ValihrAnt
-
Posts
144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by ValihrAnt
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
1
-
-
ValihrAnt vs PhilipTheSwaggerless
SpoilerValihrAnt 1:0 PhilipTheSwaggerless
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
6
-
2
-
-
-
2
-
3
-
-
57 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:
Please note that I would not be able to play/help scheduling in European evenings.
Return of the Feldfeld? I'd be glad to participate in this.
- Interested for the following schedules: Weekly, Lightning European afternoon (13 GMT)
- BO1 or BO3?: BO3-
2
-
-
1) When hovering outside of home territory with a building selected, which is not meant to be built in neutral, receive errors.
ERROR: Parameter without value at pos 74 'House cannot be built in [object Object] territory. Valid territories: own'
ERROR: Invalid tag 'object' at 75 in 'House cannot be built in [object Object] territory. Valid territories: own'
2) When trying to autocomplete in a match lobby get errors. In game and in main lobby works fine.
3) When hosting without STUN get warnings and others can't join. I consistently host games in a25 lobby without STUN without problems.
2) and 3) shown in the interestinglog.html
-
Personally not a fan of the acceleration, nor was I a fan of the rotation times. It simply makes the unit movement feel and look clunky. I'd much rather the AoE4 approach of homing projectiles to eliminate dancing, but retain smooth movement.
-
3
-
1
-
3
-
-
Gameplay mod altering Civic Center & Military Colony cost and territory range. I feel like the currently exorbitant cost of CCs and their vast territory completely negates any interesting gameplay elements the territory mechanic can bring and only ends up with it being a negative. Players have all resources they could ever want in reach and the vast price of CCs makes securing new territory needless or trying to squeeze your opponent out of resources almost impossible.
The mod also includes some economy bonus ideas, which already have patches made and are more detailed in:
The territory changes will be made into a patch if after some test games the changes are liked.
Territory:
Reduce Territory influence gain from 30% to 25% in P2 and from 50% to 25% in P3
Reduce Civic Center cost to 350 Wood + 300 Stone
Reduce Colony cost to 200 Wood + 200 Stone and no metal
Increase Mil Col Territory Radius to 95 Meters from 80 Meters.Eco:
Kush Pyramid eco bonus (Available in P1, cost from 300Stone + 100Metal to 150Stone, Range from 60m to 50m
Sele Farming eco bonus (+15% farming speed in 20m radius of farmstead
Mace Storehouse eco bonus (Instant research time)
Rome pop bonus (Eco and Military structures give +2 pop space, like the old briton and gaul bonus)
Athen research time bonus (15% faster tech research)
-
4
-
3
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
Clicked to 100 right around minute 7 and then had everyone trained 7:27. I didn't take any extra hunt as I think it's really rng dependant to have that. This is pretty much the exact build I use when there is no extra food, except I'd have added an additional farm and the 2nd barrack a bit later with the last few soldiers going to the mines.
-
2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:On 03/11/2021 at 6:45 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:Expand
@ValihrAnt May I suggest you try another civ and another map? Miletus Peninsula, Gallic Highlands, and Saharan Oases skirmish maps are the ones I worked the most on, so are probably the best.
I was thinking about trying out a nomadic civ, so these suggestion are really useful.
-
3
-
-
The structure population bonus was quite liked in the community and allowed players to have a different starting build, so it's a bonus that I'd like to see returned and wanted to ask for input from @Genava55, @Nescio and others before making a patch for this.
I understand that the Celts didn't really have any historical justification for having this bonus and from what I found the Athenians would be a good alternative. In 479 BC the city was atleast partly destroyed by the Persians. The evacuation and later rebuilding of the city seems to me as fitting justification for this bonus.
-
1 minute ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:14 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
But do you agree that these units should not be capable of easily beating spears 1 to 1?
Sword cavalry cost more than spearmen. Provided that spearmen handily beat cavalry when resources are balanced out, that is the relevant point.
Collection time wise the cavalry mercenaries have an ignorable 6 second advantage over spearmen. Normal rank 1 cavalry get convincingly beaten by normal rank 1 spearmen, the big problem stems from the fact that these mercenary cavalry start as rank 2 and thus are capable of instead beating spearmen quite convincingly. Now an advantage that the spearmen have is that they require less upgrades. So the cavalry need 2 stable upgrades and 3 blacksmith upgrades (spearmen do split hack and pierce damage), but the spearmen only need 2 blacksmith upgrades. A fight in which the rank 2 cavalry have only stable upgrades and the spearmen have the 2 blacksmith upgrades is won by spearmen. Though just the attack upgrade for cav evens the fight out and add any of the defense upgrades to that and they start winning consistently.
I really don't think this would be an issue if players were able to reinforce their most vulnerable areas with colonies in P2. The spearmen have an advantage of being able to gather resources too.
27 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:What do you think about giving spearmen in general an experience boost when doing damage to cavalry? And/or a nerf to the rate at which mercs gain experience?
Cavalry could provide more experience in general. An infatry unit which has 50hp gives 100 and a cavalry unit (hp ranges from 100-160) gives 130. So just increasing that would be something to look at. Ranking up also only gives +20% extra experience as loot but +25% hp and +1 armor. So scaling that differently would benefit infantry units. Spearmen already rank up 3x faster when fighting cavalry as the experience comes from damage dealt against how much experience loot the enemy unit gives.
I also added a recording which showcases defending the mercenaries on a 1v1 with spread out woodlines. The hardest part is getting a Civic Center down due to the insane cost and it's a must because I need a forward foothold to be able to push and protect nearby economy units because otherwise he can easily raid my gatherers whilst I'm attacking and then come back to flank my army at a favourable time. The replay does also showcase that the defending player will have a far stronger eco even if there are losses and idle time as long as the enemy isn't able to snowball.
-
50 minutes ago, maroder said:1 hour ago, ValihrAnt said:
Give every civ a Military Colony
That would definitely make it easier to defend your territory, but is also contrary to the efforts to differentiate the civs.
I'll take potentially improved gameplay over 2 civs having a unique buildings, same story as the Persian stable and Macedonian siege workshop.
38 minutes ago, maroder said:But what I think is missing in this debate is the fact the the effectiveness and viability of turtling has been massively nerfed since A24. So imo the problems with super effective raids is the direct effect of that.
The defense against raids should be: build towers and palisades or as it is normally called: turtling.
This works in team games where you can just have everyone on the same woodline and not worry about it running out for the whole game but not 1v1s. Towers were never good against raids and still aren't as units don't spend enough time near them, they work against a sustained push. A possible small cavalry rush and boom into p3 has been the meta for the last few releases and I don't see any good way to add P2 aggression if there aren't footholds (Military colonies) for a defending player to set up. Very well evidenced by the Carthaginian Mercs, which are the only really good P2 unit that has existed in my time around. It would also potentially allow for players to actually execute slow pushes by setting up a colony near the enemy, using towers and infantry units that otherwise take far too long to just run around the map.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Jofursloft said:
The problem I mostly encountered with sword cav is that in order to survive I must have at least 20+ soldiers in the rushed woodline. The more the sword cavs, the more units I need to counter them (if 20 sword cavs mixed sword and jav attack me I need to have like 30 units to defend).
This becomes a serious problem when it comes to 1v1 matches. Except from subalpine, india and savanna biome, in the other biomes I need to keep active 3-4 woodlines when I pass 150 pop (otherwise I exhaust the woodline too fast) and obv I cannot keep an army of 30+ soldiers to defend every woodline. The extreme rapidity with which the cavs move allows to the enemy to kill any group of less than 20 units in your territory, and if you move reinforcements the cavs can run away easily. This becomes really annoying because rushing with sword+jav cavs is so easy, while defending it is so hard.
Reminded me of something that I had thought about a while ago and it would be a roundabout way of solving the issue. Give every civ a Military Colony (I do also think that a general reduction of territory and cost for the CC and Colony would be beneficial, but that's going a bit off topic). Allows a player to defend important areas, the aggressor to utilize their map control to secure important resources/strategic areas. Keep in mind that in close, aggressive games affording even a colony can be tough and it would still only protect one area. And then instead of nerfing aggressive strategies, expand on them.
-
10 hours ago, Dizaka said:10 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
If I interpret the code correctly, the pyramid will be a p1 building and does not count towards the buildings you need for p3.
The price reduction does make it easier, but I doubt if the pyramid will be overly good. The pyramid has still 120 seconds build time and that you could also use that time for chopping wood and getting the wood upgrade.
Ah darn. Then it makes it sort of pointless until endgame to be built.
The beauty of the pyramids being built in p2 is b/c they count towards p3 and help resource gathering. If they only help w/ resource gathering they're likely to be built later on, instead of earlier - especially with the build time.
I don't see why them not counting for P3 will lead to them being built later. It's true that this bonus requires investment and some time to pay off, which is why I don't want to increase the cost of the pyramid more.
I can talk you through my experience with this bonus a bit. In no extra food starts it makes the most sense to place the Pyramid for farms, with extra berries for wood. I found it best to build the pyramid with a single unit quite early on (pre 20 pop) and as the pyramid is completed to send 1 or 2 units to stone, to later afford a 2nd pyramid. The effects of the bonus really become noticeable at around minute 7 when you can suddenly afford so much more than normally. The extra resource influx really sets them up for a strong late game and going Phase 3 with plenty of spare resources for whatever the heart pleases.
-
20 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:20 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
I don't think base sword cav need a nerf. The civs succeeding with them all have some sort of bonus that impacts sword cav, you don't see Britons or Athenians going ham with them. I hadn't actually seen nor thought of using the Mauryan last blacksmith upgrade with sword cav, but that would put them pretty high up. Personally, I think of the citizen sword cavalry that only the mercenaries are problematic.
That’s observation bias. When I want to go sword cav I choose Gauls or carth. and when I am a different civ but have a carth or Gauls ally I let my ally be the cav player bc their civ is better suited. That doesn’t mean that sword cav isn’t OP. It is. It just means that we won’t see brit players use OP sword cav until carth and Gaul cav is nerfed
I've tried doing normal sword cav in 1v1s and I can just tell you that they don't compare to the Carthaginians and I'm relying on the enemy making pretty severe mistakes unlike being able to just force favourable engagements like with the mercenaries.
-
10 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
all civs have rams, all civs have siege factories
And we no longer have the problem of ele civs often being completely unable to push with pointless stalemates.
11 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:multiple civs lost universities, lighthouse changed and as a result is now unused,
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3350 would argue that the library being completely unique to Ptolemies increases differentiation. I didn't actually realize the lighthouse was changed, it's effectively now an outpost on steroids. The value can probably be changed to suit the bigger maps, but the idea is certainly an improvement over it being banned on every naval game.
15 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:cav health tech was propagated to all civs which devalued Persian and sele civ
And they got a new unique tech that affects their champion cav
17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:Maury ele is less helpful now
The worker ele? Don't see how it being nerfed reduces diversity, although iirc I saw a patch returning its old behaviour.
18 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:Athens lost p2 champs, Sparta lost champ types
That's true, I forgot about this. Would like the P2 champs to come back as they were a really cool trait and the new tech doesn't make up for it.
21 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:For some civs like mace their uniqueness has basically been almost totally eliminated.
Is simply being able to build a siege workshop the kind of uniqueness we want though? Its such a basic building that I think it's far better if every civ gets a siege workshop and mace get a unique tech for their siege, on top of the crossbow produced from the siege workshop.
26 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:The diversity isn’t as bad as it was in a24, but I don’t think it is anywhere near where it was in a23 (as imperfect some things were in a23)
I far prefer the diversity of a25 to a23. Just compare the types of units and strategies we see now, it is no longer an infantry spam fest and there are also cavalry and champions involved now.
-
3
-
-
13 minutes ago, vv221 said:
EDIT: Just to avoid confusion, I am talking here about *lack* of diversity compared to what 0 A.D. could be, not *loss* of diversity compared to some older release.
Ah, ok. So there was some misunderstanding then on my part too.
14 minutes ago, vv221 said:Of course I am not saying people are advocating *against* diversity in the civilizations
But this lack of diversity is in my understanding a consequence of the push for balance/fairness. Because it is too tedious to balance wild deviations from the civilizations baseline, such deviations will be dropped if we do not think of the more relaxed solo or coop play against AIs.
From what I know and have seen, the lack of diversity doesn't have any greater reason than noone simply going out of their way to implement it or lead the implementation of it. I just recently started making some patches with the goal of implementing economy bonuses for civs and a problem that I encountered is that there isn't any design plan for how different/assymetrical the civs should be, what should be their playstyle (or should civs not be nudged into any playstyle), about how many bonuses, unique technologies for each civ should be targeted.
-
2
-
-
A24 was less diverse than A23, but the idea that A25 is less diverse than A23 is mostly wrong. I guess the idea comes from the fact that nonexistant bonuses were removed from the history page, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2720. The only actual existant bonus which was removed is the Gaul and Briton population bonus, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950. It's also true that every civ getting a stable removed the uniqueness of the Persian stable, but I think that's an acceptable casualty for better gameplay.
From A23 to A25 most civs have gained actually existing bonuses, only exception being the Britons who haven't yet gotten anything. The gameplay is far more diverse than it was in A23, which was just infantry spam with an occasionaly early rush. The Carthaginians might not have gained any direct bonuses, but they've also gained the most identity with the mercenary changes.
I also don't get from where the notion that the competitive community is pushing for the game to lose civ diversity and how the competitive players are the reason that not enough civ differentiation is done. If there's no one there to make patches nothing will happen.
-
2
-
2
-
-
I don't think base sword cav need a nerf. The civs succeeding with them all have some sort of bonus that impacts sword cav, you don't see Britons or Athenians going ham with them. I hadn't actually seen nor thought of using the Mauryan last blacksmith upgrade with sword cav, but that would put them pretty high up. Personally, I think of the citizen sword cavalry that only the mercenaries are problematic.
For 1v1s, I think it just comes down to people not really knowing how to defend against heavy sword cav play as it requires a different playstyle (for Cartha a really defensive style and even). Scouting your opponent to see if they're on metal and if that's the case then walling up pretty much the whole territory, putting down extra barracks, spamming spearmen, and also going P2 for blacksmith upgrades. Basically just commiting very heavily to P2 and focusing very strong economy and unit production, though it does leave you vulnerable to a basic switch to infantry merc swordsmen. I have a really good example of this in a match vs vinme that I'll upload here too. Exception are Ptolemies and Seleucids who can just demolish them by making merc spear cav.
For TGs they are much more insane. It's very difficult to coordinate walls as you need 4 people to work together on them, which in general makes mobility a far superior choice in teamgames.
0 A.D. Friendly Tournament Series
in General Discussion
Posted
Valihrant vs weirdJokes
Valihrant 1-0 weirdJokes
ValihrAnt_vs_weirdJokes.zip