Dizaka
-
Posts
482 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Dizaka
-
-
17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I agree, I think no matter what course is taken to balance strategies, this is one to be avoided.
From what I have observed, adding new ccs in a 4v4 is more common than in a23. But in a24, map control is more about archers than anything else, since they are not only the best for defending individual places on the map but also defending huge swaths of territory, I think the main reason for this is because archers can move to defend any structure in your territory faster than any other unit besides cavalry. I think the popular proposed changes set for a25 could help reduce this problem. Rushing was maybe only a little underpowered as balanced in a23. Obviously, making cc's cheaper sounds really bad as added to the current alpha, as this would cause the map to become fully entrenched and make the game endless even faster than in current a24. changing cc's like this could be a great change, if other changes happen with it.
Currently, defensive map control is EXTREMELY easy with forts having the "root" that civic centers do. It's annoying.
In a23 if someone forgot to defend their base and sent all units to the enemy their base was toast if someone attacked it. Currently, all you need to do is place a fort near where your army is. This forces the defender to always have an advantage as their building "root" can be located in multiple places with multiple forts. This forces the attacker from being unable to take over bases defended by women, even more so when walls and undefended forts are present.
In a23 only Ptol/Sele had this ability (secondary cc's of smaller cost). A24 really promotes turtling and winning by forcing the other side to "run out of resources" or an enemy newbie making a really small/big mistake (that amplifies) which can be picked up on by an ally who went all cav (e.g., enemy border did no walls, pocket from other side sees this and overwhelms with cav).
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Stan` said:
If you want to be more efficient, You need to learn / I need to teach you how to make patches. Because usually what goes on the forums stays on the forums, as long as there is no patch. Then when it's on Phab, you can get borg- FeldFeld Valhirant and other devs to validate your patches
But the berries patch.
-
Grab a woman and have her attack a rabbit. Auto-explore.
-
1
-
8
-
-
Awesome, ty.
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:@ValihrAnt Do you think other civs should get P2 push options? I feel like Ptol and Persians are the most obvious turtles right now. Ptolemies should get something aggressive other than just camels. Same applies for Persians.
I think the camel archers are a p2 push that continues from p1. If the camels are successful in p1 they can easily continue onto p2/p3. The issue is they don't work well vs archer civs. Less effective vs slingers. Extremely effective vs spear/skrim/sword/. Also, they are weak vs spear cav (So rome/mace can defend vs these).
-
8 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Dizaka are you using A25 dev version? This mod is intended for A24 and doesn't work on A25 yet. I will try to make it compatible for A25.
Using a24 only with mods. A25 is from SVN using different directory structure.
-
Actually, P2 siege towers sounds interesting. It forces players to diversify armies when P2, especially if going vs a P2 siege tower civ. Additionally, P2 siege towers cost 500 wood and 300 metal. That's a ton and substantially delaying P3.
Palisades are available P1. Carefully placed palisades counter siege towers really well. Actually, putting 500 wood into palisades is an extremely long palisades wall.
I wonder, can "Britons 1" "Britons 2" "Britons 3", etc can be made in the balancing mods to test impact of different changes to civs on balance? Therefore, instead of theory actual gameplay can be tried out vs other players using the way the civ is setup?
-
Tested a Death Match game vs sandbox AI to see the build for Macedonians. Will a test run normal game vs sandbox tomorrow to see the timings and see how it could impact meta. I know with @letsplay0ad's letsfight mod Macdonians were strong and competitive vs Mauryas with arsenal counting towards p3 and without siege towers in p2.
Couple things I've noticed/concerned about (some of the concerns cancel themselves out):
- The arsenal doesn't count towards P3 (Note: only 3 buildings that count towards p3)
- However, you can build siege towers in P2
-
Companion Cav (champs) are immediately available in p2, not after some time.
- lk
- I like the unit movement. Is that the same as the @ValihrAnt mod?
Also, will test other civs.
When trying spartans get the following errors:
Can't build anything but women from the CC/Agora. Error occurs when selecting the CC/Agora.
-
Looks like a bug. Hope it is a bug. I definitely do not want Rome to be gutted more ;/.
-
1
-
-
On 25/04/2021 at 1:05 PM, Pumpy said:
seal clubbing
Wow, I love the way this was described. Hereinafter I'm reserving the name "seal clubber" for some 1400-1800 players.
Can we have a "title" system where, with rank, come titles. Titles could be "Seal Clubber", "Amateur", "Normal", "Above Average" based on the rank of players you've won your games against?
-
1
-
-
What civ is that on? I just logged into SVN and don't see this? At least not from the "Structure Tree."
An interesting change (I think it is a change) is that the Camp/Village for Kushites count towards p3. Likely more possible to do a Kushite macemen push and still get p3.
-
Roman camps needs siege to be built from them. Otherwise, they are just decorations on enemy territory.
-
4
-
-
@BreakfastBurrito_007 p1 and p3 turtling employ same strategies at different scales.
In p1 if you are pushing and build forward tower, build palisades around it. That makes tower uncapturable.
In p1 palisades may be expensive and used sporadically. However, correct placement can give huge advantages.
p1 = palisades prevent unit movement
p3 = palisades prevent siege movement
Both are equally important in their respective phases. However, at p3 palisades are really OP with their low cost.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
When the whole map is like this, you may as well close host. But often, even just a string of towers can defended by archers that are far away, since they can run to the defenses before the attackers reach them and do much damage.
Issue with string of towers is the ability to capture them. Got to put palisades around your towers or, no matter what, enemy pikemen will be able to capture them even if garrisoned.
-
Noob wall (It's not invisible, it's the noob wall):
Cost: 0 wood but frustrated allies
The "I built a wall, no idea what went wrong" wall:
Cost: 300-400 wood (allies go "meh, he built a wall")
Normal game wall (Rams delayed maybe 15-25 secs):
Cost: ~1K wood, happier allies
Pro wall (Note how walls are in parallel. This delays ram movement substantially only for 500-800 more wood. Rams going to be delayed for 2-3 mins minimum):
~1.5-1.8k wood, (each line of 3 turrets 2 wall units is about 58-60 wood)
The "I hate you, have fun" wall (The "meh, I don't want to deal with this, let me find another entry point"):
~1.8-2.1k wood, pros have too much wood. Garrison sword units in tower preferably.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Stan` said:
Note that you can do exactly the same with stone walls. I've seen some crazy wall design over the years
That's no so hard. Just edit binaries\data\mods\public\simulation\templates\template_structure_defensive_palisade.xml and add:
<DeathDamage> <Shape>Circular</Shape> <Range>30</Range> <FriendlyFire>true</FriendlyFire> <Damage> <Crush>600</Crush> </Damage> </DeathDamage>
Note this will damage everything around it. (units, buildings etc.)
Can this be done so that "connected" units get damaged/destroyed and not those within a "radius?"
For example, if you have a palisades like this o--o--o--o--o--o--o and the actual damage is this o--o--o--x--o--o--o then what gets destroyed is this o--o--x--x--x--o--o.
In another example, if you have a palisades like this o--o--o--o--o--o--o and the actual damage is this o--o--o--x--o--o--o then what gets destroyed is this o--o--d--x--x--d--o (x=destroyed, d=damaged, o=still standing).
-
21 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
The builder obviously has invested a lot of wood into building this stuff, so the outcome should be better than just one row.
That's actually the problem. The cost-utility is low. That is, the utility of palisades is so great, because of their low cost, that it's frustrating when allies don't build them and get overwhelmed. The problem summarized: Weak players fail to utilize palisades while strong players overuse them as they know their utility.
Also, palisades are "short" between the "towers." I think they should be longer and the "towers" farther apart thereby if one "wall" is killed more units can fit through.
Palisades decide games, tbh.
-
1
-
-
I like the sand-color that makes the berries stand out. IMO, as long as there is some color differentiation between "map green" and "berry green" it is visible.
-
2
-
-
On 11/05/2021 at 7:26 AM, LetswaveaBook said:
I am not a big fan of doing spooky things. If we implement this, it would not really be obvious to all the players what the difference is.
Agree with this. I'm just throwing ideas around. Personal experience is that the more ideas you throw at something the more likely a reasonable solution gets made.
On 11/05/2021 at 7:26 AM, LetswaveaBook said:Also I hope it does not lead to weird gameplay.
Same.
-
1
-
-
I'll help with what limited knowledge I have. Hopefully my limited knowledge makes me more of a doer than a sayer.
-
In a23 rushing was done by many players early on. Currently, there is a problem where very few players rush. The reason for very few players rushing is that rushing with 1-2 cav within 2-3 mins is generally unfeasible. It is unfeasible for the following reasons:
- Unlike in a23, you now cannot micro arrow evasion. Currently, to rush, you come with 4-5 cav, at minimum, and may have to commit to the rush b/c projectiles always land.
- Archers can kill skrim cav fairly fast (most players only play archer civs).
Thinking about it: What if projectiles behaved different between phase 1 (P1) and then P2/P3?
The suggestion: For example, what if projectiles behaved like in a23 for P1. However, in P2 and P3 they behave like they do in a24 to prevent a "hero" from luring all the arrows?
I believe the change could bring about more early-game rushing and add diversity to gameplay.
@chrstgtr @nani @aixo @Palaiologos @bbgotbanned @PistolPete @VeNDettA @letsplay0ad @borg_ @BoredRusher @badosu
-
5
-
2 hours ago, nani said:
You can't enforce that kind of state sync to corpses bc they are not serialized.
Oh, ignore my stupidity :D.
-
In multiplayer players can hit CTRL+TAB to view summary for current scores quickly. I think the only time it would be useful is in quick scrimmages early on when being rushed. At that point populations are <100 generally.
For multiplayer would it be possible to force the same corpse setting for all players playing? From reading this thread 100 seems like a sweet spot.
-
1
-
-
In multiplayer, would this be different per user or decided by the host?
Would users have an advantage in multiplayer if one player has it on and another off?
-
2 hours ago, nani said:
I like that a lot as a viable option.
I like that because it redefines the term "password" to a more neutral tone of a "buddy game" and adds utility to an existing mechanic. As a "Buddy Game" the icon, instead of a locked lock, could be 2 heads representing a "Buddy Game" and a Sword (or bow) for "Open Game."
Edit: Thinking about it, I like this idea a lot. Simple to the end user. Doesn't use terminology that makes it seem "weird" (e.g., password protected). "Password-protected" is weird in the sense that it functions like an added-in feature rather than a feature that was "naturally designed." (idk how to explain it, it just makes more sense to make it "buddy games" and "public games" vs using terminology that is exclusive like "private").
-
2
-
Balancing Citizen Soldiers (CS) (long shot)
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by Dizaka
Summary 0ad gameplay if no fights happens in the 10-15 min mark. Instead, fights happen in the 16+ min mark.
I think nerfing archers should be cautionary. I really don't want them to end up like in a23. I think, at present, it may be best to use archers as a baseline and bring other units in line with them.