Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[chrstgtr]

This whole discussion is replete with logical inconsistencies and dilettante historian cherry picking.

If team bonuses aren’t meant to be an actual bonus then they should be eliminated. But I doubt anyone wants to eliminate features.

It is asinine to throw a fit over the use of a word and not offer any suggestions when that word could be easily replaced with the word “colonizing” or any number of other options.

Please move the discussion forward with a real suggestion or alternative: suggesting Athens should have a useless team bonus while other civs have helpful team bonuses isn’t a suggestion for improvement. 

This entire thread has been thrown askew because one person, who said they barely play the game, said they didn’t like the use of one word in one portion of one proposal.

We can do better than this. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by chrstgtr

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

13 minutes ago, AIEND said:

unintentional advantage

No one plays the game unintentionally. If team bonuses are intended to be weak enough to disregard, then you may as well not have them. Keep in mind that team bonuses won't be stronger overall because of these changes, the goal is just to provide each civ with a balanced, but actionable one.

16 minutes ago, AIEND said:

In fact, as the legacy that AoE2 brings to 0 AD, the team reward itself is not a new setting. AoE3 has canceled it, and now we do not need to make the team reward have an excessive effect.

How does this justify removing the team bonuses?

 

[AIEND]

4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

沒有人會無意中玩遊戲。 如果團隊獎金的設計意圖是微弱到可以無視，那麼你最好不要他們。 請記住，由於這些變化，團隊獎金總體上不會更強，目標只是為每個文明提供平衡但可操作的獎勵。

這如何證明取消團隊獎金的合理性？

Team rewards will not be the first advantage you consider. The design of a faction should be such that even if there is no team reward or the effect of the team reward you do not like, it will not affect your choice to play this faction.
This does not mean that the actual effect of team rewards is weak, but its impact on player choice should not be significant compared to civilization rewards, unique buildings/units/technologies.

[AIEND]

Going back to the previous dialogue, I am satisfied with the design given by WOW earlier, and I don't think it is necessary to further increase the naval advantage brought by the Athens team reward to the level of "two teams must each choose Athens".

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't agree that any team bonus should be very powerful. They should just be sweeteners. The combination of team bonuses, civ bonuses, and rosters, playstyles, etc. should make civs play well together.

Perhaps the athenian one is too powerful, I don't know yet. In that case we will modify it as needed in future releases. 

Team bonuses should be just powerful enough to make a difference. We see this with ptol, rome, iberians, especially, and to a lesser extent, seleucids and kushites. I will give you an example: the briton's cheaper healers is basically unknown to players in multiplayer, because it has 0 effect on gameplay. Like @BreakfastBurrito_007 says, it is not "actionable."

we should avoid these.

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

42 minutes ago, AIEND said:

further increase the naval advantage brought by the Athens team reward to the level of "two teams must each choose Athens".

in this case, it remains useless. Even in water maps with ships, you could only save something like 100 to 400 wood/metal. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

This whole discussion is replete with logical inconsistencies and dilettante historian cherry picking.

If team bonuses aren’t meant to be an actual bonus then they should be eliminated. But I doubt anyone wants to eliminate features.

It is asinine to throw a fit over the use of a word and not offer any suggestions when that word could be easily replaced with the word “colonizing” or any number of other options.

Please move the discussion forward with a real suggestion or alternative: suggesting Athens should have a useless team bonus while other civs have helpful team bonuses isn’t a suggestion for improvement. 

This entire thread has been thrown askew because one person, who said they barely play the game, said they didn’t like the use of one word in one portion of one proposal.

We can do better than this. 

I know, first they pick apart my use of "democracy" with no care about changing the term to "socratic scholarship", then they pick apart the gameplay effect as if they are experts of multiplayer. It's not fair , i'm just trying to help add content. If it is bad we can always change it later.

In any case, those users are probably outvoted by a mile.

I do thank those of you that actually gave suggestions, they will likely be used to adjust/rearrange stats as necessary.

Edited October 26, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Dakara]

Hello, 

give my vote

 

1) We need more time to think to new bonus, a lot of idea are in forum. I don't really like wikipedia bonus just about % stats etc. we can find more fun. If we change bonus teams we need do it for long time , not for some month.

4) no understand so i don't vote

5) For me ram are ok, we need keep it can attack by melee unit without big difficulty. Add unit in for boost move speed is useless micro. no fun and no interest. If you want change ram (and orther siege) do it like 0 pop unit and can be move only by garnison, but we need big buff for siege for play them in most little number. 

 

8) Agree with Majima, 1 tech for phase 2 and 1 tech for phase 3 is good. 2 tech in phase 2 or 3  that doesn't make sense. We need see again the cost of phase 3 tech military and maybe little utilitary tech in phase 3 (orther than damage and armor, like range? aoe dammage for melee? )

But for 9) BIG NO, why nerf the only heroe athens viable ? you know athens heros is good but you can't snipe with unit in formation? it broke armor bonus. We need keep good bonus heroe. And ptol heroe is not the most use, we need keep it. it good and fun strategy. And mercenary ptol is good alternative for play differently. 

7) i like big cost on healer for don't create meta of healer, than my idea for druid britons is bonus team where druid are produce by 2 for same cost. big interest for create druide. With big cost , it give good advantage to produce druid.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 hours ago, Dakara said:

4) no understand so i don't vote

CCs and colonies have smaller territory increase in p2 and p3, but they are cheaper

Edited October 27, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[LetswaveaBook]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

This entire thread has been thrown askew because one person, who said they barely play the game, said they didn’t like the use of one word in one portion of one proposal.

I praise your ultimate wishdom. There is no need to discuss subtleties overly much. Once different viewpoints have been exchanged, it is best to respect the viewpoint from both sides and agree to disagree.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I praise your ultimate wishdom. There is no need to discuss subtleties overly much. Once different viewpoints have been exchanged, it is best to respect the viewpoint from both sides and agree to disagree.

You’re entitled to you opinion. I just ask that the thread stay on topic and that everyone, including myself, add productive conversation. That has no occurred here. 

Feel free to DM if you want to discuss. This thread is already too far off-topic and I don’t want to contribute to that any more than necessary. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

looking towards additional balance changes after the current voted ones are added to 26.3, any thoughts on sword cavalry -1 pierce armor and spear cavalry +1 pierce armor? I have heard players are calling for another spear cav buff and also that the swordcav rush is a little strong. The reasoning would be since spear cav does less damage, it should be slightly more tanky, not just a counter to sword cav. On the flip side, since swordcav do so much more damage, you should be able to kill them more easily.

Importantly, this should make defending the han swordcav rush easier without moving the unit to p2.

[alre]

does han cav need to stay in p1? it doesn't, does it?

sword cav is indeed op and has been for a long time, but I wouldn't like spear cav to just become the same as sword cav.

also if you are taking acceleration away from rams, which are the one single unit on which acceleration looks best, just cancel acceleration completely and that will be a nice buff for spear cav alone.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

10 minutes ago, alre said:

sword cav is indeed op and has been for a long time, but I wouldn't like spear cav to just become the same as sword cav.

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

sword cavalry -1 pierce armor and spear cavalry +1 pierce armor?

4 hack 3 pierce -> 4 hack 4 pierce armor for spear cav

3 hack 4 pierce -> 3 hack 3 pierce armor for sword cav.

Edited October 27, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[alre]

fair enough. it still makes more sense to me how it is now.

[Philip the Swaggerless]

36 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

4 hack 3 pierce -> 4 hack 4 pierce armor for spear cav

3 hack 4 pierce -> 3 hack 3 pierce armor for sword cav.

Even if (especially if?) sword cav is nerfed, I don't think there is any need to buff the armor of spear cav.  I do not think spear cav needs another buff.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

looking towards additional balance changes after the current voted ones are added to 26.3, any thoughts on sword cavalry -1 pierce armor and spear cavalry +1 pierce armor? I have heard players are calling for another spear cav buff and also that the swordcav rush is a little strong. The reasoning would be since spear cav does less damage, it should be slightly more tanky, not just a counter to sword cav. On the flip side, since swordcav do so much more damage, you should be able to kill them more easily.

Importantly, this should make defending the han swordcav rush easier without moving the unit to p2.

I’m in favor of an across the board cav nerf. In my opinion, they’re too strong relative to inf. I think a speed and/or HP decrease would do the trick. 
 

The problem is particularly obvious when a group of 10 cav run right through a group of 10 inf and all cav survive. Another (bigger) problem OC example is when a mass of sword cav fight spears straight in and easily win. 
 

I actually don’t have problems with Han having sword cav in p1. People mostly have problems defending it because they refuse to make spear. That is the players fault, not the game’s. Once cav is actually balanced vs inf, that will help too

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

22 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Even if (especially if?) sword cav is nerfed, I don't think there is any need to buff the armor of spear cav.  I do not think spear cav needs another buff.

if swordcav and spearcav have the same armor, (4 pierce versus 4 pierce, most damage is pierce) and swordcav have more attack, then they are the better unit for general purpose. If spearcav is only better than swordcav against other cav, then it is an inferior unit. Please also consider that despite the buffs given to spearcav they still have a hard time beating skirmcav in larger numbers because of their low pierce armor. Giving spearcav better armor than swordcav would account for them having less damage and create situations where one is better than the other.

Current spearcav situation:

you have less armor AND less damage, but in return you get the great benefit of barely beating swordcavalry and still losing to skirmcavalry.

No, its obvious spearcav need a stat boost.

 

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

11 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I’m in favor of an across the board cav nerf. In my opinion, they’re too strong relative to inf. I think a speed and/or HP decrease would do the trick. 
 

The problem is particularly obvious when a group of 10 cav run right through a group of 10 inf and all cav survive. Another (bigger) problem OC example is when a mass of sword cav fight spears straight in and easily win. 
 

I actually don’t have problems with Han having sword cav in p1. People mostly have problems defending it because they refuse to make spear. That is the players fault, not the game’s. Once cav is actually balanced vs inf, that will help too

I think in late game (not raiding, but general battles) people often complain about cavalry being OP, but fail to realize that the primary unit in those cavalry compositions is skirmcav. I think we can nerf cavalry overall by prioritizing this unit. It has 2.2x the hp, +2 pierce attack, and +2 hack armor from skirmisher infantry, even ignoring the speed advantage it has like many cavalry players do (ignoring their speed advantage is already a red flag for the unit). Skirmcav is the most OP unit that everyone accepts in gameplay to be balanced.

You can tell that it is the main driver of cavalry being OP because most cavalry compositions start out with players making Skirmcav mixed in with a melee champion or spearcav or swordcav, but as the game goes on they gradually shift to make almost purely javelin cavalry as they realize it is the most dependably OP unit for any battle scenario.

I would recommend nerfing damage from 18 to 16 (same as skirm inf).

Its also worth noting that Unit specific Upgrades removes the "free" cavalry buff upgrades from the stable.

Edited October 27, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Pepre]

How to remove ressources icons from mini map?

[Philip the Swaggerless]

18 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I would recommend nerfing damage from 18 to 16 (same as skirm inf).

I think this is a good idea.  It is strange that this earliest unit for many civs is also usually the best value even in the late game.

26 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Please also consider that despite the buffs given to spearcav they still have a hard time beating skirmcav in larger numbers because of their low pierce armor.

Hard to balance that, especially if micro is happening.  The same thing will happen with their infantry counterparts, right?

[Philip the Swaggerless]

One of the strong points of swordcav is their ability to sit under the CC.  So even if spearcav don't do a ton of damage they will still be able to end others food eco with pierce boost.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 minute ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

One of the strong points of swordcav is their ability to sit under the CC.  So even if spearcav don't do a ton of damage they will still be able to end others food eco with pierce boost.

Swordcav are already better than spearcav at this, so I don't see how this issue gets any worse if spearcav and swordcav switch their current pierce armor stats.

I think it would be nice if players were able to control or focus the arrows from defensive structures to some extent, and this would help versus melee units and raiding.

 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

3 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Swordcav are already better than spearcav at this, so I don't see how this issue gets any worse if spearcav and swordcav switch their current pierce armor stats.

Isn't sword cav's ability to do this one of the complaints against it?  So we wouldn't want to transfer that complaint to spear cav, right?  That's part of why we want to nerf sword cav?

 

4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think it would be nice if players were able to control or focus the arrows from defensive structures to some extent, and this would help versus melee units and raiding.

Sorry I keep disagreeing today.  But I oppose this because any non-siege crush units (elephants, clubmen) would become very ineffective.  Defense is already strong enough with ungarrison-ambushing, in my opinion.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

31 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

So we wouldn't want to transfer that complaint to spear cav, right?  That's part of why we want to nerf sword cav?

IMO, better to have that tanking power be the less damage-dealing unit, hence the original suggestion.

Anyway, I guess @chrstgtr is right, we need some nerf to cavalry in general, and there is no better way to experiment than with a mod.

So, cavalry have 4 advantages (mobility, damage, armor (generally), and HP) to infantry and 1 setback: not being able to gather resources.

From a principle standpoint, I think the main advantage to cavalry should be their mobility, with any HP and armor stats being secondary. Their mobility is already very strong when used to its full potential (skilled player) and in my opinion, this is almost enough to justify their inability to gather.

if we want a wholesale cav nerf, making damage equal to their infantry counterparts is a start. Changing armor would effect their balance with infantry and should probably be avoided. Mobility is what makes cavalry cavalry, so ideally this should stay the same (although i would support making infantry a tiny bit faster).

So I think damage and health are what should be lowered, who agrees with this?

now, we could make all cav do the same damage as their infantry counterparts, which could be a good start. Perhaps we would then want to give a "mounted vantage point" damage increase of 10% to melee cav, but not ranged cav.

As for health, currently they are hard-coded to 100 for ranged cav and 160 for melee cav. How about instead, we give cavalry in general a 30 hp "mount bonus" compared to infantry such that ranged cav is 80 and melee cav is 130.

From there, we could then balance as needed (like how I suggested with the +1 armor for spearcav, -1 armor for swordcav)

how does this strategy sound?

Edited October 27, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce