All Activity

Diablo 4 Season 11: The 6 Most Nerfed Builds After the Toughness Overhaul With the arrival of Diablo 4 Season 11 (Patch 2.5.0), Blizzard has redefined how survivability works across every class. The newly introduced Toughness system replaces many sources of flat damage reduction, forcing players to adapt to a completely different defensive paradigm. This change impacts nearly every meta-defining build from earlier seasons, and Diablo 4 Items several popular playstyles have taken massive hits as a result. 1) Pulverize Druid Once considered the unkillable titan of Sanctuary, the Pulverize Druid has fallen from grace. Key Nerfs: Barrier uptime and Fortify generation are significantly reduced. Grizzly Rage damage lowered from 60% to 40%, and its scaling per second cut from 4% to 1%. Cooldown timing now begins when Grizzly Rage is activated rather than when it ends. Flat damage reduction has been fully replaced by the new Toughness stat, reducing total survivability. Impact: The Pulverize Druid is no longer the juggernaut it once was. You can still clear content, but don't expect to face-tank Uber bosses anymore. If you're sticking with Druid, it's time to explore Lightning Storm or Poison Creeper builds, which scale better under the new system. 2) Death Trap Rogue The Death Trap Rogue, famous for its fast resets and explosive clears, faces harsh cooldown and scaling adjustments. Key Nerfs: Death Trap and Poison Trap cooldowns have been slightly increased. Twisting Blades damage reduced by 10%. Combo Points specialization now charges faster but yields lower burst per stack. Impact: The infamous trap loops are slower, which reduces the Rogue's signature burst potential. While the build still feels fluid, it lacks the destructive power it once had. Many high-end players are pivoting to Penetrating Shot or Rapid Fire builds for more consistent damage. If you're optimizing new setups, you can buy Diablo IV Items like unique crossbows or buy d4 mats poison-enhancing gear to stay competitive without grinding endlessly.

I think you need to modify the engine. I'm not sure.

Wrong topic delete.

https://interactivepasts.com/civilized-barbarians-in-0-a-d/ Another article.

Nobody said an exhaustive simulation. This is not very exhaustive.(In theory) The only thing I disagree with about WoW is that the formation or battalion shouldn't be fixed. The only advantage this has is that the performance could be better. I'm not asking for flanks and other things. I'm saying that the battalion should function differently in combat. Correct, thank you, that's my point. Bravo. That's why there needs to be a department with a leader. You read what I wrote, tell me what you didn't. Read it again. I'm not saying that the ideas will be taken. I'm saying that it will be discussed (as it already is). And it gets filtered. And if something needs improvement, it gets done. But there must be transparency, a public document outlining what needs to be done or where the desired path is to be taken. ---Let's start again.--- Is 0 AD an open-source clone of the Age of Empires series with fewer features? Or does it aspire to be more? I mean, to innovate. Yes or no? I didn't say it has to be a full Total War game. But the formation should be useful and somewhat more immersive. For now, the battalions are useless and just an aesthetic banner. But not total war. I'm talking about the formations. I wasn't the one who started the conversation about the battalions. Wowgetyou..etc is right. Battalions could give it something unique, as I said before, not many RTS games work that way. The other idea is the idea of progress; that no longer has to do with innovation but with reinforcing the gameplay. The CS are very OP for the economic experience( the snowball effect), but I don't want to remove them. Something has to be done. From there, all that's needed are more game modes. Do you think these are very radical ideas? @real_tabasco_sauce Furthermore, I'm not the only one with these ideas. The change should be gradual and progressive, not a radical change. By sheet I mean a route to follow. Simple.

Being a clone of another game seems to be the case, I suppose. Show me a recent design document.

Battalions can be useful if it helps to create features such as directional attack bonuses and formation bonuses.

Well, select a scenario map from the map selector and play it. Sorry, what am I missing?

Indeed pathfinding may be one of the main issues of bridges - walking on objects could be done with fields already (as they represent buildable objects) but finding a single entrance and exit while actually walking on water (denied area) may not be so simple for pathfinding. Again - in settlers 4 or 5, I remember you could build bridges only at pre-dertmined sites that neeeded definition in the map itself (defined entrance and exit points). Actually, should it be possible to build a bridge everwhere you want? This might be an interesting feature like blocking ships from entering or leaving a river or even denying access to a beach (if building a U-shape bridge)?. A bonus of freely positioned bridges could be that they could be possibly built on land as well (zero height above terrain) and would then be called "roads". I guess that would be a completely different game then.

Thing is, I was never able to play a scenario - how is one supposed to do ? When I choose a scenario in the maps, nothing triggers.

So it should be a parameter somewhere, in order to make it work for everyone (those who like you want to control finely the repair actions, and those who'd prefer it to be more automatic).

You already have that option, and it's on by default when you install the game.

It is a major feature, and there are posts discussing it from A23 era, so it should have been implemented, or at least been a mod, by now.

As I said before, formations should just be turned into battalions, with a bit of Warzone 2100 unit grouping added.

I'm not the one who proposed adding battalions*, but the benefits from my point of view are: - streamlining formations, allowing us to tie formations to battalions, - implementation of battalion-specific bonuses for units that can form a battalion, - de-coupling gatherers from front-line units. In the long run, this will enable us to do all kinds of "battalion-specific" combat roles, allowing players to choose between stronger army or stronger economy. The units that are gathering resources obviously won't belong to any battalion, and they will, for example, need to drop-off resources in order to form battalions. Furthermore, individual units will be weaker than units in a battalion, - more opportunities for strategic positioning, decisions on when to attack and with what, etc. - implementation of a "shared experience pool" between units in a battalion. All units in a battalion will share the combat experience, and when an unit from a battalion dies, its experience is shared between the surviving soldiers. Cons would be the massive changes to the game's meta, and the cost of implementing all this.

@Classic-Burger I can explain why a sheet with a bunch of ideas doesn’t translate to an equivalent bunch of gameplay changes/features. gameplay changes should fit into the scope and style of 0ad, be compatible with existing features, not introduce unnecessary complication, while enriching gameplay. For example, users may suggest realism features, like capturing wild horses to give the player a 1-time discount on a cavalryman. However, that would conflict with other features, like siege speed, hero HP, as 0ad is not an exhaustive simulation. if every idea we came across was implemented as is, 0ad would be quite a mess, wouldn’t it? One other thing is that these changes require people’s work to get them over the finish line. So arguments for a new feature should either convince a dev to take up the task, or the arguer should try it themselves. And that means you may need to modify or walk back the original idea to get more people in agreement.

What is the point of formations? Or more precisely, what are the motivations behind this wish? It seems to me that the motivations are mostly cosmetic. To give a total war vibe.

Pathfinder and units walking on objects. It's not easy.

@wowgetoffyourcellphoneN Within gameplay, we need a conceptual game department that decides to improve gameplay, not just balance. People who contribute ideas and people dedicated to programming improvements, gameplay improvements and that the way to get new features. Many ideas never progress beyond a sheet of paper with ideas.

Los incas del siglo III d.C., al igual que varias ideas del mod, me hicieron cuestionar ciertas cosas jajaja

It would need to be balanced a little, but not too much. Rise battalion, Rise Cohort, Rise Horde etc...

What? One battalion of champions would destroy several battalions of CS. Which is why battalions would need to be a togglable feature, similar to grouping in AoE1. Just in a proper formation. You'd select a group of units that is eligible to form a battalion and you'd click on a "Form Battalion" button (or use a hotkey). Now, any time you select one of the units in a battalion, you will select an entire battalion. Similarly, with a battalion selected, you would click on a "Disband Battalion" button to un-group the units. It's simple in theory, but the implementation will be more complex (as will be adding any bonuses to units in a battalion).

Sorry, I was in a hurry. I mean that, at the moment, a champion unit can fight off a few citizen soldiers, and look cool. But a battalion of champions fighting several battalions of units looks less cool, and makes champs seem less important and special. Hyrule Conquest units are only cannon fodder because of the battalion system, as you would see if you were to compare HC to my remake of it (which is using the same damage and health values most of the time). Battalions also mean that civs should start with a battalion, so then why is there only in building to start… and it would mean removal of Citizen Soldiers, or wasting your troops, as you would have to order an entire battalion to gather resources or build a house.

Okay, but that was H:C, not 0 a.d. 0 a.d doesn't have cannon fodder units. H:C did. And your criticism sounds nonsensical. A battalion of Champions would look "overwhelmed" by armies of battalions? What does this even mean? How is this a coherent criticism? I mean, yeah...

Yeah, I’m surprised this feature hasn’t been implemented into 0 A.D. yet. At the moment bridges are just actors that are placed on land to look like they are bridges, the 0 A.D. team should try to get bridges working for A28.