chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
3 minutes ago, Atrik said:
idc f u
Nice guy here.
-
16 minutes ago, Atrik said:
Wow. You go far into the made up stuff. I remember well enough that after you banned me from your host, I asked 1-2 question to understand, then other one when banned from spec. So 2-3 questions to understand what are you up to is "playing the victim". Seriously you just want me to reply to your bs so that the topic become as tribal as possible right?
You act like this is all me. It isn't. Literally every time you post your mod in people call you out and then you pretend you've never done anything wrong when nearly everyone you play with wishes you would delete the mod. Like here, you just want a different standard for yourself.
On 09/10/2023 at 1:24 PM, guerringuerrin said:On several occasions you have had ironic and mocking responses towards people who have spoken to you respectfully, so play the victim all you want, you don't move anyone.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, alre said:
you cannot give that guarantee, you can only speak for your taste.
I can't see why you should try to change the mind of someone who clearly wants to try the game differently. You rightly warned that a lot of PvP players would consider it a cheat, but all this animosity towards Atrik - who just provided the OP with exactly what they asked - is unjustified.
It’s not unjustified. He was told it was cheating and that people don’t like it. His response was I don’t care if the people I play with think I am cheating and that he would do it anyways. He took advantage of people’s good will and hesitancy to ban players. Once he did start to get banned, what did he do? Immediately complain that he was getting picked on. Just because he plays the victim doesn’t mean he is one.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Atrik said:
Just in case I would precise: constraints are the same with the features I described. @chrstgtr meant to do a metaphor.
If you are going to try to insult someone you should first use a dictionary to look up the words that you use in your insult. Your rebuttal should also be written intelligibly.
-
11 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
Or you can watch a mobile game play itself.
I use gift from the gods if I just want to check something, but with instant advancement, building, production and ~unlimited resources there's not much left what makes an RTS match, no?
I agree. That is why I don't see any joy in mods that automate eco/production. But here we are.
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
The opinion of myself and plenty of other players is that while economy management tasks can be repetitive, they are an important part of the game. Namely that a player must decide where to allocate their attention when they are under pressure or applying pressure. The autoqueue we currently have is simple so that you still have to manage economy.
Learning how to multitask well is a (probably the) key skillset in RTS games, and overly automating the economy would ruin that part.
Also just be aware that its widely considered cheating to use progui in multiplayer.
Agree.
@SKAcz: if you dislike eco constraints, you can also just play with higher resources (i.e., death match starting resources or the "gift from the gods" cheat).
-
21 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
So the reason that non-random arrows is bad is personal preference?
One of the reasons, yes.
I also think balance makes it pragmatically difficult (or impossible) to do, which I think you would agree with at this point you've tried too different versions that are presenting big balance issues.
23 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:But it was silly, boring, and resulted in a lot of unfavorable gameplay.
All personal preference. None of these are objective conclusions. None of these are valid reasons to do a change.
I disagree with all these positions and actually say that the opposite. Because it is largely about personal preferences.
24 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Diving under buildings without consequence, buildings acting like a timer for the soldiers to leave, Healer auras invalidate arrows, lack of control over arrows.
-
Diving under buildings without consequence
- This isn't true. You do get damaged. You do die if you stay too long.
- To the extent you can rush without dying, I think that is a good thing. Basically no one has said that rush was a problem before.
-
buildings acting like a timer for the soldiers to leave
- This is the same thing as "Diving under buildings without consequence"
-
Healer auras invalidate arrows
- This is obviously a problem with healer auras. That is what should've been fixed.
- Note, non-random arrows largely invalidates healing as a concept. This is bad.
-
Lack of control over arrows
- I kind of agree with you here.
- But I don't think manually control of arrows is actually used a lot/effectively.
- Manually control of arrows is possible with random buildingAI
- This is less important that buildingAI behavior because it occurs less frequently.
--------
To the extent there are objective criteria, that objective criteria favors random arrows because random arrows was already balanced. We don't even know if it is possible to balance non-random arrows and your efforts to do so are getting more complicated but with no more success.
-
Diving under buildings without consequence
-
2 hours ago, Barcodes said:
The suggestion I'm proposing is to allow the soldier who shoots to be able to shoot at enemies while the chariot is moving. It would make sense for this to work because the guy shooting isn't controlling the horses dragging the chariot so it's actually realistic.
I like this (I think I actually suggested it myself at some time in the past) but I think it requires new code to do.
Chariots has been something that everyone agrees needs to get changed but there isn't a lot of agreement on what that change should look like or the desired change (trampling) has to get new code to be possible. As a result, we have what we have for now.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Another poll showed players have mixed feelings about it, but it showed 3 clear issues.
This poll is equally clear that non-random arrows is disliked:
-
66% of votes cast called for random buildingAI for CC/fort ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely," "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted," or "Make the civic center and fortress shoot at random unless targeted")
- Note this 66% vote share is as great or greater than questions 3 and 4, which you point to as a clear issue).
-
61% of votes cast called for random buildingAI to be reversed for all buildings ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely" or "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted")
-
The largest vote getter called for random buildingAI ("Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted")
-
But a less popular buildingAI behavior was implemented ("Balance the CC, Tower, and Fortress arrows"). In every way, this was a disfavored option by the voters.
To the extent there are "mixed feelings" it is whether a player should be able to override random buildingAI and manually target units.1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:I went with the next most popular progressive solution which was to adjust building arrow counts.
This doesn't consider the likely outcome of a rank order vote.
This is like if you asked people what their favorite ice cream flavor was and gave them the options of dark chocolate, milk chocolate, and vanilla and the votes came out as below:
- Dark chocolate (3)
- Milk chocolate (2)
- Vanilla (2)
In this scenario, it is clear the people want to chocolate but spread their votes out between two similar options. Same too here. Rebalancing non-random arrows is only popular to the extent that you ignore 2/3 of all votes. Put simply, non-random arrows is/was unpopular.
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Also, I have still not heard 1 reason from anyone why the building arrow behavior is bad that could not be explained by arrow counts. So why is the behavior itself problematic @Player of 0AD?
The fact of the matter is that building arrows were balanced under a random behavior and changing the behavior has clearly thrown off this balance. If we can restore balance, then we will be left with a new mechanic.
No one has put forth a reason why a new mechanic is needed. By your own admission, the old mechanic worked fine. Change should not inherently be favored.
It is also untrue that no one has explained why non-random arrows is bad or why random arrows is good. It is just a question of personal preference, which has clearly been expressed several times at this point by the larger community.
-
66% of votes cast called for random buildingAI for CC/fort ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely," "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted," or "Make the civic center and fortress shoot at random unless targeted")
-
3 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
Melee citizens have been nerfed which is bad, because for example Athens and Sparta rely on these units, as they don't have any champion cavalry. Also, for some civs the citizen spearman is the only unit which can counter cavalry well (Britons, Mauryas). Furthermore it weakens melee mercenaries even more and using them didnt seem to have been a good strategy any more.
Siege units have already been rather hard to destroy, now even more.
As I said, Athens have the big disadvantage to not have any champion cavalry, so it might be a mistake to nerf the Iphicrates hero. This civilization relies on him.I think the bigger problem that you are getting at is that there is a problem with inf/cav balance.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, hamdich said:
Members of Balancing team are a fight between each other about what w and what not to change . No wonder every new 0ad version and evey comunity mod is instantly dissliked by both newbs and pros
There should be rigorous debate. If you look back in trac at some of the least popular changes, those were the changes that typically had the least discussion or where dissenting opinions where just outright ignored.
Disagree on each version of the community mod being disliked. To be honest, all the versions before 26.6 were pretty widely liked at initial release and those changes are still widely approved of.
There are mechanisms to reverse changes. Indeed, we appear to be in the midst of changes with buildingAI and melee rebalance.
-
4
-
-
26 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
potential community mod ideas:
1. Let siege turn past 45 degrees without stopping (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5201)(improves pathing and clunkiness)
2. Reduce catapult and bolt shooter prepare time (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5131, already committed for a27)
I like both.
With (2) already committed to a27, I see no reason not to include it.
Speaking of a27 commits, I think the Iphicrates patch would also be nice to get into the community mod too.
What is your plan for the next community mod, mostly cleanup with arrows/melee balance? I think that is a good plan.
If you want to add new ideas, I think the wonder is ripe for reform. Ton of things we could do there. But right now it does basically nothing.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
The targeting queue is inside buildingAI and the function that fires arrows handles both default behavior arrows and targeted arrows.
So it is a problem with doing random arrows and manually targeted arrows at the same time ("Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted")? I didn't realize it was built directly within buildingAI.
Your choice if you want to try to pursue it. To your point above, the "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted" might be still be problematic, so it might not be worth you spending time on it instead of just doing a total revert.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
k i spent a solid couple of hours trying to make random arrows by default to work, and its definitely not as easy as I thought it would be. Unfortunately it kind of balloons the amount of code needed and the complexity.
What do you mean? Wouldn't it just be a total revert?
On 19/03/2024 at 4:53 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:Yeah, really the fundamental issue with the approach is that problems 2,3, and 4 will still exist, just only when ppl are targeting.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. At least not for early game. It is really hard to target arrows during rushes, especially when you are also trying to hide women/bring men by CC. Meanwhile, players don't like to stay under CCs for long so the defending player has to act really fast. To the extent people can do this, I don't think it's bad to reward them for their micro skills.
To your point, late game it might be a problem still. But to the extent it is a problem, it would be similar to the impact of sniping, which isn't done a ton nowadays.
-
@real_tabasco_saucebalanced mainland (fixed) doesn't have chickens
-
3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Ok, after a couple of months with the new update, do you all find melee units too strong when they rank up?
I have a plan to reduce the melee rank up stats (+hp, +20% damage, +1 armor of all types -> +hp, +10% damage)
Yes. Plan makes sense.
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/36
I did a 0.3 pierce buff here. Of course a well played game can make archers look really good, but I have heard archers being a little weak from a lot of players.
I think 0.3 won't take them to OP territory, just a little boost.
A similar buff is needed for x-bow.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, hyperion said:
So I have no doubt that 32bit is an issue which people might run into occasionally, was just wondering if the last community mod might have moved the tipping point based on recent noise but according to @chrstgtr that doesn't seem to be the case. I think the last notable rise in requirements was with A24 and earlier version should be much less likely to run into this.
Note, the mac replay I posted was from a 64 bit mac host.
It's been awhile now, but I do think you are right that the OOS error has become more common over the longer term. I don't recall it ever happening when I first started playing in a21. Sometime after that it became a known but pretty rare thing. For a26 it feels like a once every 2-3 weeks in games that I am in
-
2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
The strategy is more effective for 1200-1400 players who can lessen the performance gap between themselves and a higher level player.
Depends on game but can be. It can also be an effective strategy where a lower player attacks a higher player in TGs (I think that is what you were getting at with the other portion of your reply).
4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:On a side note heres an interesting game where H.Herle managed to make archers look good:
Not at home at the moment. But I'll watch later if you think I should. I think the complaints about archers are overstated by some. I agree archers are weak now but in some ways archers are actually better/very strong--it's impossible to do rush where you push near the CC now and archers are quite strong in early game once they get ahead.
I think the melee patch in general is more complicated to understand. There are parts I like and others I dislike. I think there have been some good ideas on how to address it. If we ultimately follow the general approach in the melee patch, think it'll take a few tries to get it balanced as well as before (with the added benefit of getting rid of meatshield meta)
-
6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
so like +25 wood or stone, and reduce garrisoned damage?
I would prob do 50w and moderate reduction of garrison dmg.
Not stone because that is unfair to p1 slinger civs.
1 and 3 because:
- Cost because it is used as a way to circumvent unit production chokepoints (number of unit producing buildings and unit production time).
- Dmg because it is hard to stand under it and fight for more than a few seconds.
Wouldn't do 2 because time hurts eco too much when you build the tower prophylactically.
Open to other suggestions, the ^^^ isn't a strong opinion.
-
1
-
10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
What do u all think should be done with sentry towers? Slight bump in cost? Increase build time? change arrows counts/fire rate?
1 and 3 if non-random
-
1
-
-
Man you gotta accept some feedback when you’re clearly wrong…at least acknowledge it could’ve been better if you don’t think it’s necessary
7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:That question is about what to do going forward. Do we balance arrows to solve the above issues? or revert/semi-revert the random arrows
Then ask that. That is what I tried to in my suggested alternative question.
8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:It doesn't make sense to have a "random balanced arrows" option because the arrows counts were already balanced for random arrows. That would just be the same as a full revert.
You missed the point. Your third option choice could be random or non-random. Both could be hypothetically be “balanced.”
Using the term “balance” also suggests an answer. It’s like asking a person “do you support (A) the good candidate or (B) the other guy. There is a suggested answer.
11 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:That's basically the first questio
No. First question is do you like 26.6, including its current values, more than pre-26.6.
What I suggested is “do you want random or near-unit arrows.” For some, they could say “I want non-random but not at 26.6 value.” That person could say no to your first question. what I suggested is actually more favorable to your position
-
@real_tabasco_sauce suggestion: you should change the text of third option in the last Q. Everyone wants balanced arrows—some want random balanced arrows while others want non-random balanced arrows. I know that’s not what you mean but it’s unclear and is the type of option that suggests a “right” poll response.
Options like below seem better:(1) non-random arrows with community mod 26.6 values
(2) non-random arrows with different values than community mod 26.6 values
(3) random arrows unless manually targeted
(4) random arrows (pre community mod 26.6)
OR, better, just ask the question straight up:
“Should buildingAI have random arrows or attack the nearest unit”
(1) random
(2) attack nearest unit
the second question is more straight forward and doesn’t get into the dirty details.
-
5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I can't remember that one, but I tried another one against other good players and it worked just fine although I didn't keep all of my cav alive (boo hoo, its still ~60/9 across 4 players). Also there's no need to insult someone who rarely rushes.
I'm not insulting you and I do not intend to--apologies if you there was a miscommunication. My point is that I recall very few instances where a "chicken rush" have been successful against good players. If that strategy was anywhere near as effective as you and your bro insist then good players would frequently employ the strategy. But that is very clearly not the case. To be honest, I don't recall a single instance where anyone has ever discussed it (aside from when or your bro bring it up, which used to be fairly often).
5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward
I don't know what you want. I said it should be reversed. That is as concrete as possible. You asked for input then rejected it and said my input should be different if I felt the way I felt.
You also keep dismissing what I have said as theory. That's nonsense. I have said it IS too strong. That is observed. You have agreed with this. I have said it was balanced before. Any deviation from a state of balance that results in more kills will disrupt balance. That is definitional.
I feel like you keep changing the goalposts. E.g. There is a change needed because this is a better system-->rushes are too strong-->buildings should kill rushing units-->it is better for 0ad naive players. Or, saying people like-->people will like it-->let's disregard a poll-->let's get a new poll-->I asked some people and they complained about other stuff.
I also feel like you haven't set forth any valid reason why you think this change should occur aside from there may be some 0AD naive players who don't understand this (never mind the fact that there are so many aspects of the game that are different from AOE and that 0AD is not and should not be a replica of AOE).
This isn't productive. I don't feel you are taking any feedback here and just looking for feedback that you want/disregarding feedback you don't want to hear. This isn't how it is supposed to work. This is a community project. I get it--you/your bro care a lot and received a lot of unfair/mean criticism from others. But there is other criticism that comes from a good place. Don't forgot those, loud and silent, that may disagree with you from time to time.
-
1
-
1
-
Option "Evaluate resources just in time" removing the annoying need to click frequently in production queue (and allows you to enjoy strategic battles)
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
So thread summary
tabasco: you can use that mod but other people you play with might think you’re cheating.
me: [ignore atrik] here’s a different solution that might help you
Atrik: insult directed at me
alre : don’t pick on atrik
me: we’re not picking on him—he doesn’t care that people think he’s cheating and plays the victim at the same time
atrik: “idc f u” also stop picking on me.
conclusion: atrik is a nice guy?