Dizaka
-
Posts
482 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Dizaka
-
-
Another game ... was basically a 2v4. anarch disconnected. Azazel_Bass extremely newbie. Guerrin helped by providing skrim cav support.
Going fast p2 and then all in with Merc Cav basically guarantees a win. A game vs sfxxfx and SPACECOMMANDER normally would be longer and closer as they play well, except when vs an OP unit.
-
Just FYI, I'm not against carthagians having sword cav that can rush. However, imo, they are beyond rushing and within 7 minutes you are going for the kill and will likely at least knock out 1 player, maybe 2 if you aren't countered.
-
49 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Something I would add to this story is that a rank 2 unit needs as much xp to promote as a rank 1 unit needs. Since the rank 2 unit has better stats, it has an easier time to get this xp.
Maybe ranking up should be exponentially more difficult?
49 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:I am not against cavalry rushes being lethal, as we also see that bowtech never got his eco rolling. Carthages mercs cavalry seem problematic, especially if the Carthaginian player targets someone who is especially vulnarable (either by a skill difference, or because he has been rushing/rushed).
I'm also not against cavalry rush. I'm for them. However, I think p2 + 2 iberian merc camps + 15 merc cav around 7/8 min is rediculously overpowering.
49 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:Cl2488, has done some strategies with Carthage where he went up with 40 pop and then went for the merc cavalry. That is a decent strategy, though Cl2488 showed himself to be vulnarable to infantry rushes. If the carthaginian player gets 10 sword cavalry, the biggest trouble for your defense is that they can jump at the fields and disrupt your farming. CCs deal lower damage in A25 and women have short LOS, so you can not always see the cavalry coming. Also the CC fits only 20 women, so if you have 5 or more fields, that are some vulnerabilities for you. If you split your army to different wood lines to keep a better view of your territory, then the separated infantry gets slaughtered. Defending with CS cavalry does not help either, as the cheaper mercs defeat your more expensive cavalry 1-on-1 and there is always a chance that the mercs slip though and find some easy damage. CS cavalry can be used as moving outpost.
So anyone who rushes, the best counter, is a counter rush instead of defending. Agreed. In general, what I've noticed, if you're the first to run back to defend you are going to be losing.
With the Carth Merc Cav rush all you need is metal. Once you have 40 units, all you need to do is put 24 on metal, 11 on wood, and 5 on at least one farm. That's all you need. My opinion is that that is way too inexpensive for what the strategy yields.
-
-
5 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:
The problem I mostly encountered with sword cav is that in order to survive I must have at least 20+ soldiers in the rushed woodline. The more the sword cavs, the more units I need to counter them (if 20 sword cavs mixed sword and jav attack me I need to have like 30 units to defend).
This becomes a serious problem when it comes to 1v1 matches. Except from subalpine, india and savanna biome, in the other biomes I need to keep active 3-4 woodlines when I pass 150 pop (otherwise I exhaust the woodline too fast) and obv I cannot keep an army of 30+ soldiers to defend every woodline. The extreme rapidity with which the cavs move allows to the enemy to kill any group of less than 20 units in your territory, and if you move reinforcements the cavs can run away easily. This becomes really annoying because rushing with sword+jav cavs is so easy, while defending it is so hard.
I think that the solution you propose is not really a solution because in this kind of fights most of the units basically don't even survive to the rush (while a lot of sword cav merch arrive to r3).
I think a solution could be eliminating the auto-ranking r2 and making it an upgrade which can be researched in P3 or that requires other previous upgrades (something similar to a bonus that was present in the previous alphas and that allowed to mace barracks to train automatically r2 pikes). And, obviously, nerfing cavs in general.
Interestingly, for Mauryas elephant archers this was sort of fixed by raising the population cost of elephant archers from 1 to 2. I'm really torn on the different ideas (population one I think is extreme).
-
2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Once you get these new upgrades, are they the same unit as they are now? I feel that there should be no way to nullify (3). Also, keep in mind that (1) was not a bonus for engaging mercs, but a nerf to the general experience rate of mercs.
This might be good, but blacksmiths are cheap and, and one can get other important upgrades in the meantime.
I'm not sure. The reason for this idea was at least to prevent 5 min r2 mercs from being available. Currently, they are.
2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:would this upgrade be for all units? or just spearmen? I feel it if it is only spears, then it is a bit too specific, and would feel designed to counter only 1 strategy.
Perhaps it should be for all (non-merc) units, be moderately expensive, and take 1:30, so it can not be an instant reaction. In a way, I like adding some of these well-thought upgrades, to act as a kind of mind-game, and-or upgrade war. If carthage gains other good strategies in a26, training a few mercs to trick your enemy into getting the anti-merc upgrades could be an option for them to slow down your enemy while you try to go p3 to get eles or rams or catapults.
Do you think a combo of (1) and (3) (with no additional upgrades) is fair to the unit? and do the additional upgrades benefit gameplay beyond the balance issue of this particular unit? I think, if these upgrades can benefit gameplay balance and strategy for and against all mercs then they should be added.
One thing is for sure, and that is this unit should not be guaranteed to win engagements in even numbers as it is in a25 especially around minutes 7-12. Obviously it should still be a powerful unit, just not one that can ignore counters.
It could be for all units, or just spearmen (vs merc cav). There's also the possibility of researching a "merc slayer" ability and and "champion slayer" ability. Not sure on exact solution however, as it really depends on individual preferences however there is an issue that needs addressing.
-
6 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
- reduce the rate at which mercenaries gain experience, so that spears will rank up faster in a longer engagement and the tide will turn for the spears after some initial losses. I think this will effect OP mercs units more than non OP mercs, because non-OP mercs do not take engagements versus their number 1 counter.
- This might help the general cav balance as well: perhaps instead of nerfing mercenary experience rate, we could give a bonus to experience gained by spearmen when engaging cavalry units.
@Dizaka which do you think is better between these two. Others: what do you think of these solutions? or do you think these units are OP despite evidence from Dizaka?
I think 1 and 3 seem reasonable, together. I'd modify 1 to have two seperate merc upgrades. One that deals with being auto-ranked r2. The other upgrade that deals with the speed of ranking up faster. Both cost metal and one requires the other - so that they can't be researched in parallel (Blacksmith).
I'd modify 1 so as not only do you get a bonus for engaging them, but you can upgrade to get a bigger bonus for engaging mercs (Blacksmith).
-
Merc cav OP.
10 min mark: 1 players resigned and 104 kills/21 deaths (Border - see first screenshot).
15:40 min mark: 2 players resigned and 206 kills/85 deaths (Border+Pocket - see 2nd screenshot).
Pocket activity: On standby. I was border (blue) and pocket was Acanthis. Only received 100 stone and 200 metal by pocket initially.
Carthage OP due to Mercs who can be available in <5 min and massed within 7/8 min. Because they only cost metal all you need to do is mine metal for mercs. Replay attached.
Note: Strategy credit to @ValihrAnt
@BreakfastBurrito_007@chrstgtr@Yekaterina@LetswaveaBook@alre@Player of 0AD@Lion.Kanzen@badosu@Jofursloft
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, LienRag said:
Fine by me, but the whole thread comes from the fact that these two objectives apparently contradict each other.
And the important point for the game experience is that Civs are unique, so when balance goes against uniqueness the point that makes the Civ unique should stay and balance should be sought by other mechanisms (like sets).
I actually don't think they contradict each other.
The only reason on what happened between a23 and a24 happened because it appears that (1) conventions in the simulation weren't standardized and (2) archers needed a lot of fixing as they were unusable. However, a23 had a good balance of uniqueness, imo.
Right now, what I am seeing is we're going with a25 where slingers/archers/skrimishers are more balanced and now the civs can be "topped off" with their uniqueness. It's a shame of what happened to Ptolemies (no-wood buildings, requiring more time) but right now there is a really pretty close to being a good base for all civs/strategies.
Generally, I'm excited for what will be happening in the future. However, gotta complain and make sure voice is heard on what my opinion is on current uniqueness of civs. Also, macedonians need a lot of love. Rome could use some of it too. (talking about siege)
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, LienRag said:
Then why not have Civilizations for balanced multiplayer (they don't need to be so many, actually if people want perfectly balanced multiplayer they can just all play the same civilization) and other Civilizations for fun (that would not need to be reduced to the 8 actually available in vanilla) ?
As you wrote, it can be done as "sets", and even have some historical background to it, as actual civilization tends to standardize their military equipment and tactics after they get beaten by a superior enemy...
I don't think bands/sets are necesary. As long as there is a "basic template" for damage and bonuses based on "history" there is still place for uniqueness. If people want a balanced 1vs1 then they should play the same standard civ for 1v1. However, I think civs should be balanced and unique so that there isn't a preference of a certain civ that dominates multiplayer.
-
1
-
-
I'd be okay with them being gimped and experience bringing them up to current levels.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I would think of it as a high risk-high reward suicide unit. Target them correctly and you could deal a strong blow against the enemy fleet. If the enemy player is nimble enough, they might be able to mitigate the incoming damage with focus fire or maneuvering.
Iberian fireship run speed is 24.0
Most ships have a run speed of 24.3+ with triremes at the 27.1 range.
Fireships are the slowest naval ship that can be easily outmaneuvered (Except for the underused light ships). That is, unless speed were to be increased when on fire.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I've implemented just such a tech in DE, which becomes available when you choose Lysander at the start. For now it just reduces warship build time by 50%.
That could be huge but most 'deciding' 0ad water battles on water maps happen in p2 (see replay of @ValihrAnt).
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, alre said:
what about this idea: fire ship can be ignited any time, and start burning slowly. the moment you ignite them, they will just go forward in their current direction (because the crew leaves)
Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I could even see a "target cone" that shows you the direction it'll head in and indicate who it may target.
How about the option of garrisoning 1 unit to make it possible to control turning. However, at a certain %HP no turning possible (10%?).
Issue is, starting a burn too early is an expensive 0dmg unit, moreso if they can't turn.
-
My understanding is with the modern CPUs encryption doesn't decrease performance. However, it may be bad for SSDs as they'll get "used up" faster. I haven't had an SSD die yet. The raid I use is software raid (on desktop, don't have raid on arch laptop). My motherboard supports raid but needs special drivers to setup (works with windows) but that won't work with linux.
I use the nvidia drivers on both, desktop and laptop.
The lvm I did more for personal knowledge with multiple reformat for the arch laptop. Attached are the "commands" I use to install arch. I'm using IWD on arch to manage wireless networks. Makes life so much easier but was difficult to setup due to a need to mask wpa_supplicant since it sometimes auto installs on full system upgrade (took a while to figure this out). The links in the file direct to the tutorials I used in addition to the arch wiki.
-
1
-
-
I use debian on a desktop. Arch on a laptop.
I've found arch really difficult to install and it was a steep learning curve. However, it seems like it was worth it. When doing the installation I recommend you follow the tutorials and write down the commands you use in some sort of document. It's useful to figure out where you go wrong and understand everything more.
I started with a regular install of Arch but now it is a raid install on lvm2 that is encrypted. Really happy with it. I think it is actually easier to install 0ad on arch than on debian. I could be wrong but I still can't install newest 0ad on my debian system - just using the 25-rc5-25848 version.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
I don't see why them not counting for P3 will lead to them being built later. It's true that this bonus requires investment and some time to pay off, which is why I don't want to increase the cost of the pyramid more.
I can talk you through my experience with this bonus a bit. In no extra food starts it makes the most sense to place the Pyramid for farms, with extra berries for wood. I found it best to build the pyramid with a single unit quite early on (pre 20 pop) and as the pyramid is completed to send 1 or 2 units to stone, to later afford a 2nd pyramid. The effects of the bonus really become noticeable at around minute 7 when you can suddenly afford so much more than normally. The extra resource influx really sets them up for a strong late game and going Phase 3 with plenty of spare resources for whatever the heart pleases.
Currently they are 300 stone and 100 metal (+15% gather speed).
A barracks costs 100 stone and 200 wood.
An elephant stable costs 200 stone 200 wood.
p1-p3 metal/stone upgrades cost 100, 200, and 300 stone, respectively (+25% bonus).
If you build 2 pyramids it is the equivalent stone of 6 barracks or about 90% of the stone to p3.
The only real place I would build 1 pyramid to max out the pyramid's usage. Such a location is by the CC's stone/metal so that food gatherers can also benefit. In such a situation you get the most benefit for your resources. I wouldn't really use my first pyramid near a woodline unless there is some kind of mine there. Stone/metal upgrades in p1 use 100 stone each and 200 food each.
The way I see it is that it is more prudent, early on, to build the barracks and use the storehouse upgrades for stone/wood. I view the pyramids as more of something to "top off the bonus" rather than supplement it (due to being 15% vs 25% for wood/stone/metal or 20% for food). Allowing it to be a p3 building nullifies this disbenefit and adds a unique feature - a p1 building that is a p2 building counting towards p3.
-
2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
It was very frustrating to watch. I do not remember this type of ddos behavior from the previous waves of attacks.
Same thing as previously. Except person has been quiet and gathered everyone's IP addresses. Makes it look like bad connections. However, it is not. I haven't reset my IP in like 4 mos.
-
4 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
If I interpret the code correctly, the pyramid will be a p1 building and does not count towards the buildings you need for p3.
The price reduction does make it easier, but I doubt if the pyramid will be overly good. The pyramid has still 120 seconds build time and that you could also use that time for chopping wood and getting the wood upgrade.
Ah darn. Then it makes it sort of pointless until endgame to be built.
The beauty of the pyramids being built in p2 is b/c they count towards p3 and help resource gathering. If they only help w/ resource gathering they're likely to be built later on, instead of earlier - especially with the build time.
Should pyramids be moved to p1 and count towards p3 would make then used more for kushites, more uniquely provide a different gamesytle for kushites, and add to the uniqueness instead of the normal "p2 buildings for p3."
-
^
Definitely whoever does it is still around. Clogged my wan port.
@BreakfastBurrito_007 saw it happen.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
As it stands right now, the small pyramid costs 300 stone 100 metal. It means someone will need to be mining stone if they want barracks and pyramid. This also makes the booming of the civ a little more variable and creates room for improvement there. I don't think it will make them as fast or faster than civs like ptol rome or iber.
I think it will. Especially if (based on the chats there) costs are reduced and it still counts towards p3 (based on changelog).
Additionally, you can build it when going from p1 to p2, so it is possible to spend ess time spent building things in p2 for p3.
-
1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:
In the diff you see that at line 15 it reads:
<VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Village Pyramid</VisibleClasses>
So it does not count towards p3.
TY. Sort of coding / coding tools illiterate even if I can do basic stuff.
That may make Kushites really fast, especially if pyramid becomes cheaper then you only need 2 buildings in p2 for p3.
-
21 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Special things don't mean diverse game-play. Kushites had their pyramids for a while, but it did not affect their game style.
So here comes the example of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280 which is something that affect the style of kushites. Not by adding something special, but by empowering what we all ready have. There are more examples like this:
Pyramids actually did affect their gamestyle. Most good kushite players built a pyramid around/near metal/stone and then also built their farms around this pyramid. Usually, kushite farms are built in such a way that they are within the range of the pyramids.
That change would be awesome though. That's what I'd like more of for civ differentiation. The only issue I see is that currently pyramids count towards p3. Being a p1 building I guess they won't count?
-
2
-
-
ignore
[a25] Merc Cav (Carthage + replay)
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
I had to balance attacks between 3 players. So my army was split so it took bigger losses. By balancing on 3 players I was able to keep at least 2 low, 1 medium, the last one was not really touched (black).
Also, for some reason more spear that game.