Gurken Khan Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 9 hours ago, chrstgtr said: Yeah, because it's actually called SP Yeah, except for when we're talking about MP. Like in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 3 hours ago, Gurken Khan said: Yeah, except for when we're talking about MP. Like in this thread. You missed the point: you can’t play MP in old alphas because the lobbies are dead (even if all the old players are in the new lobby complaining how the old alpha was better) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real_tabasco_sauce Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 Yes you are right about the cost. I misinterpreted @Yekaterina. IMO The stables didn't make a big difference for Persians. It was civ differentiation but not very impactful. A better way to differentiate pers is to give them both skirm and spear cav in p1. Thoughts @chrstgtr? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said: Yes you are right about the cost. I misinterpreted @Yekaterina. IMO The stables didn't make a big difference for Persians. It was civ differentiation but not very impactful. A better way to differentiate pers is to give them both skirm and spear cav in p1. Thoughts @chrstgtr? That's fine. I don't really care, though. Skirm and spear cav would only be a differentiator in so far as a player rushes p1 cav. So whatever impact this has will be pretty limited. The true differentiator civ differentiator in a23 (and before) was that Persia got +10% health, which was globalized to all civs in a24. In my opinion, that and stables were much better of civ differentiators than what we have now or what is proposed. Honestly, I would be fine reverting to what it was before and rebalancing cav so all the other civs have viable cav strats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borg- Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 (edited) It's hard for me to understand. When we had slinger + ram spam in every game on a23, they complained that the game was basically limited to these few units. I remember very well many players asking for melee cavalry to be more powerful and appear more in the game. I also remember that they asked for melee infantry to be more powerful in the game, as we now have cavalry and melee infantry appearing much more, along with mercenaries that were once a completely equal unit. I agree that there are still some fine balance adjustments to be made, but bringing up arguments like "we should go back to being like a23" or "remove stables" is extremely ridiculous. It seems that most people would rather go the easy way of simply removing what's bad than working harder to try to fix it for the next alphas. Edited March 31, 2022 by borg- 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, borg- said: It's hard for me to understand. When we had slinger + ram spam in every game on a23, they complained that the game was basically limited to these few units. I remember very well many players asking for melee cavalry to be more powerful and appear more in the game. I also remember that they asked for melee infantry to be more powerful in the game, as we now have cavalry and melee infantry appearing much more, along with mercenaries that were once a completely equal unit. I agree that there are still some fine balance adjustments to be made, but bringing up arguments like "we should go back to being like a23" or "remove stables" is extremely ridiculous. It seems that most people would rather go the easy way of simply removing what's bad than working harder to try to fix it for the next alphas. Unit balancing is totally different. Asking for balanced slingers isn't the same as asking for barracks to make cav or for Persia to be a unique cav civ. And nothing you mentioned that was an improvement occurred because of feature/design changes. People use more units because they're better balanced now. Also, a23 was a more diverse and differentiated version of the game than what we have now. Was it perfect? Obviously not--units should be balanced. But there are long lists out there about how all the civs are basically the same now, which wasn't always the case and stables and the lack of a special Perisa cav tech are on those lists. Just like how we shouldn't be afraid to implement new features that will improve the game, we shouldn't be beholden to keep bad changes that were implemented just because they exist now. Edited March 31, 2022 by chrstgtr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borg- Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said: O balanceamento de unidades é totalmente diferente. Pedir lançadores equilibrados não é o mesmo que pedir quartéis para fazer cav ou que a Pérsia seja uma cav única. E nada que você mencionou que fosse uma melhoria ocorreu por causa de alterações de recursos/design. As pessoas usam mais unidades porque estão mais equilibradas agora. Além disso, a23 era uma versão do jogo mais diversificada e diferenciada do que temos agora. Foi perfeito? Obviamente não - as unidades devem ser balanceadas. Mas existem longas listas sobre como todas as civilizações são basicamente as mesmas agora, o que nem sempre foi o caso. Assim como não devemos ter medo de implementar novos recursos que melhorarão o jogo, não devemos ficar obrigados a manter mudanças ruins que foram implementadas apenas porque existem agora. Do you think giving stables to other civilizations makes the game poorer? Is that your view of gameplay differentiation? Sorry for me this is very poor. When I think about diversifying civilizations I think we can be much better than keeping a stable for just one civilization because it "looks" different. Where was a23 most diverse? Only 2 or 3 civilizations were used, and the same units every game. Having a kennel or stable only for Persians does not make the game "diversified". The change in mercenaries is rather a design change and not just a balance change, and they are much more used now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 1 minute ago, borg- said: Do you think giving stables to other civilizations makes the game poorer? Is that your view of gameplay differentiation? Sorry for me this is very poor. When I think about diversifying civilizations I think we can be much better than keeping a stable for just one civilization because it "looks" different. Where was a23 most diverse? Only 2 or 3 civilizations were used, and the same units every game. Having a kennel or stable only for Persians does not make the game "diversified". The change in mercenaries is rather a design change and not just a balance change, and they are much more used now. Stop purposely misquoting me. I already said I couldn't care less about stables. And stop claiming responsibly for more civs being used now when those are just balancing changes (many of which you had nothing to do with)-- for proof see how a24 had people ONLY wanting to play Maurya because balance issues. Want a list on how a23 was more diverse? See below for a list off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more because I know I can't even remember all the civs off the top of my head in the time that I am willing to spend to write this post. Sele a cav health tech that actually mattered Persia a cav health tech that actually mattered unique stables, which are a handicap and much more than something that just "'looks' different" Brits building pop bonus Gauls building pop bonus Ptol free houses/storehouses/farmhouses/corrals Mace a unique siege building that allowed for unique strats Rome Camps could do more Sparta More champs options Less pop (I wasn't sad to see this go) Athens More champs options p2 champs Yeah, there are few things that are present in a24 and a25 that didn't exist in a23. That's a good thing. But almost none of those changes (I can't think of any besides mers, which have caused huge balancing problems) have anywhere near the impact that 1-7 above had. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyrrhicVictoryGuy Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 I think macedon's siege proficiency started and ended with Demetrius. Because Alexander's siege efforts cannot really be put in game, ie a lot of sapping and build landills. In this light we are missing siege civs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faction02 Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said: IMO The stables didn't make a big difference for Persians. It was civ differentiation but not very impactful. A difference of a23 stable for Persia is that they only costed 200 stones, and stones weren't needed for upgrades. So using Persia meant you could build at game start your stable and start massing your cavalry much earlier than any other civilization without delaying your eco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 1 hour ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said: I think macedon's siege proficiency started and ended with Demetrius. Because Alexander's siege efforts cannot really be put in game, ie a lot of sapping and build landills. In this light we are missing siege civs This isn’t true. When siege factories were unique to Mace you could push siege much earlier than with other civs. Now all the civs are the same with that respect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetswaveaBook Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 3 hours ago, chrstgtr said: Stop purposely misquoting me. It think one should be careful not to misquote people, but for me it is bad language/attitude to suggest that someone does so on purpose. 3 hours ago, chrstgtr said: Sele a cav health tech that actually mattered Persia a cav health tech that actually mattered unique stables, which are a handicap and much more than something that just "'looks' different" Brits building pop bonus Gauls building pop bonus Ptol free houses/storehouses/farmhouses/corrals Mace a unique siege building that allowed for unique strats Rome Camps could do more Sparta More champs options Less pop (I wasn't sad to see this go) Athens More champs options p2 champs For all of these changes, there are good reasons to accept them as well as there are good reasons to grief about them being eliminated. A23 is history right now. Some things have gone and some have come in place. Rather than saying this is bad, it is better to try to undestand both sides of the discussion. So we should look on how we can move forward. When discussing if something is unbalanced or not, the settings should be considered. Though there is a lot of complaining around here, there is not a lot of people that try to play in different settings. In A24 TG players said that there was to little metal, yet nobody with those complaints created a map where players start with 2 metal mines around their base. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 12 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said: When discussing if something is unbalanced or not, the settings should be considered. Though there is a lot of complaining around here, there is not a lot of people that try to play in different settings. In A24 TG players said that there was to little metal, yet nobody with those complaints created a map where players start with 2 metal mines around their base. As for your metal reference, there was a change made to address that. That is how the process is supposed to work (Thanks, @wratii) 20 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said: For all of these changes, there are good reasons to accept them as well as there are good reasons to grief about them being eliminated. We were discussing whether a23 was more diverse than a25. I didn't opine on how I thought those things should be except for one place where I said it was a good change. I was directly responding to someone who made false assertions to support a narrative that is clearly untrue (and notably the current narrative is now different than the narrative that they told a year ago to defend a24). 15 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said: It think one should be careful not to misquote people, but for me it is bad language/attitude to suggest that someone does so on purpose. If someone repeatedly misquotes you in a way that negatively reflects on you then that person is either doing it on purpose or not very smart. I do not believe the former is true. 19 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said: A23 is history right now. Some things have gone and some have come in place. Rather than saying this is bad, it is better to try to undestand both sides of the discussion. So we should look on how we can move forward. 100% agree. But sometimes moving forward means recognizing mistakes and correcting them--this is the only reason why a23 is a benchmark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borg- Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, chrstgtr said: Pare de me citar propositalmente errado. Eu já disse que não me importo menos com estábulos. E pare de reclamar com responsabilidade por civilizações sendo usadas agora, quando essas são apenas mudanças de balanceamento (muitas das quais você não tem nada a ver) - para provar, veja como a24 tinha pessoas que querem jogar Maurya por causa de problemas de ajuste . Quer uma lista a A23 foi mais diversificada como? Veja abaixo uma lista em cima da minha cabeça. Tenho certeza de que tenho mais porque sei que nem consigo me lembrar de todas as civilizações de cabeça no tempo que estou disposto a dedicar para escrever este post. Sele uma tecnologia de saúde cav que realmente importava Pérsia uma tecnologia de saúde cav que realmente importava Estábulos, que são uma única coisa única que é muito mais do que diferente do que parece'" britânicos bônus pop de construção gauleses bônus pop de construção Ptol casas/armazéns/fazendas/currais livres Maça um edifício de cerco único que permite as estratégias únicas Roma Os acampamentos podem fazer mais Esparta Mais opções de campeões Menos pop (não fiquei triste ao ver isso) Atenas Mais opções de campeões campeões p2 Sim, existem muitas coisas que estão presentes em a24 e a25 que não existiam em a23. É uma coisa boa. Mas quase nenhuma dessas mudanças (não pensar em além de mers, que causaram enormes problemas de balanceamento) tem o impacto que 1-7 acima teve. All this to play slinger/jave + ram, super interesting. That is, supposedly before you had many "diversifications" but without any utilities, while today you have less diversification and more choices of civilizations / units, so the current design is correct compared to the a23 Look how incredible, before you had a super "unique" construction of Macedonia but no one would choose this civilization, while today it is a preference in 1v1 games for example. You cite technologies and bonus as being "diversification", so we have more diversification for sparta and athens now with hoplite tradition, or else with the bonus slinger of rome, or the gain of food from ptolemies, cavalry of gauls. I can go deeper, now you have playable mercenaries because they have improved their design and you can also build more than two embassies, and Cushites can build in neutral territory, etc..etc... Anyway, this argument doesn't seem valid to me. Edited March 31, 2022 by borg- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 23 minutes ago, borg- said: All this to play slinger/jave + ram, super interesting. That is, supposedly before you had many "diversifications" but without any utilities, while today you have less diversification and more choices of civilizations / units, so the current design is correct compared to the a23 Look how incredible, before you had a super "unique" construction of Macedonia but no one would choose this civilization, while today it is a preference in 1v1 games for example. You cite technologies and bonus as being "diversification", so we have more diversification for sparta and athens now with hoplite tradition, or else with the bonus slinger of rome, or the gain of food from ptolemies, cavalry of gauls. I can go deeper, now you have playable mercenaries because they have improved their design and you can also build more than two embassies, and Cushites can build in neutral territory, etc..etc... Anyway, this argument doesn't seem valid to me. You keep repeating how slingers weren't balanced in a23. Everyone knows this. That didn't mean you had to get rid of anything I listed above. Unit balance ≠ diversification even if that results in more civs being played. See how everyone wanted to play Maurya in a24 even though it had all the features you now mention. No one said the current alphas didn't bring some good changes. But most everyone agrees that it also brought some bad changes. This is the part that you don't seem to want to accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.