Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jofursloft

Team bonuses

Recommended Posts

I think that one problem in 0ad are team bonuses. The fact that there are very good team bonuses and shoddy ones, affects also the fact that some civilizations are more / less played respect to others. In fact, let's talk about ibers and rome. If we think about it, iber civilization is quite popular exclusively thanks to their team bonus, while rome (that is anyway a good faction) is rare in 1v1 games, while in team games is very used, widely thanks to it's team bonus. 

Anyway, I don't agree about the fact that a civilization like ptolemies, britons or gauls should have a better team bonus. These are already the strongest civilization, and a better team bonus would boost all players to use only these three civilizations. 

In my opinion better team bonuses must be given to the less used civilization. Let's make some examples: 

  •  Athenians: their team bonus is effective only in naval maps (and is not so op anyway), so is it useful considering that naval maps are played really little?
  •  Carthaginians: considering that trade is the best bonus that can be given to this civilization (looking at it's story), why not to increase it? A 10% bonus doesn't motivate anyone to play this civilization even in a trade-based game (Persia has in my opinion a similar problem)
  •  Seleucids: to reduce the cost of new civic centres (that are also a building that is not so used in team games) only of 100 resources is quite unuseful: do 100 resources of each type affect the game?

I know that surely some players already discussed about it, so I would also like to know if there are some ideas about it or a mod that fixes it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played 90 percent of games as seleucids because i felt in love with one unit but i dont love it anymore, im considering switching to other civ.

 

I usually make military colony instead of CC so yeah that bonus never helped me at all. Maybe it helps when ur team loses base and tries to rebuild cc or when they dont have colony building in the menu so they build cc to expand

In this rare case the reduction is small and even if it was big it probably still wouldnt be game changer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Meta is the Meta

But somes civ can have a little up for team :

For example, Seleucids can reduce 10%  the cost of building ally

 Carthaginians, reduce 20% cost of ally Elefant

Atheniens, + 1armor ally units (op <3)

what the bonus of macedonians?

Edited by Dakara
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, thankforpie said:

I played 90 percent of games as seleucids because i felt in love with one unit but i dont love it anymore, im considering switching to other civ.

What unit, if I can ask? :) 

2 hours ago, Dakara said:

 what the bonus of macedonians?

Why not to increase the allies' territory influence by 20%? Your ideas are really good anyway Dakara: if they were applied, we would probably have more people playing these civs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilisations shouldn't be picked just because of their team bonus, but the team bonus should only be one of the factors in picking a civ. You shouldn't give civs op teambonuses just to make them played, instead they should have their inherent flaws fixed. (ex. Macedonians don't have sword units, making them easy targets for siege spam)

Quote

 Athenians: their team bonus is effective only in naval maps (and is not so op anyway), so is it useful considering that naval maps are played really little?

Could be changed to 25% reduced creation time and 15% reduced cost. They shouldn't be given a land based bonus just because naval isn't played so often.

Quote

Carthaginians: considering that trade is the best bonus that can be given to this civilization (looking at it's story), why not to increase it? A 10% bonus doesn't motivate anyone to play this civilization even in a trade-based game (Persia has in my opinion a similar problem)

If Carthaginian bonus is increased Persian bonus needs to be increased too.

Quote

Seleucids: to reduce the cost of new civic centres (that are also a building that is not so used in team games) only of 100 resources is quite unuseful: do 100 resources of each type affect the game?

It's most useful in nomad. I think it's fine the way it is at the moment. (It affects Military Colonies too).

Quote

Carthaginians, reduce 20% cost of ally Elefant

This is the exact bonus that Kushites have at the moment.

 

Quote

Why not to increase the allies' territory influence by 20%

Current Macedonian team bonus is quite good the way it is. I don't see why it should be changed.

If it were up to me to change team bonuses I'd do it like this:

  1. Iberians: From 20% reduced cost to 10% reduced cost.
  2. Romans: from 20% reduced training time to 15% reduced.
  3. Athenians: From 25% reduced ship training time to 25% reduced train time and 15% reduced ship cost.
  4. Ptolemies: Reducing the trickle speed by 0.25s, because of the fact that the teambonus is working in your favour from start of the match to the end no matter the circumsance.

Other than that the current team bonuses seem fine to me. Briton and Mauryan team bonus is never used at the moment, but that's due to healers being super weak not the team bonus being under powered.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be true as most multi-player game I would pick iberian's Vs or with high rating players or Romans for more novice. Both are the mostly picked Civs in multiplayers because it's team bonus. But eventually they become equal to Britons, Gauls or Ptolemies to because they are easy to boom with.

On 9/21/2018 at 1:38 AM, Jofursloft said:

 Athenians: their team bonus is effective only in naval maps (and is not so op anyway), so is it useful considering that naval maps are played really little?

Well I suppose Athenians are never played while Spartans are most picked in The Hellenic Civs. Their boost is only important in complete naval map ( Island Jumping)  because everyone picks Ptolemies for that ( Lighthouse.) 

So there is. No need of Athenian boost mostly. 

On 9/21/2018 at 7:35 PM, ValihrAnt said:
  • Iberians: From 20% reduced cost to 10% reduced cost.
  • Romans: from 20% reduced training time to 15% reduced.
  • Athenians: From 25% reduced ship training time to 25% reduced train time and 15% reduced ship cost.
  • Ptolemies: Reducing the trickle speed by 0.25s, because of the fact that the teambonus is

doing these changes would make Iberian's and Roman's less popular while making Athenians more picked in Naval map and making Ptolemies nearly out of Multiplayers because their basic food tickling make them better allies. 

 

On 9/21/2018 at 4:08 AM, thankforpie said:

I played 90 percent of games as seleucids because i felt in love with one unit but i dont love it anymore, im considering switching to other civ.

 

I usually make military colony instead of CC so yeah that bonus never helped me at all. Maybe it helps when ur team loses base and tries to rebuild cc or when they dont have colony building in the menu so they build cc to expand

Just because the Cav of Secleucids is good doesn't make them that popular in multiplayer and even you started using Roman's lately. 

And Secluedis can only build military  colony (mostly)  so no use of Cc bonus. 

Mostly I use Gauls , Ptolemies,Spartans in 1v1.

And in Iberians , Gauls,  Britons or Ptolemies ( expect Britons for team bonus) 

To me team bonus make certain Civs popular in team games. Not in 1v1 (Ibetians expecting due to starting walls) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For SP gamer like me I really don’t care about team bonuses as I mostly play solo against multiple bots. After I discovered that the hardest AI on aggressive doesnt cease to attack I always take opponents with more team bonus economically  so that they keep on producing units to attack so the combat is more frequent. The only problem is that AI is not a disciplined attacker. 

Pardon for hijacking the thread but things like this should be of lesser priority to the devs. What is more important are those that appeal to the majority and not the few elite. But if the mindsets of most of the devs are towards these few elites then it will take more alpha to make it really the best of all the historical RTS. 

Game is playable, balance is not really bad and the common/majority players won’t even feel these things. What appeals to them imo is like hey my ram is auto, my arrows are infinite, I’m walking always not even on a dirt road, the earth is round, my favorite Civ units or structures are awesome and most important is the map and it’s meta is really gorgeous that I can play the game for infinite hours. Reloading the saved game that I would rather play SP than a one dimensional MP gameplay with too serious opponents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, (-_-) said:

Doesn’t all Greek factions have the P2 black cloak swordsmen (who happen to be champions)?

The macedoniand lack in sword units: their only ones are 2 of the 3 heroes. Also, they also have no elephants to counter rams, like ptolemies. This makes them really weak against civilizations like celts. I would propose maybe to introduce or P2 cloak swordmen (but maybe they are not historycally accurated) or to add a type of mercenary sword, as Rolf Dew already said

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

The macedoniand lack in sword units: their only ones are 2 of the 3 heroes. Also, they also have no elephants to counter rams, like ptolemies. This makes them really weak against civilizations like celts. I would propose maybe to introduce or P2 cloak swordmen (but maybe they are not historycally accurated) or to add a type of mercenary sword, as Rolf Dew already said

Most of the above are true and their stats make them weak against Roams whom the opponents mostly chose so like a sucide civ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think Thracian mercenaries (depicted as the champion black cloaks) were part of the Macedonian army. In which case, it wouldn’t hurt to give them the p2 swords. However, I am no historian and could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

I think Thracian mercenaries (depicted as the champion black cloaks) were part of the Macedonian army. In which case, it wouldn’t hurt to give them the p2 swords. However, I am no historian and could be wrong.

What could be great should be to implement the Antigonid reform with the elite peltastai. They are not skirmisher, they are a polyvalent shock infantry with a few javelins, bronze pelte and a sword.

http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Peltastai_Makedonikoi_(Hellenistic_Elite_Infantry)#EB2

Edit: else there is the Agrianes, attested in the army of Alexander and of his father.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jofursloft said:

The macedoniand lack in sword units: their only ones are 2 of the 3 heroes

I haven't played core game in a while, but don't the Macedonians have access to the Thracian Black Cloak (a vicious champion swordsman) in Phase 2? :) If so, they may be simply underutilized or perhaps (and this is probably it) they are too expensive.

 

53 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

What could be great should be to implement the Antigonid reform with the elite peltastai. They are not skirmisher, they are a polyvalent shock infantry with a few javelins, bronze pelte and a sword.

I'm pretty sure, and @Nescio please correct me if I'm wrong, the Antigonid Royal Peltasts were mostly just elite heavy pikemen. Of course, during sieges and other special operations they would use javelins and swords, but in pitched battle they'd just be the elite of the pike corps, used to anchor one of the flanks like the Seleucid Silver Shields.

Make spearmen Hack-only and you'd get rid of this over reliance on swordsmen for the anti-ram role.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, the Thracians make for sense for the Macedonians than the Seleucids.  While yes, they are from the Kleuruchi which means they are settlers, I think they would fit better as part of the Macedonian roster.  Maybe replace the Seleucid Thracian with a Bactrian sword of some kind?

Keep in mind when you are discussing military balance that there is a major part of combat missing: formations.  Once those work, all if this speculation here might be for naught.  It might turn out that the Diadochi and Hellenic civs are stupidly powerful in combat.  Or it might not.  Just don't think too far ahead here.

For instance, once formations work, the Macedonians will become quite formidable.  I believe they are the only civ with pikes and hoplites.  Like the French Empire in AOE III they could excel in field battles, but suffer slightly in siege scenarios.

Honestly, why do the black cloaks appear in so many rosters? They are in the Spartan, Athenian, Makedonian, and Seleukid rosters.  A tad unimaginative if you ask me. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm pretty sure, and @Nescio please correct me if I'm wrong, the Antigonid Royal Peltasts were mostly just elite heavy pikemen. Of course, during sieges and other special operations they would use javelins and swords, but in pitched battle they'd just be the elite of the pike corps, used to anchor one of the flanks like the Seleucid Silver Shields.

Yes you are probably right. I checked and it seems they are polyvalent pikemen. 

Anyway there are the Agrianes and the Triballi as good candidates.

22 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Make spearmen Hack-only and you'd get rid of this over reliance on swordsmen for the anti-ram role.

I agree.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phalanx said:

Honestly, why do the black cloaks appear in so many rosters? They are in the Spartan, Athenian, Makedonian, and Seleukid rosters.  A tad unimaginative if you ask me. :P

The Royal Stoa building was just kind of ill-conceived from the get go. Stoas should have more of civic function (like in Delenda Est), not serve as another barracks. :) 

 

13 minutes ago, Phalanx said:

Personally, the Thracians make for sense for the Macedonians than the Seleucids.  While yes, they are from the Kleuruchi which means they are settlers, I think they would fit better as part of the Macedonian roster.  Maybe replace the Seleucid Thracian with a Bactrian sword of some kind?

 

Thracian sword duders make sense for both Seleucia and Macedon, notsomuch for Athens and Sparta. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Thracian sword duders make sense for both Seleucia and Macedon, notsomuch for Athens and Sparta

The problem is the lack of historical swordsmen among the Greeks. Because of the rock-paper-scissor logic it is a problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I haven't played core game in a while, but don't the Macedonians have access to the Thracian Black Cloak (a vicious champion swordsman) in Phase 2? :) If so, they may be simply underutilized or perhaps (and this is probably it) they are too expensive.

No, the Macedonians completely lack in sword units. They can't build Stoà

53 minutes ago, Phalanx said:

For instance, once formations work, the Macedonians will become quite formidable.  I believe they are the only civ with pikes and hoplites.  Like the French Empire in AOE III they could excel in field battles, but suffer slightly in siege scenarios.

Yeah, they would be op, cause they would have an advantage respect to other civilizations with heavy pikes units, like ptolemies, for example.

Anyway, the main problem of Syntagma formation isn't that it gives no bonuses to the player, but also is never used cause it sets the units in a square formation: really good for ranged units, but terrible for melee units: they would lose time setting into a line to create a shield for the back ranged units. Why not to make syntagma formation more rectangular? Back units in formations are unuseful in fight now. 

To make an example I propose to set the formation in order to obtain, If I have something like 80 units not a square composed by 9x9 but a rectangular composed by 20x4. Really more effective

screenshot0189.png.45aba9c4403ecde20fb0a35c93989879.png

Edited by Jofursloft
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm pretty sure, and @Nescio please correct me if I'm wrong, the Antigonid Royal Peltasts were mostly just elite heavy pikemen. Of course, during sieges and other special operations they would use javelins and swords, but in pitched battle they'd just be the elite of the pike corps, used to anchor one of the flanks like the Seleucid Silver Shields.

Yes, you're not mistaken. A peltast (πελταστής) is someone who bears a rimless shield (πέλτη). The term could and was applied to Thracians and other skirmishers, Iphicratean style hoplites, Hellenistic pikemen, etc.

Furthermore, that hoplites, pikemen, and legionaries occassionally used javelins doesn't make them skirmishers by default.

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Make spearmen Hack-only and you'd get rid of this over reliance on swordsmen for the anti-ram role.

What I did in my mod is separating pierce into thrust (spears) and pierce (arrows); spearmen inflict 100% thrust, sabremen 100% hack, swordsmen 50% thrust and 50% hack; rams are vulnerable to all melee units.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nescio said:

 What I did in my mod is separating pierce into thrust (spears) and pierce (arrows); spearmen inflict 100% thrust, sabremen 100% hack, swordsmen 50% thrust and 50% hack; rams are vulnerable to all melee units.

Sorry, you mean that a spear thrust attack can destroy a battle ram? I think the damage can be increased, but that swords must be more effective anyway. Is it possible in real life that a cavarly spear unit can destroy a battle ram easily?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
15 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

Sorry, you mean that a spear thrust attack can destroy a battle ram? I think the damage can be increased, but that swords must be more effective anyway. Is it possible in real life that a cavarly spear unit can destroy a battle ram easily?

In reality, no one was stupid enough to try and destroy the ram first. Killing the people inside would be easier. A spear would actually be more effective than a sword for doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...