Who need stones ?

[Grapjas]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

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

Solution: mine less stone?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

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. 

Very few of my proposals are self-contained. Obviously I'd like to change a lot about the main game, even under this specific topic. In addition to useful and impactful structural techs that cost stone, I'd also like to make all (except outpost) defensive and military structures cost some stone as outlined in my previous. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Doing anything else restricts player choice and assumes we know best for all people and all possible circumstances, which of course is impossible. 

Well, game designers must, you know, design the experience of the game. It's not a sandbox game after all; there must be restrictions to define the gameplay. There is something to be said for a "standard" start for everybody (with some minor exceptions, which are designed and balanced against of course). 

Having said that, I'm not against allowing the game host to dictate starting resource amounts, but I can already think of scenarios where a host who likes to play a stone heavy civ giving himself an unfair advantage by weighing starting resources in his favor (else everyone else would have to choose the same stone heavy civ in order to remain competitive). Perhaps rated matches would require a standard resource start, while non-rated matches would unlock the host's ability to determine.

[faction02]

16 hours 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, ...)

The 300/300/300/300 starting resources used to be quite useful to differentiate gameplay:

- It allowed Britons to go for an early slingers rush. It was also enjoyed by beginners since they could get their first 10 soldiers faster for a safe start;

- Ptolemies could go for faster boom thanks to stones available for the barrack which needed 200 stones and mercenary costing metal. During the a22 -"No cav" period, that was often used as a substitute for rush, you could send your woodcutters away for a relatively long time without slowing much your economy since Ptolemies could keep growing without much wood;

 - I heard about a time when going for swordmen attack in early game using the roman bonus of faster soldiers training time, the starting stones for faster barrack and the starting metal to finance part of the swordmen was a strategy;

- In a23, the starting stones allowed Persia to get the stable costing 300 stones at game start. With some hunts available it was possible to reach pop 100 with 20 cavalry to harass without being slowing down with respect to a player booming without cavalry;

- In a23, with some extra berries, Seleucids could have boom comparable to faster civilization since with 300 woods and their starting 300 stones, they could get 2 barracks;

As a player, I like each of these specificities of the different civilization, and I would prefer to see more of them rather than less of them, even if they might be difficult to balance.

 

That being said, I guess there must have been some discussions about starting resources in the past since I remember a mod adjusting starting resources for each civilization. I would guess because many of these strategies were seen as too strong. That makes sense since other civilizations do not have comparable strategies, and depending on how the question is interpreted, one might want to remove these strategies but he could also add some for the other civilizations and try to work on balancing them.

I guess a number of people who enjoy 0ad for the uniqueness of each civilization would also enjoy this part to survive. 

 

[LienRag]

Coming from KenWood, I don't see the problem with some civilizations not needing to mine stone if they're not going for defences ?

To me it just brings more variation in gameplay, which is a good thing...

Of course, the economic advantage they get from that should not be overwhelming over the disadvantage of having less defence...

The only problem I could see is with Maurya whose walls are made of wood. They (and probably only they) should have some techs that need stone (like techs available only at castles or elephant stables), or not having access to champions if they don't have a castle.