- User Since
- Jun 8 2020, 5:33 PM (52 w, 5 d)
Fri, Jun 11
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.
Sun, Jun 6
Fri, Jun 4
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 techs values too--these only change the p2 and p3 values.
Thu, Jun 3
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.
Wed, Jun 2
Tue, Jun 1
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).
Sun, May 30
I think this is a good change.
Sun, May 23
Fri, May 21
Thu, May 20
I like making the house decay rate the same.
Insomuch as the experience trickle should apply to barracks, I think it should also apply to stables too (note: I don't think it should apply to barracks or stables because players generally only garrison units in order prevent capture and I don't see why the defending player should benefit here in what is otherwise a desperation move. But the XP trickle is way too slow to actually make a difference for the short period of time players garrison units in barracks/stables, so it won't make a big difference one way or the other).
This makes sense to me, and I never cared for this change in the first place. Giving the fortress root means that CCs are of little importance in p3, especially because forts are relatively cheaper and stronger than CCs.
Tue, May 18
I guess I get your aesthetics concerns. My reply is simply that it is a game and not a simulation, and there are countless other ways that things depart from what is "natural." But I acknowledge this likely won't convince you
Sun, May 16
Are these the same rotation times and speeds in the mod you created? If so, I like the balance.
This looks good from my end.
May 12 2021
May 11 2021
May 7 2021
I like this. Getting p2 champs again will be nice.
May 5 2021
I think the +10% health tech would be too cheap/too quickly researched.
Apr 28 2021
Thanks, wraitii. This is needed.
Apr 27 2021
Maybe I can help with the English part. How does this look?
Apr 19 2021
As stated in the forum, the complaints about the worker ele feel off-base because it isn't actually OP. Very few players actually ever train a single worker ele, and this change will make even few players train this unique unit. I see no need to restrict player strategy where there is no actual problem.
Apr 2 2021
Apr 1 2021
Mar 31 2021
I prefer to keep all gather rates the same as they currently are.
Mar 27 2021
Mar 23 2021
A couple considerations to consider for discussion:
Mar 22 2021
Mar 18 2021
Mar 17 2021
I don't like this proposal either. Wonders are super expensive to build. WTF is also super expensive to research. This would mean that it would be very, very difficult to ever get enough res to research WTF (even with the lower cost it would still be cost prohibitive).
Mar 16 2021
I like this. But I think it still a bit too expensive. A 20% discount would mean you need to make 2 CCs to recoup the total amount of invested res (although these wouldn't be the same res). It's pretty rare that one player makes two extra CCs. Also, by keeping it in the CC players would have to sacrifice their pop boom in order to research
Mar 15 2021
Mar 14 2021
Mar 12 2021
Why would anyone want to do this? I wouldn't want to spend resources just to see that the enemy has a soldier fighting my army. Just like I wouldn't want to spend resources to see that my enemy has women farming by their CC because I already assume this.
I agree with the thought that defensive structures need a nerf. And, I think defensive structures were very well balanced in a23 (although I like the addition of more default arrows in a24; correct me if I am wrong that there weren't other buffs to defensive buildings between a23 and a24).
Jun 8 2020
Why not allow to attack fields? Killing fields doesn't make rams OP--no one does it on purpose.
This is a very bad proposal.