Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by chrstgtr

  1. Please not range. Camping from a safe distance discourages fights. Also, long pack times are just annoying. No one likes playing with units that don’t feel responsive—it almost feels like lag is built into microing cata
  2. Yes. It also only tends to happen in 4v4 games (i.e., 1v1s that last 40 minutes do not go OOS)
  3. Mac hosts using 64 bit versions have also crashed around the 40 minute mark. The real problem @Barcodes is referring to is when all players go OOS around that time mark. Typically, a few players will go out of sync before that but they can leave and rejoin to continue. For some reason, around the 40 minute mark ALL players will go OOS.
  4. I think the wait and see approach is the way to go--opinions are still forming. With the melee patch, it is clear the community wants something different than community.mod.v4. It's not clear the community wants something like community.mod.v6, though. With the buildingAI patch, it isn't clear if the community wants any change from community.mod.v4.
  5. That is a separate issue. I don't think anyone has an issue with being able to override buidlingAI. But there is a lot of debate around whether buildingAI should shoot randomly or at the closest unit. It isn't clear what the preference of the community is, and if the "closet unit" system can even be balanced in a desirable way. But buildingAI was certainly changed to address a units "don't die" problem. I personally don't think that was ever really a problem. But now we might as well see if this other system is better/workable. In short, everyone should vote in the poll in the other thread once they develop a firm opinion. There is no clear right answer--people have different preferences for legitimate reasons. The community at large should decide. EDIT: Sorry, I didn't all the way down to the bottom of your comment where you said random buildingAI with player override was a good compromise. It could be. I think player override should exist. The buildingAI should be community determined.
  6. Disagree. But assuming you're right then armor should increase. The underlying point is that changing hp will certainly have downriver effects that are unintended and will cause a cascade of imbalances. The underlying cause of quicker battles (whether that is armor or melee dmg) should be addressed instead of changing yet another variable. I don't think anyone disagrees on this and @real_tabasco_sauce hit it on the head when he said that melee rank up was an old hot fix for melee balance that didn't actually fix the underlying melee balance problem. I've always said that melee was strong against range and that the problem was melee's inability to reach range units. All of these other melee advantages v. range get enlarged when melee units actually get engage range units.
  7. The problem with changing hp is that it has a lot of downstream effects. It changes building/unit balance, inf/cav balance, melee/range balance, etc. It just seems a lot cleaner to to nerf the melee attack dmg. Otherwise, we just create more problems for ourselves. Also, the changes of the melee patch suggest that changes to melee attack dmg are the problem. The melee patch gave a major buff to melee BUT gave a nerf to range attack dmg. That means units are dying faster because of melee's buff despite range's nerf. The problem has to be that melee are killing range too quickly. The old meta had melee killing each other in the middle before breaking through and slowly killing the range. The new meta still has melee killing each other in the middle before breaking through and quickly killing the range. Sniping is present in both metas but that doesn't change anything. Battles are only ending quicker once there is a breakthrough and melee are able to rip through the range.
  8. Iphri already got a nerf. It just isn’t in the mod yet. I also think we should consider just a general nerf to melee attack dmg instead of increasing health. It will have the same impact of making battles last longer without further nerfing range units. Melee is stronger now because once they get to range units they really rip them apart. Giving melee more health will let melee do that more effectively.
  9. The more I play, the more I think this is the answer. Not sure if it is necessary for towers but I am leaning towards no. I don't think the meta has really been figured out yet. I think we still need to wait to see how things shake out. With that said...the below are all things that I was independently thinking. I also think there is a general problem with how champions aren't being made as much anymore. I like how melee is being made more now. But that diversity has come at the cost of less cav and champs. Personally, both neither system is better than the other for me. But I do think we could make the current system better to address the cav and champ issues.
  10. Again, this is your preference. Some would say the old version makes a more dynamic game, which lends to more comebacks, strategic dives under CCs/forts, etc. etc. Let's let the community decide what they prefer. My comment above was responding to @Philip the Swaggerless where he said he thought CC dmg output would be lower but believed that the dmg output is actually higher in the current mod. That is incorrect. The dmg. output is lower in the current mod compared to previous versions. But, in the current mod, the kill count is higher, quicker. So, in the current mod, buildingAI is both stronger (kills units earlier) and weaker (takes longer to kill all units) than before. That stronger and weaker function will always exist with current buildingAI behavior (unless dmg output was increased so that it was stronger/stronger but that obviously won't happen). If we want the current buildingAI behavior then we have to get comfortable with that paradoxical strength/weakness.
  11. It was. Buildings are at once stronger (kills units earlier) and weaker (takes longer to kill all units). That functionality is something that will always be a problem.
  12. I’m still learning/adjusting my thinking, but right now, I think this might make sense. I’d like to see how a rush on the wood line works when someone 2x towers it, esp when it is an inf rush. For various reasons, I’m not liking any if the other ideas you mention. I don’t think I’ve heard any complaints about focus fire, which is a feature long overdue imo. I have really big concerns about this right now. I additionally have really big concerns about it making gameplay too turtle-ly late game because a player cannot stand under CCs/forts for any real amount of time, so melee taking out a CC is much harder and defenders can take out rams too easily.
  13. I would recommend reserving judgment for a little bit and to cast your vote in a week. Right now, I would be one yes and one no for the two big changes (melee/buildingAI) but I could see both, either, or neither of my opinions changing so I haven’t voted yet. No matter what, I think this round of testing is a massive success for the community mod concept. We implemented two radical changes and we are getting real play testing to confirm, modify, or reject the proposed changes. It’s the first time it’ll be an actual experimental mod and not just an avenue for quicker updates.
  14. Honestly, I think the best way to control sniping is to just make it an inherent part of the game that unitAI does automatically. There was a forum topic awhile where no one was able to agree on it--I think we should revisit it.
  15. Check to see if you still have the replays on your HD. I had the same error until I made sure that the folder name for the old mod was "community-mod." Once I change the folder name and enabled the old community mod I could see my old replays.
  16. To be honest, I never knew this existed. With that said, I think that removed bonus isn't very useful. On the Chanakya changes, I think they are an improvement overall and a pretty big buff to Chanakya because of how he can save a player thousands in resources and time via techs. However, I think the changes highlight how much better Chanakya's bonuses are than Cunobeline's bonus. Cunobeline has the benefit of being more difficult to kill and can attack himself. But Cunobeline is otherwise worse in every single way (res to make, time to make, lack of eco bonus, and a more a more expensive/time consuming building to produce from. I would nerf Chanakya's healing bonus and/or come up with a cool extra bonus for Cunobeline.
  17. Can't remember the last time I saw someone "dance" effectively in a game. I can't recall a single instance when someone tried to "dance" around a defensive building. There are a ton of reasons not to like the proposal. Dancing isn't one of those. This whole dancing discussion is so specious
  18. I think that is my preference too. But I understand how others could prefer the proposed patch. Again, this is all preferences--people can like different things and that is ok. I think we should try the patch and see if people prefer "non-random arrows" or "random arrows." Then let popular opinion decide. I think the next iteration of the community mod will be really helpful for that and the melee rebalance, which are both huge changes The control piece is really different feature that everyone seems to want.
  19. More like a straw man that I don't think anyone wants. An alternative choice of something like "random arrows with control" would be better. I conceptually like random arrows more than non-random arrows. But no one will ever actually know until it is widely tested. Even then, this is ultimately just a preference issue. Regardless, I think we should give this a try to see if it is in fact more enjoyable and if it is balanced.
  20. @real_tabasco_sauce and I did some testing tonight. We tested it using 120 skirm armies on both sides. In the first test, we had 20 units garrisoned in CC. In the second test, had 0 units garrisoned in the CC. Although the defender seemed to do better when ungarrisioned, the effect wasn't super dramatic (something like 28ish units left over when garrisioned vs 40ish units when ungarrisioned). This addressed a lot of my late game concerns. If people like the idea, I think we should try it. If people prefer the current/old way, we can revert in a28 (or the community mod). I expect gameplay will be impacted in more ways than we can immediately tell but the community can weigh in on whether those changes are desirable later. TLDR: My concerns were present but I don't think they were dramatic enough to warrant blocking this patch. Up to the community to decide if it's desirable.
  21. Again, I 100% support the ability to control. It’s a total change to default behavior that is concerning to me. You keep talking about how it isn’t a preference. But it is. You keep saying it’s more exciting but we don’t actually know that. RandomAI can lead to dramatic shifts in battles very fast. Whereas this would require a 1 by 1 change. Is that more exciting? I don’t know. It probably depends on the person too. Yeah, it’s a problem, which I way I think we need a useful community mod like thing
  22. But this isn’t necessarily true. The change in default targetingAI can very easily eliminate any benefit to garrisoning because it fundamentally creates an “overkill” issue with all garrisoned units aiming at one unit. That might make garrisoning only “useful” where a defender is vastly outnumbered, which isn’t particularly desirable in late game and creates balance issues in early game. And, that isn’t something that can just be fixed with balance because early game and late game concerns demand opposite balancing changes (early game would need CCs/towers to be nerfed while late game would need CCs/towers/forts to be buffed). Thus the default targetingAI change could have very large meta change impacts, which may or may not be desirable. Even if you don’t buy any of the above, the change is fundamentally a preference issue, which may or may not be inline with the player base general preferences. It’s not like there is a chorus of people demanding this type of change. So it is far from clear that this undoubtedly an improvement like you suggest. Honestly, I’m happy with the way towers/forts/CCs are balanced now (and it seems like most others are too) so the change is entirely a change of behavior instead of a balance issue. The problem is it isn’t even clear that change of behavior is actually desired. I'm not entirely opposed to it. But I do have some big concerns. This is the type of thing that could entirely change the game meta, so I think it’s important we get it right. Testing in RCs has obviously missed some very big meta changing balance issues in the past.
  23. Yeah, I’m all for it in the community mod. To the extent my opinion matters, I think giving the player option to target enemies is good too. I don’t see too much downside to letting a player specifically target enemy units I’m just a little concerned (about rushing and other things too) when default behavior is to attack nearest enemy. That’s why I’d really like to see this be widespread tested. It would also be available to towers too. Anyways, any judgment is premature
×
×
  • Create New...