Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Pithawk's Achievements


Discens (2/14)



  1. Skirmishers have already become OP early game in A18 imo. They are too fast (almost as fast as cav?!?) and can badly out micro any melee by hit and run. There is absolutely no point in building early spears/pikes/swords now except to protect against flanking attacks and absorb enemy arrows. As a player it is my job to adapt to the balancing. So my previous complaint about nerfing melee is likely premature and something I should investigate more. However, my next point I believe goes beyond a simple decision to build more of unit X or Y. I think it fundamentally makes the game less fun. Buildings are too strong/melee are too weak vs buildings. Towers have essentially become mini-fortresses. Whoever can expand to new resources with towers first in phase II wins. It completely voids army macro strategy. For example, player 1 distracts player 2's army with smaller force . Player 1 flanks player 2's CC/infrastructure with cavalry. From here, Player 2 has two options in A17: Option 1: Retract army to save CC/fort/females or other infrastructure Option 2: Push into Player 1's base to also destroy Player 1's infrastructure The single option in A18 is: Option 1: Build 5-10 spears from CC/near by barracks to destroy flanking force or just wait because they will probably die anyway from arrows. In A17, as a defender of said CC, I have learned to do what I can to make sure a flanking attempt will result in heavy losses for my enemy (close by spears, towers, some spears in fields). In A18 the only thing I need to care about defending is expanding my front line until phase III and then it's a race for siege engines. Flanking will sadly become a strategy of the past and in my opinion reduce the creativity of managing armies vastly. For people complaining about CC rush with Cav. Learn to defend your CC, or at least make sure the enemy suffers heavy losses during the attack. For people complaining about infantry destroying forts/buildings too quickly, learn to position your army correctly. This is the way it should be. Buildings should fall quickly without any army to support it. This design decision encourages turtlers (mass towers + forts). Anything that favors turtling over unit numbers and tactics is plain and simple, bad design that makes the game less dimensional. "Historically" arrows bounce off stone and swords are dulled by it. But we are playing a game here guys!! While I understand that historical accuracy is a high priority for this game, it should not retract from the fun of playing it.
  2. Can anyone beat Tango_'s cavalry javelin rush with anything else than more cavalry javelin? (A18 SVN)He beats me every time with it lol, leading me to believe that javelin cav are OP in the early game. Now, I think rushing is an important strategy that should definitely be viable. However, if the only response to a rush is - to do a better rush with the same units...I think this will make for boring 'expert games' since there can be no variation of strategy. Melee get micro'd every time. Skirmishers seem to get wrecked by javelinist cav in A18 SVN. Not sure about spear cav? But they can probably be micro'd as well?
  3. Ah good point Alekusu. No, they don't. So therefore the correct counter is then "H" instead of "control + right click". Thanks Agreed!
  4. I am very excited that formations will be back in A18. Unfortunately in the current state, formations are not quite there yet imo. The amazing thing about formations is that units can be moved long distances without looking a like a bunch of ants making a B-line to the nearest dropped ice cream cone. This is a huge bonus that will improve gameplay immensely!! However, the problem lies with attacking while in formation. When attacking (control + right click, right click, queued attacks with shift + right click), after every right click the units decide to reform which wastes movement (e.g. a unit decides to run away from his enemy to reform). This makes microing units with formations ‘on’ extremely impractical and even exploitable. Here’s an example why: One trick I use for micro is to pull back units which are being damaged. Any units that are ‘locked on’ to attack these damaged units will follow them into my melee or oncoming ranged attack. The correct response of my opponent in this situation is to counter this micro trick with a control + right click to reset his units to attack the nearest enemies. But if my opponent has formations on, my micro trick exploits my opponent even more because units waste movement (and thus attack) by reforming their formation with every control + right click. So, as far as I’m concerned formations are great until you decide to attack at which point they should be temporarily disabled for the selected group. Here’s the pseudo-code that I think might fix these issues: Input: Select group Input: Turn formation ON Engine: Scan for input Input: Attack (control + right click, right click, queued attacks with shift + right click) Engine: Disable formation of selected group (or enable non-formation attack behaviour) Engine: Perform attack(s) Engine: IF(Input == right click (move) { Re-enable formation Move selected group } The only useful exception to this might be if one wished to keep a pack of archers in a tight formation to deter flanking melee attack. In this case, we might amend the above pseudo-code by adding: IF(Stand ground behaviour = TRUE && Input: Attack) Skip formation disable (or enable non-formation attack behaviour), directly before the Engine: “Disable formation” step. The only caveat I can see to this is if disabling a formation causes units to move in any way, which would again waste movement. Is anyone else noticing this during attack micro? Thanks for reading Keep up the great work all !!
  5. Hi, Sorry i will clarify. I meant: 2) To be able to chat in the multiplayer lobby while I am in the match setup screen (or to switch between the two chats). Sometimes when I am in the match setup, I would also like to be apart of the lobby discussion Thanks!
  6. I would love to see: 1) A feature were you can 'ping' other players with a sound while their game is alt-tabbed. Or, a sound when a new game is hosted. I don't like sitting in the lobby and wait for players to join / games to be hosted. 2) A way to chat in the lobby + hosted game Thanks, 0AD rocks!
  7. Thanks again. I see now, there are two scenarios for starting trade routes: 1) Click on origin market, right click on another market to set it as the default trading route. Traders built out of the origin market will now directly route to the default market. 2) Click on trader(s). Right click on destination market, then right click again on origin market (or perhaps vice versa when trading with allies). It even nicely points this out in-game when I hover over the markets...but both games I mentioned earlier were multiplayer and I didn't have time to look
  8. Thanks Lion, good point. Yes, I assigned both origin and destination in the case where I was trading with myself. Eventually I got it working again, but in both cases I sent all my traders back to my origin market before trying again to go to the destination market. Perhaps the traders need to be filled with resources from the origin market before being able to trade with the destination market?
  9. There seems to be a bug with traders. This is what happens: 1) Market (my own or ally) has been destroyed by an enemy and I build a new one 2) I reassign the new market (right click) on another market 3) I select traders and right click on ally market ... 4) Traders stop at ally market and do nothing There is a topic saying the same thing, but only to enemies and neutral: "But if you set the destination point and create a trader/merchant ship, the trader/merchant ship just goes to that market/dock and stops there. So it's not possible to trade with enemy or neutral players (the same goes for gaia markets)." There was a ticket that has perhaps already dealt with this issue for A18? http://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15854
  10. I would like to propose a countering template with three distinct types of relative strength. 1) Attack advantage against unit type (e.g. 1.5x) 2) Attack disadvantage (e.g. 0.5x) 3) Neither at a disadvantage or advantage (1x) Let, 1), 2) and 3) be represented by: 1) ----------------> 2) ----------------> 3) ----------------> Here is the blank template: I have not tried to come up with my own ideas because there is already a complex countering system in 0AD. What would be useful before anyone attempts their own ideas is if someone could create a 'current state' countering figure where all the known relationships are already drawn. From there, I think we could have some insightful discussion / debate on countering and re-balancing. Perhaps there is documentation that includes all the current unit vs unit relationships? .... After a 'current state' map is complete, I would love to see some ideas from the 0AD community that incorporates the idea of attack disadvantage ('x' multipliers are optional, because it gets messy quickly!). Some ideas: - Sword cavalry, I think are OP right now. Instead of simply nerfing sword cav attack, why not lessen their damage against some unit types? (i.e. ----------------> ) - Spear cav are perhaps UP, who counter sword cav, but are weak because they are countered by ranged + melee types (I think?). What if spear cav ----------------> ranged units, but also ranged units ----------------> spear cav.
  11. Romulus http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/leadersns/p/aa121002aRomulus.htm
  12. Rosetta Stone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone or just "Rosetta"?
  13. WOAH...Hold your war chariots on this topic fellas. I just played a 2 hour game where one guy was turtling with tons of fortresses and archers.....this creates two problems because: 1) I could not build any siege units (unless you count war elephants) 2) The catapults of my ally did almost no damage to his forts My two recommendations to make late game faster: 1) Make ranged siege much more effective against forts OR increase their range, which will force the defender to need to counter attack. 2) LEAVE damage of non-siege units VS forts UNCHANGED... PLZZZ... The reason why there are many castles in the world standing today is because they were historically impossible to attack without siege weapons... this = no fun for RTS Given this last experience, lowering the damage of non-siege units versus buildings would make the game go even more slowly. If you get caught without units to defend a fort, it should fall quickly. I hope the developers give this some serious thought. Late game play is already horrendously slow due to fortress spamming.
  14. Game crashed today after a ~2 hour 3v3 multiplayer game. Assertion failed: "0 && (L"FYI: WARN_IF_FALSE reports that a function failed. Feel free to ignore or suppress this warning.")"Location: wdbg_sym.cpp:91 (InitDbghelp) Call stack: While generating an error report, we encountered a second problem. Please be sure to report both this and the subsequent error messages.errno = 12 (Not enough memory)OS error = 8 (Not enough storage is available to process this command.) My system has 8 gigs of ram, so probably some sort of memory leak? I don't think it reported properly, so I am posting it here.
  15. Perhaps 0 AD would benefit from a presence on steam? http://steamcommunity.com/greenlight/faq/#developers
  • Create New...