Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    1.023
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

chrstgtr last won the day on March 26

chrstgtr had the most liked content!

About chrstgtr

Recent Profile Visitors

2.946 profile views

chrstgtr's Achievements

Primus Pilus

Primus Pilus (7/14)

895

Reputation

  1. One of the reasons, yes. I also think balance makes it pragmatically difficult (or impossible) to do, which I think you would agree with at this point you've tried too different versions that are presenting big balance issues. All personal preference. None of these are objective conclusions. None of these are valid reasons to do a change. I disagree with all these positions and actually say that the opposite. Because it is largely about personal preferences. Diving under buildings without consequence This isn't true. You do get damaged. You do die if you stay too long. To the extent you can rush without dying, I think that is a good thing. Basically no one has said that rush was a problem before. buildings acting like a timer for the soldiers to leave This is the same thing as "Diving under buildings without consequence" Healer auras invalidate arrows This is obviously a problem with healer auras. That is what should've been fixed. Note, non-random arrows largely invalidates healing as a concept. This is bad. Lack of control over arrows I kind of agree with you here. But I don't think manually control of arrows is actually used a lot/effectively. Manually control of arrows is possible with random buildingAI This is less important that buildingAI behavior because it occurs less frequently. -------- To the extent there are objective criteria, that objective criteria favors random arrows because random arrows was already balanced. We don't even know if it is possible to balance non-random arrows and your efforts to do so are getting more complicated but with no more success.
  2. I like this (I think I actually suggested it myself at some time in the past) but I think it requires new code to do. Chariots has been something that everyone agrees needs to get changed but there isn't a lot of agreement on what that change should look like or the desired change (trampling) has to get new code to be possible. As a result, we have what we have for now.
  3. This poll is equally clear that non-random arrows is disliked: 66% of votes cast called for random buildingAI for CC/fort ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely," "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted," or "Make the civic center and fortress shoot at random unless targeted") Note this 66% vote share is as great or greater than questions 3 and 4, which you point to as a clear issue). 61% of votes cast called for random buildingAI to be reversed for all buildings ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely" or "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted") The largest vote getter called for random buildingAI ("Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted") But a less popular buildingAI behavior was implemented ("Balance the CC, Tower, and Fortress arrows"). In every way, this was a disfavored option by the voters. To the extent there are "mixed feelings" it is whether a player should be able to override random buildingAI and manually target units. This doesn't consider the likely outcome of a rank order vote. This is like if you asked people what their favorite ice cream flavor was and gave them the options of dark chocolate, milk chocolate, and vanilla and the votes came out as below: Dark chocolate (3) Milk chocolate (2) Vanilla (2) In this scenario, it is clear the people want to chocolate but spread their votes out between two similar options. Same too here. Rebalancing non-random arrows is only popular to the extent that you ignore 2/3 of all votes. Put simply, non-random arrows is/was unpopular. No one has put forth a reason why a new mechanic is needed. By your own admission, the old mechanic worked fine. Change should not inherently be favored. It is also untrue that no one has explained why non-random arrows is bad or why random arrows is good. It is just a question of personal preference, which has clearly been expressed several times at this point by the larger community.
  4. I think the bigger problem that you are getting at is that there is a problem with inf/cav balance.
  5. There should be rigorous debate. If you look back in trac at some of the least popular changes, those were the changes that typically had the least discussion or where dissenting opinions where just outright ignored. Disagree on each version of the community mod being disliked. To be honest, all the versions before 26.6 were pretty widely liked at initial release and those changes are still widely approved of. There are mechanisms to reverse changes. Indeed, we appear to be in the midst of changes with buildingAI and melee rebalance.
  6. I like both. With (2) already committed to a27, I see no reason not to include it. Speaking of a27 commits, I think the Iphicrates patch would also be nice to get into the community mod too. What is your plan for the next community mod, mostly cleanup with arrows/melee balance? I think that is a good plan. If you want to add new ideas, I think the wonder is ripe for reform. Ton of things we could do there. But right now it does basically nothing.
  7. So it is a problem with doing random arrows and manually targeted arrows at the same time ("Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted")? I didn't realize it was built directly within buildingAI. Your choice if you want to try to pursue it. To your point above, the "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted" might be still be problematic, so it might not be worth you spending time on it instead of just doing a total revert.
  8. What do you mean? Wouldn't it just be a total revert? I'm not sure this is entirely true. At least not for early game. It is really hard to target arrows during rushes, especially when you are also trying to hide women/bring men by CC. Meanwhile, players don't like to stay under CCs for long so the defending player has to act really fast. To the extent people can do this, I don't think it's bad to reward them for their micro skills. To your point, late game it might be a problem still. But to the extent it is a problem, it would be similar to the impact of sniping, which isn't done a ton nowadays.
  9. @real_tabasco_saucebalanced mainland (fixed) doesn't have chickens
  10. Note, the mac replay I posted was from a 64 bit mac host. It's been awhile now, but I do think you are right that the OOS error has become more common over the longer term. I don't recall it ever happening when I first started playing in a21. Sometime after that it became a known but pretty rare thing. For a26 it feels like a once every 2-3 weeks in games that I am in
  11. Depends on game but can be. It can also be an effective strategy where a lower player attacks a higher player in TGs (I think that is what you were getting at with the other portion of your reply). Not at home at the moment. But I'll watch later if you think I should. I think the complaints about archers are overstated by some. I agree archers are weak now but in some ways archers are actually better/very strong--it's impossible to do rush where you push near the CC now and archers are quite strong in early game once they get ahead. I think the melee patch in general is more complicated to understand. There are parts I like and others I dislike. I think there have been some good ideas on how to address it. If we ultimately follow the general approach in the melee patch, think it'll take a few tries to get it balanced as well as before (with the added benefit of getting rid of meatshield meta)
  12. I would prob do 50w and moderate reduction of garrison dmg. Not stone because that is unfair to p1 slinger civs. 1 and 3 because: Cost because it is used as a way to circumvent unit production chokepoints (number of unit producing buildings and unit production time). Dmg because it is hard to stand under it and fight for more than a few seconds. Wouldn't do 2 because time hurts eco too much when you build the tower prophylactically. Open to other suggestions, the ^^^ isn't a strong opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...