JC (naval supremacist)
-
Posts
431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by JC (naval supremacist)
-
-
On 4/22/2019 at 8:31 PM, av93 said:
Historically wise, IRC correctly a stone is deadlier than an arrow, because momentum. The stone can crush bones under armor.
But every class should be usueful.
For some reasons, i would feel safer with someone throwing me random stones than aiming me with a bow .. don't you ? A crushed bone is not lethal, an arrow in the belly button or in the eye is. Also, arrows can go through armour and shields, stones don't. A stone will kill only if landing on an unprotected head.
Slingers were the lowest units, no armour, mostly peasants. They were just like auxiliaries. Does it sounds logical that a cheap unit could make more damages than a more valuable one ?
-
1
-
-
On 7/15/2017 at 6:46 AM, wackyserious said:
Carthaginian General
no, it's probably macedonians
-
On 4/22/2019 at 10:16 PM, psypherium said:
I misgendered you at least once, I'm sorry
hahah it's MA'AM
-
1
-
-
I think that the problem isn't that slingers have crushing power ; the problem is that this isn't taken into account in the balance. For the moment, slingers stats are somehow in between the archer and the javelinist (on speed, fire rate, attack and range) . But the fact they can destroy isolated buildings (towers mostly) gives them a strategic power which isn't considered in stats : Whereas the other units cannot stay under the enemy towers too long, the slingers can just destroy them (or almost ,then capture).
Also, i was wondering if slingers are not benefiting from the best balance between range and fire-power : whereas long range (archers) can induces (favorites) the phenomena that the fire-power is wasted on only few closest enemy units (arrows in an already dead unit) ; the short range of skirmishers make them bumping in each other and even more when encountering obstacles . In other words, slingers are, maybe, for now, on an optimum and not simply a linear average between archers and skirmishers.
For next version, rather than making slingers stats simply between archers and skirmishers, on the 3 stats, I advice to :
- Move speed : swap skirmishers and slingers (which make sense as the slingers are very light armour)
- Fire-power : swap archers and slingers (which make sense, an arrow is blatantly more deadly than a stone). (But maybe also consider the strategic advantage of crushing power.)
- Range : keep it like it is
-
very gg. Thx for comments Feld and Aristol
-
1
-
-
Did someone has a copy of this ?
-
1
-
2
-
-
omg, you look so similar.. one can see that you share same ancestors
-
1
-
-
Pop growth :
- 5 pop house / 75 wood (less stairs effect in pop growing)
- 20% building time
- pop room gain by building some other structures than houses
- no metal based human units (metal takes longer to gather than wood)
- no stone buildings (except towers and castle) (stone takes longer to gather than wood) --> easy to spam barracks (with their + pop room)
- rotative farm too boost food production (and thus, possible to lower the number of food workers )
When you know that pop growth is an exponential phenomena, those cumulated advantages gives to celts an insane advantage.
and for units :
- Cav Hero for best dancing (Vecingetorix is the best hero of the game)
- Sword cav for best siege destroying and quick raids
- Slingers, best basic unit since .. very very long time. With basic micro and some healers, slingers can get all <<< and quickly the player dont need even need siege as those massed slingers can destroy absolutely everything or can easily retreat in formation with few dumping.
- Brits have a dog which can reduce ennemy pop in early game and already give a substainable advantage.
I hope that in next version of 0ad i will see team games with 1 or 2 gauls/brits .. and not 6-7 as we often do now.
-
4
-
4
-
-
I like the Pavlovian reaction of those 3 .. auto-congratulates each other with smileys even if they don't really get the point. Lazy minds and poor personalities ; facebook generation.
Boudica, sorry to say that but it's better u just keep "liking" the post of 2 others to avoid wasting your time and mine.. i said i really don't care if this is better or not as the idea in the first place was a joke : making score based on 1 player... (even the name eae is a joke) But i feel i have to answer simply to avoid people to get me wrong.
5 hours ago, Boudica said:The problem is not you being unclear, but you being wrong. The original formula has only one scenario when it is undefined, that is when no game has taken place. Your formula, on the other hand, has an infinite number of cases when the result is undefined (all cases when the player has never won or never lost).
nope .. that makes only 2 cases my friend .. not an infinite number of cases. ( exemples : 10-0 and 0-10 or 7-0 and 0-7 or .. etc) And those 2 cases can be labelled as +Inf and -Inf .. just like there are with the kd ratio. Am I wrong or unclear ?
5 hours ago, Boudica said:It's not really clear what you mean by symmetrical shape of the formula or why your formula should be rated higher in respect to this property. This is where you should be clear.
- it's symmetrical and centred on 0.. .. i give you a simple example : ln(0/10) = -Inf , ln(3/7) = -0,8473 , ln(5/5) = 0 , ln(7/3) = 0,8473 ; ln(10/0) = +Inf .. I hope its clear now.
- I was just saying in first place that taking ffm as the benchmark could be a better idea to avoid having like 99% similar score whatever the formula taken; then i precise that taking the "ln" scale softens the distribution of values (to avoid the massing effect). But im agree with you to say that it will be hard to interpret.
@PhyZic the fnny fact is : I teach math and i create a video game ; while you mostly spec games of others and write crap on this forum. I have probably more respect for a "Retard" than something like you
@ the forum admins : the least, it's not to delete the answer of someone being insulted. Personally, I won't answer on this topic anymore as it's going nowhere
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, soshanko said:
slings throw rocks and historically a sling shot is more powerful than arrow bc sling rocks are heavier than arrow.so slings should damage more. if the enemy is not in proper formation.
archers carry a bow and arrow container also sometimes a small shield, minimum armor, secondary weapon and helmets .So archers should be slower and cost heavy than slings.
except on the head, i dont see how a stone can really kill you (and an helmet can protect well vs stone) And, I prefer to receive a stone on the shoulder than an arrow in the eye or in the belly button :D . The stone was quite light, while the arrow and even more the javelin were more heavy and had more pierce effect. Seriously, making slingers more harmful than archers is a strange decision. The slingers were the most light, cheap and less honorable unit. They had basicaly no protection and were very mobile.
I really think the balance should be
skirm sling archer
speed 2 1 3
range 3 2 1
attack 1 3 2-
1
-
-
actually, slingers are perfectly mid-way between archers and skirmishers on : range, speed, and attack. That's theory. But in practice, while slingers can use their bigger range to escape quick enough inter-bumping skirmishers ; archers move just too slow to move away in time (at least on long distance) . Its seems that slingers occupy a really tiny piece of land and bump in each other very few.
In my opinion, slingers should be the fastest unit moving but providing less damage than archers (which is reality quite obvious). So rather than making slingers simply a mix between archers and skirmishers ; rather make archers the best ranged ; the slingers the fastest and the skirmishers the most harmful.
To summarize
> Now its : (1 is the best , 2 middle, 3 the worst)
skirm sling archer
speed 1 2 3
range 3 2 1
attack 1 2 3> it should be
skirm sling archer
speed 2 1 3
range 3 2 1
attack 1 3 2-
5
-
-
well, i wrote " most " to say i want to avoid the extreme case in which 1 of the player has 0 wins (thus avoid 0 and DIV/0) . I should have been more clear.
Yes; its better formula as its centred on 0 and has symmetrical shape. But seriously, idc if its better or not.
-
1
-
-
On 12/3/2018 at 11:21 PM, faction02 said:
that's not worse than most.
Congratulations !!
1 indeed, statistically speaking, that score would be poorly distributed (massed around 0 and some few values above).
2 what would happen if a player wins more than half of his games vs borg ? Feldfeld, Val, Aristol .. ? 1 game is enough is to be 100% He would be the new benchmark ?
3 this score is calibrated vs 1 player and not all of them. So the gaming style matters and borg can decide to improve your score or even refuse to play vs you
To stick to your idea, better take a well rounded player like ffm as benchmark and make this
ln (Number Wins / Number Fails)
So it will gravitate around 0 for those with same level than ffm ; positive for those who won most games ; negative for those who lost most and no DIV/0 or infinite problems. The score distribution will look better
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
A well-known noob can enter into the balance of the teams. Bun an unknown newbie , might be a noob but also unreliable (leave game, play simcity, .. etc) during the game and make it gg after 10 mins of gaming only. Coz on high level of gaming, 1army suicide or 1 minute delay in helping can be fatal for the whole team.
So the advice i can give you is to help allies and never resign/quit too quickly . Play lot of games to be well-known by others whatever your level is. It takes some time.
-
1
-
-
On 11/17/2018 at 12:33 PM, Dade said:
I remember seeing a player called JC, but I never see him again on my gaming sessions. That's still 1 player playing one "off-the-meta" civs, and I doubt he use them on 1v1.
. Yes, i play Sparta just because they look cool. But if i want to increase my probability of winning in a 1v1 , i play Celts. Why ? Because with Sparta, unless i success basic rush (which is counter by some slingers) i barely reach P3 while the brits/gauls/ptols have already Castle + Hero and some siege (-10% pop) Against Ptol, its possible to resist the very hard 1 wave attack and wait enemy to have no more metal .. but with gauls/brits .. their eco are just too good for sparta to resist endless spam of hyper-mobile slingers + stronger celts eco (farm bonus, cheap barracks) over sparta eco (-10% eco and extra building to get hero). Sparta has to rely on late P3 to push back with all upgrades .. but often its already too late ; slingers are walking all around, retreating at will with no casualties (while spartan units are stucked by obstacles) , destroying towers .. and Sparta rams are counter by fast sword cavs .. slingers are massively used coz they are just too easy to use ... and often reach <<< veteran grade and finally are even able to destroy CC alone.
Also, when you see stats of units, the slinger is just situated midway between archers and skirmishers .. but seriously .. how can a little stone can make more damage than an arrow or a javelin ? I would suggest the devs to make slingers the fastest infantery (more than skirmishers) but also, the less shielded and less harmful.
n.b : i just discover recently that SParta has +10% building time and Celts -20% .. thats huge gap
-
2
-
1
-
-
And for Liberrty and Mortak, sorry borg, it was not the case either . Better you review your sense of judgement and evaluation coz it has more to do with hate than objectivity
-
1
-
-
- Boudica (I won last 1v1)
- Valihrant (won last mainland but lost 2 navals)
- borg (lost)
- Phyzic (1 game long time ago - and now refuses to play with me now)
- camelius ( 3 - 3 )
- chrstgtr (I won last 1v1 )
- Feldfeld (lost)
- RolandSC2 (I won last 1v1)
- Emperior (refuses to play with me 1v1)
- faction02 (I won last 1v1)
so .. as u can see, your list is a joke spiced with usual hate. And when i say "won last" it doesnt mean i won 1 game , but just shows that taking last result is enough to dismiss false statments. I ask a list of 10 players confirmed better on all type of maps. And i can say that theres is only 3 players i confirm are better than me. Im not saying other players are inferior to me, i m modestly just saying that those 7 other players cannot be classified as better than me.
-
1
-
I never ever pretend to be TOP3, i just pointed out to jc's-haters that they can't give me 10 names of players better than me. I can just give 3 names with certitude. And sorry to insist, but yes, as far as i remember, i won most games. Maybe its just a feeling ?? Glad, you still have all the replays, it's not my case as i switched many times my OS as it's well known.
ofc, we can play 20 games to figure out if my claims are fantasy or not.
-
1
-
-
its lying which makes you incomfortable and pushs you to write all this ? Did i ever said in my comment that u lost most games ? nope, but it seems it was in ur mind .. " 50% " haha
And no, im silver = Top10 : not gold = Top3 . Even if my lobby score is 1925, i stay modest and realist on my level.
And yes, this thread is not populate of replays with predictable results. Normal.
-
Would be nice to have some in-game musicians with aura to play drums or flute to motivate troops in formation. Shouts and yells during battles and wave high some flags .This will creates some war ambiance during battles.
-
6
-
-
i suggest 0AD24 Xenophobic or 0AD Xena warrior Princess to be more inclusive
-
2 games only ? why be so selective ? uhm ?? he he
Boudica, why do you like all the rare games i lose ? Some resentment ? he he
-
The presence of this replay on the forum is the evidence of how extraordinary and/or lucky this victory was. Stockfish is indeed a better player than you, your joy is justified
-
oh man, please
Put the 4 games we played after. You know ? Those 4 games who made you realize that the first game was just pure luck.
4 games only coz, you refuse to play vs me now x)
CArthage : the map !
in Scenario Design/Map making
Posted
nah, too much time to make. But i hope i gave some ideas for people making maps .(ie : clustering buildings in each others)