Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

chrstgtr last won the day on March 11

chrstgtr had the most liked content!

About chrstgtr

Recent Profile Visitors

688 profile views

chrstgtr's Achievements

Duplicarius

Duplicarius (4/14)

198

Reputation

  1. I’m not familiar with the bug so feel free to ignore...but isn’t it caused formations with units running to get into place? It seems like making units only move at their walk speed would fix that. Players in previous alphas used to use formations to dance anyways.
  2. Archer damage wasn't changed. The accuracy wasn't nerfed much either. Archers were vulnerable in a24 but other factors like slow train times, slow movement speed, and op defensive structures made archers seem better than they actually were in open fights. Archers will win in lots of range only fights, but if melee ever gets to them they will be shredded. The key will be making diverse armies to take adv of higher dps range units while still being able to use melee to cut through range units' weak armour. I agree. These should be at least (partially) coming back in a26.
  3. Already have other plans, otherwise I would've been interested. Have fun.
  4. Some alphas are good. Some are less good. I don’t think anyone responsible for the less good alphas thought they were putting out a bad product. Also while a24 may have been heavily influenced by individual MPs, the changes largely did not address things that the MP community thought were problems. When those “problems” were “fixed” unintended side effects were introduced. to be honest, I don’t think there is or should be a dichotomy between SP and MP. Their priorities are just different with MP just wanting something balanced and SP tending to just want something that looks and feels great with cool features. Those two aren’t sets of preferences mutually exclusive. Mods are notoriously difficult to get people to adopt. When you need to get 8 people to simultaneously adopt one then it becomes basically impossible. This is why SPs tend to play with more mods than MPs.
  5. Yes. The takeaway is both can coexist and neither should be ignored. The best way to serve both is create an engaging game. When that is done both will stick around
  6. Sure. But in all likelihood it also means they aren't playing SP either. We should not equate downloads with plays. Pointing to total downloads is a bad way to show interest in game, especially when half the observable players aren't sticking around and a large portion of old players have mostly left the game. In fact, the lobby has lately been filled with lots of transient players that come and quickly leave. This is indicative of the fact that lots of people are downloading and trying the game (as the large number of downloads shows). But it also indicates that players aren't playing the game for very long for whatever reason. We should not believe the popularity of MP has suddenly decreased when the only change has been a new alpha. In my opinion, this indicates that there is a problem with the current alpha. Of course, but we also sholdn't cater a game to a group of people that we don't even know exist outside of a couple dozen that are active on the forum. Both can be served.
  7. This. No reason not to let the next week or two play out and release the next alpha. The we start anew with an actually understanding of how the current RC looks. Delaying now just sets us up for this exact conversation again in 3 months. Meanwhile, a delay would also ensure that an unpopular alpha that has already resulted in the loss of several players unnecessarily remains around for even longer.
  8. Regardless of whether you agree with the particular context, there is clearly a problem when the "historian," who consistently advocates total fidelity between gameplay and history, says one unit should "beat virtually everything." If you care at all about gameplay or balance considerations then gameplay has to take the front seat because history is determinative--we already know who wins in Rome vs. Gauls, Athens vs. Sparta, etc. 0 AD is a game, not a simulation.
  9. And the reason why historical realism should take a backseat to gameplay considerations.
  10. That would be 5000 food. The investment isn't worth the reward. Get rid of all the extra farmers and you win much earlier. That's why good players who made dogs in a23 only did so when trolling--because they knew they had already won
  11. And by the time you have done that the game would already have been over for 10 minutes if you used a normal strategy. Show me one good player who ever used so much as made dogs to do anything but to troll in a23
  12. A game with winners and losers is not supposed to make all players equal. A bad player should be bad. A good player should be good. To the extent that unit diversification, civil differentiation, or unique strategies are desirable, further changes would be anathema and return dogs to their useless status of a23
  13. Or defending players can just make a mix of units themselves. The problem isn’t the dogs—it’s the defending players’ lack of skill. No reason to “fix” a stratifying feature, especially when doing so encourages single-unit spam
  14. Makes sense. It’s just the first one I really paid any attention to development, so I was curious how it worked. Better to come off the block clean than to stumble and risk immediate backlash
  15. I’m just curious how this works. At what point do we give up on fixing a bug for a specific release? Like I see a RB from 4 months ago that still hasn’t been fixed. At some point does the programming team just say “next release”?
×
×
  • Create New...