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 4 Members, 3 Anonymous, 509 Guests (See full list)
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
Here are the results of applying a exponential decay of 1.5 above 100 capture/turn. Before : Screencast+from+2026-04-25+15-51-09.webm After: Screencast+from+2026-04-25+15-56-10.webm Maybe the current decay is too sever or the threshold too low. But here the fort with 20 champs do resist a bit longer to theses 150 legionaries as the defender would probably expect. -
I agree that it introduce a technicality and that's something to avoid. But it's much less so confusing then a full hard cap on capture rate. Especially given that the regeneration would be applied afterward so a hard cap on the rate would just create a artificial point where defenses are strong enough to defend whatever. The exponential decay is, in that regard, far less likely to introduce counter-intuitive behavior. Still a technicality, but one subtle enough for players to never encounter any confusion moment even if they don't know about it. I also agree that generally you want linear rates wherever you can fit them, instead of exponential one, because exponential effects are so hard for humans to comprehend. But here "exponential decay" doesn't result in a "exponential" visible effect. Instead it aims at making capture rates more intuitive by making the faster captures actually slower, therefore likely more intuitive for the defender, and barely less intuitive, for the attacker.
-
Yes, I understood you the first time, I think. What you say is, given a Fortress, you would call normal capture the time an appropriate army would take to capture it, and fast capture the time a huge army would take to capture it... that is, after a certain army size (or quality of troops, or Fortress HP, whatever), you want to cap capture time. That's why in your example you trigger exponential decay after some point because the decay rate is too large. It would work, it’s somewhat equivalent to a capture slots cap, but I think it'd be confusing and frustrating for players to be confronted with a capture slowdown midway the process. That’s why I said, instead of doing that, just cap the rate, and enjoy a linear behavior all along. In your example, “if you are capturing a CC with a total of 500 pts per sec”, just cap that to, say, 300 pts per sec, or whatever that results in a capture time similar to the linear+exponential decay case. Setting a maximum capture rate is a less complicated technicality than combining linear and exponential decay, and it’s a nice and simple way of fixing a minimum capture time. That’s what I meant with a slower linear decay being able to do what you want: nerf fast capturing, leaving alone normal capturing. Good to know! -
In any case, I would PR for what this poll gets us. There haven't been any reason given for the poll proposals to be rendered invalid. The result of 1. would make capturing more difficult then my own taste but whatever...
-
By guerringuerrin · Posted
As a starting point, it seems fine to me. Still, I think that in some normal circumstances, capturing is still a bit too quick/easy. Maybe 1000 points are enough. We’d need to test it.
-
