Feldfeld
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by Feldfeld
-
-
38 minutes ago, elexis said:
The command can only be executed if the game as it is downloaded allows it.
So, if my opponent cheats, it would be incompatible with my game and would trigger an out of sync because according to my game the opponent has less ressources.
But does that mean that this cheat engine could at least monitor opponents' ressources ? If it is available in the memory of my game. Or does it works another way ?
-
Happened to me too 2018-03-23_0006.7z
-
31 minutes ago, Servo said:
The bug if it is also happened to me from partially built. I noticed my Kushite ally has a house at 40 HP and 113 HP. The barracks at 1 HP but noticed when I tried to help it build my units are inside the barracks border (seems too much inside) as it differs I think on some other factions.
The bug also happens when your building has been scouted by another guy. Which means it can block building even if it started.
-
They should be harder to mass due to train time incrase. If skirmisher cavalry was an obstacle for their massing in a22 (which i don't remember), then other units such as spear cav would replace them for this job. Infantry should be massed way faster than archer cav.
But that's true i focused my testing on spear cav rush and strats with slingers recently, because i feared it more. Next weekend i'll try to test archer cav mass.
-
1
-
-
They will be difficult to mass. But if they are massed, you could still deal with them. Beside what you listed, there are also champions, including spear inf/cav who would be efficient against them, or simply a lot of ranged infantry with meat shield (who can also harvest ressources which compensates a bit of strength difference) can do reasonably well. Still, it is true that they should be quite strong and 2 days ago i voiced the idea to give them an accuracy bit lower than their infantry counterpart.
By the way, with archers being the unit with the lowest attack in the ranged units, on paper if i understand well, any unit with something like 7-8 base pierce armor or more should take very little damage since armor compensates attack. They would die very slowly. However i never tested it, not sure it works that way.
-
balance still being discussed, but skirm cav definitely not op.
Ai is just bad dealing with rushes, i can get kd 50/0 against it with any kind of rush.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 07/03/2018 at 7:43 AM, stanislas69 said:
Yep the rally point thingy is @temple doing.
little funny consequence.
It was possible in a22 but i think it's faster now. Also if i want i can change the direction.
-
2
-
6
-
-
It seems like you have alpha 21. I don't know how it works in linux, but perhaps the instructions here could be useful : https://play0ad.com/download/linux/
-
Did you install an older version ? Currently the game is in alpha 22.
-
1
-
-
I think he thought of a way to make archers automatically target skirmishers if triggered by some actions.
Obviously it is not viable to do it manually, and it becomes even worse when there are large numbers involved.
-
1 hour ago, causative said:
Is it enough? Seems there are balance issues every release.
If i recall well, a22 SVN games were mostly played before the important balance changes. (for me, I didn't play any after,but i can't be sure for other people)
-
A simple accuracy nerf for both skirmisher cavalry AND archer cavalry (we shouldn't forget them) can be enough, or we could try some more complex changes suggested by others.
I think that with enough testing we can make sure that one unit can't be OP in next alpha. Actually, before alpha 22 was released it was warned that with current balancing skirmisher cavalry would be OP. And, i don't remember why, but i didn't even test it on SVN with other people (i just played a bit in singleplayer SVN before stating skirmisher cavalry would be OP). I don't know if other people tried it in SVN with other people, but I think that with more testing this alpha could be better balanced.
And i actually think that people are overestimating rushing power. Against borg, i may have the best hunt in the world, i would still be unable to hit his wood even if he almost haven't made any cav. The best i could achieve is make his farming women garrison (which is quite good, but is it enough ?). The reason is that he can train more soldiers on wood, with britons, because slingers are cheap in early game (otherwise it may be impossible to counter cavalry raid atm). I don't really see the point of forbidding cav in multiplayer games, sometimes i happen to play without training cav even if it is allowed, and still get excellent results. So i think nerf should be slight.
Also, not to mention, cavalry is weaker in some more closed map than mainland (which is almost played everytime). If there is water between teams, you can boom without cav and then try an infantry army composition. In nomad, both raiding with cav or booming without are very viable strategies, i'd call them quite balanced on this map. Generally, a CC is built close to wood so you can garrison wood gatherer, which reduces raids strength.
-
Games of this series were all unrated and played since 2 days ago.
You can find here comeback, nice raids and excellent defense, traps, and some unique strategies, but also some balance abusing and map advantage dictating 1 or 2 games win (i suggest to skip game 1, the least interesting one).
Overall, it might show that the balance is not as broken as some people say.-
3
-
-
As the game currently is, when you micro an army against another, for melee units (i'll only speak about melee units here), you will always want to micro it so that you have more units that deal hit, and that your opponent has less units that deal hits.
With current formations, it is not worth it to fight in formation because while you limit your units by imposing them a specific place to stay in, ennemy army is free, and especially, ennemy can micro it so he enters a bigger mass of unit in a specific place of your formation and, that way, he'll have more units fighting than yours so the fight will be better for him. That way, locked formations is no good.
If however, locked formations can be in a way that ennemy units can go in your formation due to pathfinding (i mean that they can't get past your first line of units), and that the distance between your units in formation is minimal, then thereotically (it's the way i see it), the fight should be better for you. Few units will be fighting against few at a time but you'll have more than you opponent. But formations that can't be broken is not realistic, and this is where charging could be interesting. I'm not sure that it is possible to make locked formations like the way i described however.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
Dude this doesn't matter that you can post game expamples of Pros beating other pros on Arabia or another map.
Because AoE offers more POSSIBLE strategies because of a better game design and more VIABLE strategies because of better balance. Also the game usually does not end with a Flush in AoE but instead with more tactical choices depending on the civ matchup AFTER the rush, which consists of adding multiple additional units, researching unit lines to counter enemy unit lines (like getting champions/halbs against people going cavalry upgrades) or getting trash units + archers, or mobile harassment forces (like woadies, Boyars or whatever) or getting siege to counter mass trash or getting monks to convert powerful enemy units or whatever. This isn't present in 0 AD because IT ISN'T EXISTANT.
Because the game design is unfinished, incoherent and unbalanced and there are only a couple POSSIBLE strategies and only a few VIABLE strategies, which limits both singleplayer and multiplayer. Just accept it instead of arguing against it.
and
2 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:Well it isn't really beneficial to start discussing whether this is OP or not. I do believe you - the issue is pretty simple: having mobile harassment earlygame in a game like this is a large advantage and result of sloppy/bad faction design and another example why a proper gameplay dev (team) is needed since the team doesn't understand how the game mechanics of RTS games work/why and which mechanics are fun and rewarding for player's experience. I just took these games as a very random example of how boring, strategically unattractive, repetitive and unrewarding the tech demo is in multiplayer.
If I'd play more than like 5 of these games I'd immediately ditch it and play something else because it sucks (just like I did with Age of Empires 1 after playing against those weird vietnamese players).
If you want examples of interesting strategical games in 0ad i'll eventually give some replay.
As for unit composition, it is only 1 type of strategy and 0ad could have it with natural/hard counters. But in the end we can always show videos of a boring game of 0ad or a boring game of aeo2 this doesnt show nothing.
As it is now a live discussion i just say that i am out of it for today lol.
-
3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
Yes the suspense in this game is killing me literally. Especially the strategical choice of building a clump of cavalry units and sending it over to the enemy after booming for like 15 minutes. AoE II is nowhere near this strategical finesse with all its unit line upgrades, different military building paths and overall tech trees, and stuff like dark age rushing, feudal scout rush or archer flsuhing etc.
I could very well give an AoE2 video of a pro player beating another pro player with a rush (let's say, scout rush ? feodal rush ?) on arabia map, and
4 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:This one aswell. 100 camel archers are really much better gameplay than AoE II.
I could very well give an AoE2 video of a team game where a pocket player comes with paladin and spam it.
-
5 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
Okay then compare this:
to this
It's pretty self explanatory why 0 ad is inferior to Age II by miles.
For both 0ad and AoE2, very inexperienced players will just try to build a city, an army, and fight, while trying somehow to use the advantage the maps and civ give. I think it's irrelevant to compare like this, this doesnt show how gameplay is different between new players in 0ad and new players in aoe2.
As for your AoE2 video, i cant watch it for now but at first sight seems like a match in an exotic map. As i said in an earlier post, in 0ad too you can do different strategies that are very special to some map (example : migration).
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:9 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:
I'm okay with the strategical choices you said for the start of the game, this is about it.
However, there is more of it middle and late game. I'll give a few examples here :
In 1v1, p2 you can choose to early expand to grab territory (ressource monopolizing). This is useful in very late game if you need metal or if ennemy starts to be out of wood. However, its disadvantage is that for quite some time your opponent will have a batter economy and more population, so it could be bad.
Another one (used by borg only as far as i know ...) is to advance p2 then p3 quickly while it is actually a rushing game and that the player doing so wont be able to spam lategame unit for quite some time. One explanation i found was the HP bonus for fighting units, another one i read was that it was about bluffing (opponent may wonder if the player has actually a good eco ...), or it could be to be able to build siege unit quickly.
About 4v4 : more players so more possibility, some i can remember is (for open map like mainland) : take the center quickly for the ressources, and being able to strike an ennemy from all sides (an army take time to walk after all !). You can invest into trade, you can try to raid trade. Early 4v4 game, pocket players (those who are close to ally only) may decide to rush in order to help their nearby ally against his direct opponent. Or not to do so and boom for late game.
This is not even considering what strategies other maps can offer.
Also, this talk was about conquest mode. In FFA, for some reasons, there are a lot of ways of playing...
Well yes, you have a COUPLE of options. However, this isn't nearly comparable to a "real" Age of Empires 2, a Starcraft game or any other game that is played by a larger community in competition. Also see this, as I'm trying to explain my point:
Well, i'd like to see why it isn't nearly comparable to a "real" age of empires 2.
AoE2 has some kind of rushes : tower rush, dark rush, feodal rush, but 0ad too (cav rush, fanatic rush, that can come at different phase). And for AoE, build order is strictly defined with few changes that can come in actual game unlike 0ad.
for AoE2 gaining map control by building castle is comparable to building CC, then protect a ressource by towering or building fortress near it. also, one way to expanding to gain a ressource in 0ad is to build many buildings to gain territory.
And in imperial Age, it is about spamming the right mix of units.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
Nope it's not enough. There are some tactical choices indeed.
military unit training start <-> economic unit training start
military building start <-> ecnomonic building startThen you can select between a variety of earlygame units (spear/swordman, slinger/skirmisher, vacalry A/B)
All from the start, with no further strategical choices required. AND after that you spam champions/elite units because they're superior to all earlygame units, buildings and other units.
And that's about it. And that's a problem.
@Grugnas Indeed, Starcraft is also a great game with lots of strategical and tactical depth.
I'm okay with the strategical choices you said for the start of the game, this is about it.
However, there is more of it middle and late game. I'll give a few examples here :
In 1v1, p2 you can choose to early expand to grab territory (ressource monopolizing). This is useful in very late game if you need metal or if ennemy starts to be out of wood. However, its disadvantage is that for quite some time your opponent will have a batter economy and more population, so it could be bad.
Another one (used by borg only as far as i know ...) is to advance p2 then p3 quickly while it is actually a rushing game and that the player doing so wont be able to spam lategame unit for quite some time. One explanation i found was the HP bonus for fighting units, another one i read was that it was about bluffing (opponent may wonder if the player has actually a good eco ...), or it could be to be able to build siege unit quickly.
About 4v4 : more players so more possibility, some i can remember is (for open map like mainland) : take the center quickly for the ressources, and being able to strike an ennemy from all sides (an army take time to walk after all !). You can invest into trade, you can try to raid trade. Early 4v4 game, pocket players (those who are close to ally only) may decide to rush in order to help their nearby ally against his direct opponent. Or not to do so and boom for late game.
This is not even considering what strategies other maps can offer.
Also, this talk was about conquest mode. In FFA, for some reasons, there are a lot of ways of playing...
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
As usual a "balancer" who doesn't understand the problem.
Let me quote the issue in my FIRST sentence again:
"There is no "best buildorder" because there is no teching"
So? What does your post with "if you do that you will loose because *blablabla*"How do I loose? With what? By building units? By not building units? By booming? By rushing?
I said you have the OPTION to spam women AND/OR citizen soldiers AND/OR the basic military units from your Commandcenter. I didn't say "OMG BUILD 3 WOMEN THEN 8 CAV ARCHERS AND THEN BOOM OP BEST BUILDORDER".
To quote myself
So maybe you should start to read something about "variety of choices" "strategical depth" and "gameflow" before lecturing me about how you beat up everyone else with your proness, okay?
@Grugnas sort of agree with your points. One thing I'd like to add is that people leave because of "balance" - indeed. But most people will leave earlier because of poor gameplay mechanics. I'm currently asking friends I play other RTS games with to play 0 AD games with me and then come back with a small survey about feedback.
People already have have Age 2 HD and all its variations with tenthousands of players and AoE IV + Definitive Edition coming soon. There no longer is a need for an AoE clone because the "real thing" will >>>>>>>>> 0 AD both in terms of game mechanics aswell as graphics. Leaving 0 AD with nothing behind.
So for you it isnt enough that :
- There are strategies available at the start of the game, and you need to think about choosing the most appropriate
- Once you have chosen one, you need to think about how to do it, because its execution changes every game.
Because, my point last post was that your booming strategy could be countered by another strategy (rush) or by this strategy being done better. Also, the other strategies i said in the other post (for example ressource monopolizing or other i don't know) are still valid and all could be used as an example to answer your post. I mean that spamming units is not all and that it can be countered by better strategy depending on game which mean that all of these remain valid overall in the game.
And build order is one of the things that make your strategy better. (after all you can't effectively do a strategy if you don't build units from CC do you ?) All my talk about build order showed that there is not only 1 way to do a strategy.
And sorry for not knowing what does the word "teching" mean.
So in the end did you refute my words when i say that there are strategies available ? And that you need to think about them ?
-
2 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
There is no "best buildorder" because there is no teching in general. You spam women, cavalry, soldiers, archers etc all from your TC adn then go to phase III and spam like 2 types of super units. Also there are only a couple of technologies available and they're either completely useless (especially priests) and no brainers (daamge upgrades etc.).
It's like playing a dumbed down Age of Empires with even more booming and no own flavor. And it's definately not going to improve with balancing these aspects. It's like putting new rims on a 20 year old car.
No. If you do so you will lose. Either you get a disadvantage before p3 due to a rush, that may end the game sooner, either later because as you didn't think about your build order (that must be improvised right in the game) you got behind at economy and are at a disadvantage.
If you have 50k res in bank, yes tech are no brainer. Otherwise you have to choose between them (which one to do first always has an importance).
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
Read these topics before bothering me again, kthx.
Then i'll just develop for the 2 first points that are, i believe the main points that really are influenced by gameplay design.
1 hour ago, Nescio said:Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy
and
1 hour ago, Nescio said:Single path to victory - It seems to be a trend that games cater to a specific strategy that is frequently used to attain a victory. That could be rushing, turtling, booming, etc. We recognise these are valid ways to win a game, but we will attempt to not favour one over another. Players should be able to successfully use (and adapt/change) any strategy to achieve a victory.
.
I believe that proper balancing solve the 2nd point, where all these strategies(that are examples for "conquest" type of games) can be balanced, i can also add another example which is ressource monopolizing strategy. I've seen effective uses of all these strategies, and if one can be better than another it's due to balancing (and if it is really needed i can show how simply balancing can fix that).
For the 1st point, it's a bit more complicated but i'll show how 0ad managed to fulfill this point quite successfully.
I saw some people say "do best build order that does best strategy and win". But to me this is false for 0AD and i'll explain why :
Currently, there is no best build order and it is impossible to find a build order that you can apply to each game and expect it to be good. Why ? There is 2 to 3 reasons that work together. The first one is training time of unit along with batch training and citizen soldiers. The 2nd is ressource disposition at start of a game. Your starting ressources influence a lot how you will create units and that will create imbalances really early in the game. The reason behind this is that, to compare with Age of Empires games, 0 A.D's economic units weigh less overall but are in more numbers, train faster, and due to batch training, unlike AoE, you can train as much units as your ressources can afford, instead of 1 villager by 1. So if you have more ressources, you'll be able to grow your population quicker. And it is so true that simply the distance between the woodline you're taking and the CC can make a difference, so just imagine what additional berries or hunt can do. Why is it important ? Because having these advantages is good, but not knowing how to use them will lead to nothing. If you don't adapt with which units you will do or which technologies you will research, you will end up with useless unspent ressource that add up in your bank which is not good. Not to mention that the strategies you will decide to do will be influenced by these facts. What conclusion should we take of this ? It is that it is impossible to apply "brainless build order" and that it is useless to be fast clicking if you don't know the proper thing to do.
3rd reason is about guessing what your opponent will do. If you know that your opponent will rush but you wont rush yourself, you'll for example prefer making citizen soldier which result in more "imbalances" early game.
So that mean that fastest click clearly is far than being enough in order to win a game. I'll also finish this argument by saying, as an example that currently online, nobody is ever pretending to know a "best build order" (nobody is even speaking about that, never), and that in most recent games between some of the best player in 0ad (borg and me), the strategies and build order we used were always different.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:
Which is the opposite of what's currently ingame, yes.
And i'd like to know for which points.
-
1
-
-
About the proposition of splitting singleplayer/online game style, i see few issues there. I think mods could handle much more efficiently single player desires.
- Can the devs keep up 2 games at a time while they seem to struggle with only one ?
- If some features are officially implemented in singleplayer but not in multiplayer, it would raise some issues are people would be constantly asking for one or an other feature in singleplayer to be in multiplayer too. Also, it would be quite disrupting for players that decide to go play online after having played offline. I believe that most of online players started by playing offline before.
-
3
-
A23 balance done?
in Gameplay Testing
Posted
I don't see why would elephants and swords have a harder time trying to destroy them, the stats about that didn't change (as far as i know).
I think that rams will be overall easier to deal with, because in a23 you can ungarrison precisely where you want around the building, so you could ungarrison swords just near the ram to "snipe" it even if there are men protecting it, and if it attack a fortress, you could ungarrison a ram yourself and would be garranted a first hit.