Forums
-
Welcome
-
- 5,3k
- posts
-
- 38,5k
- posts
-
- 16,7k
- posts
-
-
0 A.D.
-
- 51,1k
- posts
-
- 28,2k
- posts
-
- 47,9k
- posts
-
- 30,1k
- posts
-
- 44,5k
- posts
-
- 148
- posts
-
- 600
- posts
-
- Who Else?
- By AlexHerbert,
-
-
Who's Online 7 Members, 3 Anonymous, 413 Guests (See full list)
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
But what would be the effect of this? What's the difference of having a linear decay followed by an exponential decay, with a slower linear decay that results in the same capture time? There would be a difference only if actual (not total) capture points have an effect on some other stat. If the idea is that it would be noticeable on structures with a lot of capture points, then just give them more capture points (for the linear decay to catch up with the linear+exponential decay), unless I'm missing something. Something else I don’t know how it works is the effect of siege engines on capture points, which they should have to make their use make some sense besides destroying things. Since an army made only of soldiers or only or engines should have a very difficult time taking on a Fortress, I’d say that engines should increase the soldiers’ effect on capture points (not by proximity, but when actually taking part of capture), that way a mixed army would be more efficient. -
Glad you're not thinking +1000 capture points isn't too much. We can go over some calculations for the CC that has a base of 2500 pts, we are increasing it to 3500. So a 40% buff. Without accounting for any regeneration, a 5 second capture would be increased by 2 second or 10 turns. In comparison the existing buff you provided of +25pts/sec would provide on the same scenario ~125 pts. So a 5% buff. On the same scenario this would provide 0.25sec so about 1 turn. So this +1000 pts addition is 10x more effective on fast capture scenarios then regeneration, and the break even point happens after 40sec. A minimum of +2 sec in worse case still gives a bit more room for the defender to react. I see a lot of ideas. But most of them increase the difficulty of capturing across all scenarios. Ideally, we would mostly impact the "worse" scenarios where capture happens just too fast. A suggestion that I'll be willing to implement is to have diminishing effectiveness of capturing over a certain rate. For example, if you are capturing a CC with a total of 500 pts per sec (~125 Romans with Marian reform), the CC lose the first 200 pts normally, but the last 300 pts strength are nerfed by exponential decay. Seems like a solution that could makes minimal changes, introduce little new technicalities and impact precisely the "worse" cases. Basically you could define in the template that capturing faster then Xsecs get exponentially harder. -
We would need to evaluate only the best case (all techs, best units, etc) to work back from a minimum capture time. Other reference cases can be used for better calibration, like, if all are archers, how much time should it take, and so on, but just a very few cases should suffice to have some control on capture time, I just don't know the formulas. And can't the number of units capturing a building be just fixed? Same as the number of units working a field.
-
By guerringuerrin · Posted
One could consider a system where capture points and garrison capacity scale with population. That said, it would likely introduce additional complexity. Even if feasible, it might be preferable to tune fixed values around reasonably standardized scenarios. That could work, although there are additional variables to consider. Capture time will always depend on the size and composition of the army. Are we talking about basic or elite units? Melee or ranged? Are heroes involved? Yes, that seems like a relatively simple solution to implement. As for collisions, they already exist. As shown in the video, when no formation is active, many units are unable to capture and instead try to find alternative paths. I think a certain degree of overlapping is actually beneficial for battles (though not for capturing), otherwise unit behavior can become somewhat clunky. It’s probably a matter of fine-tuning the parameters under specific circumstances. -
By ittihat_ve_terakki · Posted
"Another potential solution" is the opening of my text, and it’s perfectly clear to any English speaker that it’s meant as an additional idea. It doesn’t replace anything, it literally says “another.” It could have been “instead,” but it isn’t. You seem to enjoy these little internet arguments, don’t you? lol The Roman Army Camp can hold 20 units. Strangely enough, when you destroy it, an additional capacity of 30 units appears.
-
