Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    1.076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

chrstgtr last won the day on July 26

chrstgtr had the most liked content!

About chrstgtr

Recent Profile Visitors

3.259 profile views

chrstgtr's Achievements

Primus Pilus

Primus Pilus (7/14)

921

Reputation

  1. It might be fun to do something non-military. A couple ideas below. 1-a unit that can collect resources. This would allow you to potentially mass them early, so it’s not a huge drain to have a bunch of idle units. This would be especially helpful in p2, i think. 2-a unit that can build. Either a really quick builder. Or a unit that can build really cheap/free buildings. It plays with the idea of territory expansion, which has untapped potential, I think. Also, deals with the problem of champs being a huge drag on eco like (1) above, which, again, would be real helpful if available in p2. 3-something like the Han minister but stronger. One other note, I don’t think all champs becoming gimmick units is desirable. It’s ok that more than one civ has champ swords, or whatever, that function the same as another civ. With that said, having one fun unique unit can give a civ a real unique feel if it’s done right.
  2. It won't change anything--it'll be cost prohibitive. What's the point of having it? It adds a ton of time and costs a ton to do. Don't care. No one is going to spam forts to use as a barrack. Fine. I would probably be more radical but conservative is a better approach. If that makes champs too strong then champs' stats should be nerfed. My view is: if you can afford it, it should be available. Everything else, including long train time and locking them behind a tech, just encourages CS spam.
  3. I’m mostly fine with them. Except for how they take forever to make. I can have all the resources and 10 unit producing buildings and I will still choose not to produce them during a battle because their production is so long that my army will become too small by the time they’re ready to fight. Having to unlock them is also a pain that I find unnecessary.
  4. Sigh. Must you always disagree with everything? I do not know how to drive an F1 car. If I tried, I would probably go very slow or crash and die. But I am a very good driver in a street-ready automatic transmission car. I'm not asking F1 to change their car designs because Toyota else invented a less problematic Camry for me. Sometimes things are foreign. Sometimes foreign things are difficult to adapt to. That's ok.
  5. @BeTe you mentioned it is helpful if people respond. So here I go. 1. You're right, it is because you are new. I used to have same problem. 2. Same. It is because you are new. I also used to have this problem. 3. Same. You get better with time, which I know from personal experience. 4. Agree. There are other fixes, though. Some of those are already in the pipeline. So, basically, I would challenge almost all of your premises on why it is a problem.
  6. No disrespect but you have some things to learn about 0AD. I think you're the one who created another thread on whether 0AD should have less units on the screen. In that thread, the OP started with a bunch of premises (like it's hard to identify the types of units present), which just aren't true once you get more experience playing. All this is to say, yes, OAD is different from some other RTS. That doesn't necessarily make it worse, though. And, I suspect a lot of the opinions you are saying now will change as you gain more experience/get better at the game and realize some of the things you are doing now don't make a ton of sense. Anyways, cheers and welcome to the community.
  7. I've experimented with it. making more than 60 women in a 200 pop game is actually a worse boom for most games with the common CS strategy because you have to make units twice just to get a proper sized army (i.e., you make women that you later delete to replace with men). YMMV, though, depending on KD. Other strats may call for other numbers. There are three reasons why people wait until p3 to fight. First, people wait until they're strongest or forced to fight. This is natural ("if I wait just 30 seconds more I will have 10 more men," "if I wait 40 seconds more I will have 15% attack," etc.). This means that fighting typically begins as soon as the first player has all the upgrades that they intend to use in a fight. This won't change no matter what the upgrade structure looks like--people will just wait until they get that unit-upgrade or whatever. Second, there's a dearth of worthwhile strategies between min 6 and min 15. There needs to be more stuff like p2 merc rush. Third, even if you do find a successful strat between min 6 and min 15, then you can get slapped in TGs where an un-rushed booming player is able to roll you over. This makes strats like merc rushes risky and rarely worthwhile (i.e., you can have a successful min 10 push but lose if your pocket isn't as strong as the player you are rushing aka the "elephante syndrome"). The third factor really shows how 0AD is two different games--one for TGs and one for 1v1s. There is way more action throughout a game in 1v1s than in TGs. But a lot of what is being discussed here is about TGs.
  8. Once you’re fighting with champions you’re generally engaged in constant fight. The fact that they can’t gather is irrelevant as you generally would never use them for that. They’re more expensive for the reason you identify—they’re stronger. One can argue on whether their costs, in terms of resources and train time, are property set
  9. Still sounds like little downside. Benefits just might be narrow.
  10. Is there any downside here? It seems like a slight performance upgrade and, at worst, even play mechanics. I'm skeptical on how much this will actually help fix the sniping meta. But I see no reason why this shouldn't be implemented.
  11. Be honest. You posted your mod. I immediately said I considered it cheating. Many others said they agreed. Several people said they did not want to play with anyone who used the mod or any other mod like it. Your response, more or less, was "I don't care, I will continue to use it against the wishes of those that expressed dislike for it." You are the one that disrupted the status quo. A feature very similar to your mod's autotrain was considered for the vanilla version of the game and as rejected. If you want to use your mod in SP games, great. But if you want to play with anyone else, you that no one has to accept you or your mod.
  12. I like arrows now. The functionality seems to be correct. I think they could need the slightest buff to restore the a26 balance, which I think was the slightest bit better. Haven't heard any complaints about arrows but I obviously don't speak for everyone (and this is obviously a departure from before when complaints were heard). Off topic, but the complaints with current community mod seem to be navy being underpowered and bolts being OP, both of which I agree with.
  13. Totally disagree. I think the best thing that naval does (or used to do) is force a quick p2 to get war ships to kill fishing. If you put a fighting ship in p1 then fishing will be mitigated and people will just stay in p1 forever and make fields instead of bothering with fish. The balance is just bad. All ships are underpowered and none are worth making to fight. That is very clear. Luckily balance stats can be fixed. But the next round basically requires brand new stats because the current situation isn't informative. Navy is still totally conceptual to me.
  14. Right now, the best strategy is to NO techs. The techs for boats right now are more numerous than for inf/cav despite boats being made about 1000x less often than inf/cav. That just doesn't make sense.
×
×
  • Create New...