that allows players to input the number of starting res), I would have zero objections. 

[wraitii]

Just now, chrstgtr said:

There are game setting options that already do that. There are also options that provide more res at the start. We shouldn’t restrict player choice when it is not necessary. I see no reason to do that here.

Mostly I wonder if the "300 of everything" is the best choice. I'd probably prefer to have 300/300/100/100 settings or some such.

That being said, this is tangential, but same as we balance for maps, we must balance for the usual game settings (300 pop, standard res, ...)

[chrstgtr]

7 minutes ago, wraitii said:

Mostly I wonder if the "300 of everything" is the best choice. I'd probably prefer to have 300/300/100/100 settings or some such.

That being said, this is tangential, but same as we balance for maps, we must balance for the usual game settings (300 pop, standard res, ...)

I think it would be great if there was a game setting option that let players chose the amount of starting resources for each res. That would fix all problems by letting players decide what type of game they play. Doing anything else restricts player choice and assumes we know best for all people and all possible circumstances, which of course is impossible. 
 

EDIT: more to the point. This is a bandaid and doesn’t fix the thread’s topic of how the game design is currently flawed because at some (early) point stone becomes useless for many civs

Edited April 27, 2021 by chrstgtr