User Details
- User Since
- Jun 8 2020, 5:33 PM (101 w, 2 d)
Today
Makes sense to me.
Wed, Apr 27
It seems like there is wide agreement in the 2x multiplier and some people want more armor. Maybe the armor issue should be dealt with in another patch.
Tue, Apr 19
Apr 17 2022
All of these bonuses seem fine by me, but none of them seem that different from one another and by making them technically different this revision seems to introduce unnecessary complexity into the game. But, again, I don't really care.
Apr 3 2022
Mar 23 2022
Fine for me too
Mar 16 2022
Mar 15 2022
I suspect my ideal is an even bigger nerf, but this is definitely going to be a huge improvement
Distance should be sufficient. I’m fine with this
Mar 14 2022
Mar 12 2022
Mar 11 2022
Mar 10 2022
Mar 6 2022
Mar 5 2022
Mar 2 2022
Mar 1 2022
Feb 28 2022
Feb 27 2022
Anything that is effective against champions is going to be too strong against CS. But I always thought the last nerf was too much. This, though, feels like a little too much of a buff (it's pretty significant at 20%, which actually has compounding effects when killing off armies). I would change to 11 instead of 12.
Feb 22 2022
Feb 3 2022
Feb 2 2022
I think there's a lot of faulty reasoning here, so I will take each in turn.
Not a fan of anything that eliminates player choice. Also worth noting that while some people dislike it, others do like it
Jan 23 2022
Is ele/walrus included in fauna? If so this would impact luring. I think that’s a nice little wrinkle to normal gameplay (but not perfect). I wouldn’t be devastated if it disappeared, though
Dec 26 2021
Dec 25 2021
Dec 20 2021
Is it supposed to be a % improvement for each captured horse? Or is this a one time benefit? The former sounds like more fun, but like it could lead to balance issues at the extremes.
Dec 19 2021
Am I reading this right? To got to city phase players will now HAVE TO build 2 pyramids? As in the old requirements (build 3 p2 buildings, spend metal/stone, and research p3) will no longer be an available method to go p3? If so, that's not necessarily bad, but I would almost never build large pyramids in p2 (or p3 for that matter) because they are such a defensive structure and how you need some p2 buildings (notably the blacksmith and maybe market) if you want to be successful in p3. It could lead to some interesting strats, but I suspect that it will make the cost of going p3 actually be higher than just the cost of the 2 large pyramids since players usually make the necessary p2 buildings as part of their required structures.
I don't have a strong opinion, but there is reason to treat ele and siege differently. A mass of bolt shooters can quickly kill armies and one of the only ways to kill such a mass is to use ele/rams to kill bolts. If bolts can just quickly garrison then valuable siege can hide for long enough until all ele/rams are killed. In effect, this would make siege factories very cheap ways to hide a lot of siege from attacks (as opposed to forts, which are relatively expensive ways to do the same thing). Additionally, unlike siege, ele cannot garrison into forts. So in effect this gives siege two quick hiding spots while ele only have one.
Nov 5 2021
I’ve voiced my disagreements on Ptol being “OP,” but these nerfs seem reasonable enough
Oct 18 2021
Also, that is very difficult to see on your settings. On lower settings (which are the norm on multiplayer games), it will probably be impossible to see
That's the point of it being camouflaged :D the idea is that it is hidden when it is build inside a forest, but semi obvious to spot when build out in the open. I can upload another video/image to maybe show better how good/ bad it is to spot. But the art is more of a placeholder. One could e.g. also add some small palisades to make it more obvious when out in the open.
Oct 16 2021
Does it do anything besides allow the ambushed to hide units?
Oct 15 2021
Thumbs up from me.
Oct 12 2021
This seems pretty different from a proximity damage (aka trampling). It’s basically just palasaides that deal dmg. I’m not crazy about turtling in general but I guess it’s fine if the stats (cost, build time, and dmg) are right. Otherwise this could really slow things down and limit Cavs’ ability to move around.
Sep 28 2021
Sep 22 2021
This makes sense to me and I think expands on one of the “unique” civ aspects in the game.
Sep 18 2021
Sep 15 2021
Is there a reason why we are applying this to Gauls instead of Brits? I only ask because Gauls already has some nice bonuses while Brits doesn’t.
Aug 30 2021
I think this will actually be a pretty strong boost. It will let players not build as many storehouses and maintain efficiency. This will save several hundred wood in the eco ramp up stage, and then save an additional several hundred to a thousand or so in the late game. Since this will also apply to all units, this will save several seconds of shuffling time off res collection early, and then much more late game.
Aug 27 2021
To avoid debate on this, which erroneously presupposes a zero-sum game, I think it would just make more sense to have some sort of game filter option that applies to all maps and allows for (1) random balancing, (2) team res balancing, and (3) player res balancing. In other words, I don't see why we can't just add option instead of replacing old options that people are already happy with.
We just aren’t going to agree here. In my opinion this just forces a particular type of game that is available (but not forced) when res are balanced by team instead of by player
I like.
I would make the fields free. That by itself wasn’t super OP when ptol had it (it was the free storehouses and farmhouses that were the main eco benefit). Otherwise this is really just a benefit of being able to save a couple hundred wood and being able to build your first farm a couple seconds earlier.
I get what you’re saying. I just disagree. If you have more berries, then a rush of any type is more likely. If you have more hunt then a rush of any type is more likely. If I know how much food someone has then I know about how quick they can be, so I know when a pure boom p3 attack will come. This makes information much more uniform, which decreases the incentive to scout and makes the game much more predictable. I think those are both clearly bad changes that take excitement out of the game.
Jun 24 2021
I was asked by @Palaiologos about this and realized that we forgot to implement this popular patch. I still support it.
Jun 21 2021
Too late for a25, but it probably makes sense to expand this to merc buildings, such as embassies, too.
Jun 13 2021
For balancing reasons, I prefer the left version, which I understand is the current SVN setup. Right looks like it will be a big nerf to melee cav in cav fights and allow units like archer cav to too easily escape.
Jun 11 2021
Personally, I like the randomness. It creates more diverse strategies (i.e., I see I have a lot of metal on this map, so I will go champs/mercs or I see there are three mines located in one spot, so I am going to invest in an early CC to get the good spot). The problem is that too often some players are blessed with massive amounts of extra resources while other other players have no extra mines. This creates the situation where map position becomes outcome determinative. Based on the couple of gens you posted, I don't know if diverse strategies will necessarily be eliminated but it's something to consider when we start talking about being "fairer" and spacing things farther apart.
Jun 6 2021
Jun 4 2021
I personally never liked that Rome had its siege taken away from the camps--it was a really unique civ differentiator and I never found Roman camps OP. Nowadays almost no one builds Roman camps, which indicates that the current setup is under-powered. As I said in the forum, since Roman camps can't produce siege in a24 they're only useful if they can shoot arrows at enemy units. That means that camps are only useful if they are placed in an area that will be the center of fighting. Except it is difficult to place buildings somewhere there is constant fighting since your builders will get killed in the fight and the defending player can more quickly spam to a location in their own territory. And, next alpha camps won't be nearly as good as that because D3668 reduces the damage of arrows from Roman camps by more than half.
Wait, why was there the increase in wood for the farm techs? Also, I just realized we will also need to change the p1 resources too--these only change the p2 and p3 values.
Jun 3 2021
Looping back around to this. Are we letting this ticket go unimplemented?
Taking res away from the isthmus will take away a lot of the incentive to build in the center. The center will essentially become nothing but a bottleneck fight zone. This has its pros and cons and I don't have a strong opinion either way. I just want to flag it because it will change the map meta a bit.
Jun 2 2021
Jun 1 2021
This should only really impact rushes. Making skirms (i.e., jav cav) quicker will encourage rushes, which are still a bit difficult with the rotation times being slower than a23 (although faster/easier than now). It will also make players less likely to lose units to enemy archers when passing from afar.
I prefer to make ele vulnerable to pierce instead of melee. That way melee counters rams and range counters ele. This would require players to have diverse units in order to properly fend off varied attacks (i.e., having ele and rams be vulnerable to different types of attacks discourages single unit spam or else the archer spammer could see one ram kill an entire base because the archer spammer didn't build any melee). It would also help solve the meat shield problem with ele because it is very difficult to micro range units off of attacking ele (but perhaps this could be solved by making not automatically target ele when ele are the closest and instead treat ele like cata and bolts).
May 30 2021
I think this is a good change.