Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Because of this, many experienced players make a minimum of 2 forges but may make 3 or 4.  They may not even make any other of the p2 buildings.  All or most upgrades are processed simultaneously so there is little trade-off in terms of prioritizing upgrades.

 

Agree.

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I suggest adding a significant metal cost so that the more blacksmiths you make the slower your p3 upgrade.

Disagree on metal. It's too scarce and the upgrades already cost metal. But I do think it should cost more. I would add a food cost because it is the slowest to produce (yet is infinite so it is just a time trade-off) and would force a player to forgo pop to spam blacksmiths. 

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Proposed cost:  50 food, 10 metal.

This feels really cheap. The problem with traders is that they quickly become OP, so you don't want them to become too easy to spam. When resources get depleted on a map this is particularly true. I've played multiple games where the first player to get like 5 traders consistently safe wins. If traders are super cheap, then there will be a very narrow window in which you could effectively respond to your enemy switching to traders (either by raiding or making traders of your own). Because of that, I would keep metal cost higher (like 100m). 

An alternative fix would be to keep the cost the same but increase the min yield of traders. Right now, traveling between your base and your closest ally yields something like 4 resources. That is so little that it never makes sense to trade unless you are traveling super far distances. Increasing the min yield will make "safe" trading over short distances more viable. 

Edited Monday at 07:51 by chrstgtr

[Philip the Swaggerless]

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Disagree on metal. It's too scarce and the upgrades already cost metal.

Metal from you're initial p3 territory is too scarce to get all forge upgrades + a significantly champion army. I think that's okay.  More metal can be gathered from expanding territory and ...traders. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I would add a food cost because it is the slowest to produce (yet is infinite so it is just a time trade-off) and would force a player to forgo pop to spam blacksmiths.

Maybe this is me not booming well, but I find that getting enough food to maintain p1 unit production and get 500 extra for the p2 upgrades leaves me with more food income than is needed for p2 expenses, and I usually send some to wood.  Rather than seek alternate advantages, I think people would just boom accordingly and get all the forges as usual. The only adjustment might be to delay mining upgrades. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

This feels really cheap.

It is. This is me assuming nothing else about traders will change. It could be more but should be reduced from what it is. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

When resources get depleted on a map this is particularly true. I've played multiple games where the first player to get like 5 traders consistently safe wins.

I'm curious - on what maps? I don't like the idea that you make traders only if you are on a seldom-played map that lacks a particular resource. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Because of that, I would keep metal cost higher (like 100m). 

An INCREASE? 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

An alternative fix would be to keep the cost the same but increase the min yield of traders.

That small gain of 4 metal is especially bad because they cost 80 metal plus food to make.

I would hate to see a bunch of traders going 100 meters back and forth.  Since they can be so vulnerable, I would mostly rather see the cost of traders reduced but we could couple that with balancing the journey-distance-to-income multiplier. Longer trips should be rewarded, but the gap should not be so extreme.

Edited Monday at 15:38 by Philip the Swaggerless
Typo: changed should to should not

[real_tabasco_sauce]

What about utilizing stone cost for the forge? 
something like 200 wood, 50 or 100 stone.

i think this could be interesting as it brings a bit more opportunity cost into the picture since mining techs, production buildings, and clicking up also cost stone. It would also make the no stone build for Gauls less strong.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Yeah trade is awkward. On most maps, it’s not worth it, but on maps where trade is good, it’s almost guaranteed that the better or faster trade wins the game.

It might be good to make them a bit easier to take down if they do end up getting buffed.

[Philip the Swaggerless]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

something like 200 wood, 50 or 100 stone.

Stone could work, but stone civs will still make 2 minimum.  Are you gonna make a second or third black smith to get tech bonuses (extra 200 stone) or a 300 stone temple?  At least someone might make a market.

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Maybe this is me not booming wel

Honestly, yes. And easy fix in p2 is to make them build your p2 buildings. 
 

3 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I'm curious - on what maps?

Any Savannah map, especially if normal sized or smaller. Other biomes too. It would happen more often but people freak out if you ever choose a biome that isn’t temperate (or whatever). 
 

3 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

An INCREASE?

I guess. I just threw out a number without looking at current cost.
 

You’re right, it should probably be something more like 50m

 

 

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

What about utilizing stone cost for the forge? 
something like 200 wood, 50 or 100 stone.

That unfairly penalizes slinger civs that depend on a finite resource, though.

Why not make it so that it is more fair to all civs? Food does that. Or make the cost different based on civ. So add stone if it is not a slinger civ and add wood if it is a slinger civ.

28 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Stone could work, but stone civs will still make 2 minimum.  Are you gonna make a second or third black smith to get tech bonuses (extra 200 stone) or a 300 stone temple? 

This just says that the total res cost is too low. What you want could be accomplished with just adding wood cost. 

The real problem is that forges are the most helpful p2 building AND the cheapest. It’s pretty easy to just increase the cost of forges so that they are no longer cheaper than all the other buildings without taking up a finite resource that some civs rely on. 

Edited Monday at 19:33 by chrstgtr

[Philip the Swaggerless]

7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Why not make it so that it is more fair to all civs?

Civs aren't fair, wood civs have a huge advantage.  They don't have to consider paying for stone mining upgrades until very high pop.

It might punish stone civs less, since they are likely to already be mining stone and possibly have stone mining upgrades.

The only thing fair to all civs is food or metal. (Metal is not fair if you have a merc army, to be fair)  But food is the least likely to affect a decision.  Sure, you could make a weird high amount.  Even at 200 wood 250 food I'd make no less than 2 forges.

I think I like metal because it matters to everyone.

[Philip the Swaggerless]

Wonders

Right now they are glorious structures that are never made except for the rare Wonder race game.

Proposal

• Add 1000 Food cost.
• Make Glorious Expansion free (as a structure aura of the wonder) but give less pop bonus (maybe 15% instead of 20%)

[chrstgtr]

12 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Civs aren't fair, wood civs have a huge advantage.  They don't have to consider paying for stone mining upgrades until very high pop.

It might punish stone civs less, since they are likely to already be mining stone and possibly have stone mining upgrades.

Eh, I think this is really bad logic.

To the extent civs are unfair, we should work to make them more fair—not introduce more disadvantages.

On most maps, in most games, everyone should get first two eco upgrades for every resource as soon as they can, which for the second upgrade should be immediately upon reaching p2. It’s the basic boom. So, this only hurts slinger civs.

12 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

The only thing fair to all civs is food or metal. (Metal is not fair if you have a merc army, to be fair) 

I think you’re conceding why metal is also unfair.

Metal also makes other strategies more difficult (I.e., swords, siege heavy strategies, and champs). I don’t think we should make strategies that are already hard to pull off more difficult by further limiting their supply to a scarce resource. 
 

17 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Sure, you could make a weird high amount.  Even at 200 wood 250 food I'd make no less than 2 forges.

I don’t know why you’re discounting food so much. It’s the slowest gathered but also the most spent. It’s also the most likely resource for someone to have trouble with in p3 and force their resignation (people resign because they run out of food more often than when they resign because they run out of stone or metal, which are the most scarce resources on most maps). If someone has too much food in p2 it’s because they’re making mistakes elsewhere. 

 

[chrstgtr]

15 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Make Glorious Expansion free (as a structure aura of the wonder) but give less pop bonus (maybe 15% instead of 20%)

Strong agree. I also think it should be immediately researched. Having to wait an extra 2 mins (or whatever the amount of time is) doesn’t make sense when the pop bonus is the only reason to ever build a wonder in the first place. 
 

The need for it to be immediately available is even stronger if basically roll the tech cost into the cost of the structure itself. 

Edited Monday at 20:11 by chrstgtr

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Strong agree. I also think it should be immediately researched. Having to wait an extra 2 mins (or whatever the amount of time is) doesn’t make sense when the pop bonus is the only reason to ever build a wonder in the first place. 
 

The need for it to be immediately available is even stronger if basically roll the tech cost into the cost of the structure itself. 

eh hem... this has been the case in DE for ages.    

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Wonders

Right now they are glorious structures that are never made except for the rare Wonder race game.

Proposal

• Add 1000 Food cost.
• Make Glorious Expansion free (as a structure aura of the wonder) but give less pop bonus (maybe 15% instead of 20%)

This makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure you need to add any cost. I'd like to see Wonders built as a matter of course or at least in 50% or so matches. 

[chrstgtr]

7 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

This makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure you need to add any cost.

Also agree. But an extra 1K in food isn’t a hill I will die on. 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

This makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure you need to add any cost. I'd like to see Wonders built as a matter of course or at least in 50% or so matches. 

Fine by me!

[Effervescent]

22 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

The Forge (blacksmith) is too cheap. Traders are too expensive.

Forge

Current Cost: 200 wood and 120 second build time

• It is the cheapest and most quickly built of the standard p2 structures required for going to p3. (forge, market, temple)
• In most cases it is the most critical p2 building to make.

Because of this, many experienced players make a minimum of 2 forges but may make 3 or 4.  They may not even make any other of the p2 buildings.  All or most upgrades are processed simultaneously so there is little trade-off in terms of prioritizing upgrades.

I suggest adding a significant metal cost so that the more blacksmiths you make the slower your p3 upgrade.

Proposed cost: 200 wood 200 metal.

As a player who likes to make 3-4 Forges and get all upgrades ASAP, I can tell you with certainty: I'll still spam Forges at the proposed cost. In fact, I'll make sure to spam Forges if they are expensive because that'll make my tech lead even more valuable.

Having said that, I completely agree with the intention behind the proposal: Make players consciously pick their upgrades and make that choice have a certain weight to it. 

We can achieve this by simply limiting the number of Forges a player can build (like heroes, or maybe like civic centers in Village and Town phases).

22 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Traders

Current Cost: 100 food 80 metal.

• They have a significant cost and are vulnerable.  They're more difficult to protect that regular eco units that have a central work area.
• For the maps that competitive games are played on the main reason (imo) to make them is to unlock the diaspora tech, not the trade income.
• Changing the trading system has been discussed but there's not been any consensus on how to do it.
  •  @real_tabasco_sauce admitted he has no idea what to do with traders.

Based on those points, for the time being, I say just make them cheaper.

Proposed cost:  50 food, 10 metal.

Once again, I agree with the intention (and I doubt any 0ad player will disagree with it). The proposed cost however seems very low.

Traders IMHO should cost as much as a cav, (about 100-150 food). I propose this not based on a balancing perspective, but purely from an aesthetic standpoint.

I mean, a horse costs 50 food (cost of cav unit - cost of inf unit), a woman costs 50 food (don't cancel me pls :). But a horse with a trader on it costs 50 food and 10 metal? How!? Seriously though, I can accept the cost if you give me a proper reason for it.

P.S. Maybe a child on a donkey trading goods would explain it. LOL

[Lion.Kanzen]

31 minutes ago, Effervescent said:

10 metal? How!? Seriously though, I can accept the cost if you give me a proper reason for it.

I assume that goods and travel equipment must cost gold (metal).

And the beast of burden should not be as good as a war horse.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Is the lackluster role of melee units in general adressed in this mod or the meta is still prioritising javelins and ranged dmg over everything else in combat?

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Is the lackluster role of melee units in general adressed in this mod or the meta is still prioritising javelins and ranged dmg over everything else in combat?

In previous versions, a good fight had been achieved but it was again destroyed in favor of the cavalry.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

In previous versions, a good fight had been achieved but it was again destroyed in favor of the cavalry.

When? It certainly wasn't in A24 or A25.

[Lion.Kanzen]

13 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

When? It certainly wasn't in A24 or A25.

It was recent in the development of this version (A27).

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

54 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

It was recent in the development of this version (A27).

Just for the record, I'm still in favor of hard counters.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Is the lackluster role of melee units in general adressed in this mod or the meta is still prioritising javelins and ranged dmg over everything else in combat?

Yes, to an extent. However, the situation where melee infantry units die first is still present.

[AInur]

25 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

7 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

 

Yes, to an extent. However, the situation where melee infantry units die first is still present

Not if you play against me; I will snipe your skirmishers!

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Well, in general, i think the community mod has been good for a26, especially since it fixed a couple of issues with the base game such as the han farm techs not working.

However, because of the division it created, I'd like to suggest a bit of a different approach for the next alpha:

Each version should be a clean slate. This way each version is an opportunity to test some new ideas or balance, and the successes of one version do not become pressure on the subsequent versions to be perfectly balanced. I expect this will result in less regular use of the community mod, which means players will mainly play together on the base game, resulting in less division.

This approach is also more friendly to more experimental ideas, which are currently somewhat avoided in order to avoid "ruining" the com mod. Some of my experimental ideas are an infantry balance where melee units are generally faster than ranged units, with exceptions, and the introduction of a laborer economic unit to tackle the booming = turtle topic.