Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1.034

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

 Content Type 

Posts posted by chrstgtr

  3. Fixing Chinese Han

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    50 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Do you think this is something for the Community mod or a Phab patch?

    Both. I think it has to change--2% is obviously too low. I'm not certain 5% is right, but I'm pretty sure it won't be OP. Community mod gets it into game quicker. Phab makes it permanent. Could go with something more radical like 10% in the community mod and test first, though. 

  4. Fixing Chinese Han

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    I think this could be good, might make the ministers more accessible. Also, there is no need for ministers to cost 2 pop, the cost is prohibitive enough to spam.

    Ministers also have to be buffed if you want anyone to make them. Right now, you're better off just making a unit that can eco because the discounts are so small. I would suggest 5% instead of the 2%. 

    • Like 1

  5. Genie Bot & WTF

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

    Yes, thanks for reporting the issue on the forum instead of playing with the bot and spamming chat like Akazid, nz and Rauls did. Defc0n (rossenburg) told me that he has already made adjustments to how often [GenieBot] responds to profanity in the lobby.

    Thanks—appreciate it

    For what it’s worth, I think the bot is good because it explains why things happen. 

    • Like 2

  6. Genie Bot & WTF

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, hyperion said:

    The sole purpose is obviously to trigger the bot, this really feels like arguing with my 10 years old nice.

    How do you suppose we learned that it was triggered by "wtf"? And, why would you say the bot's erroneous reaction was correct? 

    This is simply an instance where there is an over-broad net being cast, which is why I reported it. 

    • Thanks 1

  7. Genie Bot & WTF

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, hyperion said:

    It's very obvious that all those mentions weren't in context were will to fight would be used in abbreviated form normally. Seriously just get used to use w2f in future.

     

    @Dizaka literally just wrote "wtf == will to fight." I don't know how it is "obvious" that that isn't meant to mean will to fight--it is literally spelled out. 

     

  8. Genie Bot & WTF

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by chrstgtr

    58 minutes ago, rossenburg said:

    i could also say "sh*t" == Ship High in Transit so im free to use the word Sh*t in the lobby then. I personally wouldn't count wtf as bad word as far as its not spelt out. If its agreed to be used in the lobby, why not. We follow protocols.

    Sure.

    How is that organic, though?

    I don't think it is.

    That would be an excuse for other behavior. 

    • Like 1

  9. Genie Bot & WTF

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    5 hours ago, rossenburg said:

    Upon checking, the mute action was taken by a moderator because wtf is considered "what the f*ck" and has nothing to do with the bot itself. The bot will of course alert moderators whenever there are profanes in the lobby. 

     

    Hard to understand how "wtf == will to fight" gets interpreted as "what the f*ck"

    Either way, it's pretty clear that this will lead to a lot of false hits

    Screen Shot 2022-12-20 at 1.15.14 AM.png

  11. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by chrstgtr

    1 hour ago, Stan` said:

    Projectile velocity also affects dancing too.

    Sure. Set it at a constant, though. If dancing is bad (I agree, it is) then set it at a level than makes dancing ineffective. You shouldn’t have to do an upgrade to get rid of something that shouldn’t exist.

    Velocity is otherwise a proxy for accuracy (I.e., spread), which has its own, more direct variable. I think that’s what @real_tabasco_sauce was really aiming for too  

    FWIW, dancing has been largely eliminated through a series of changes in recent alphas. Imo, that’s one of the best things that came out of a24. 
     

    Edit: I know you’re not advocating here one way or the other, Stan. But I just want to clarify for everyone else

  13. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    also, to anyone, why not reduce pikemen armor and increase damage? Im curious since plenty of complaints exist on pikemen being too tanky.

    I think I voted for it, but I fear we are slipping into just making them spears. I don't have any good suggestions here. Maybe increasing attack range, like your 23 unit upgrade patch, would keep them differentiated and then you could decrease armor or something too to keep them from being OP

  14. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    Hopefully I don't get any blame for the lack of content.

    No one reasonable will be upset with you. You did/are doing a great job. 

    Assuming this all gets implemented into a27, there will be several new changes--maybe more than a24--and we did it without adding a new civ. That is a huge accomplishment. On this note, thanks to @wraitii and @Stan` for creating this project--I think it's been a huge success and one that makes a27 much more likely to succeed even though a27 will likely include a large number of changes. 

    Thanks, @real_tabasco_sauce and everyone else who participated here

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  16. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    I would say with 26 votes we could probably call it. Anyone disagree?

    Looks to me like 1,2,3,4,8, and 10 certainly have enough support, but i'm not sure about 7. Neither cavalry change was supported, we can redesign something for cavalry later as @chrstgtr said.

    #7 (crush rebalance and hack attack for clubs) is one vote ahead for yes and its actually a fairly minimal change, the main thing is increasing macemen's general effectiveness for fighting. Less crush armor also means catapults will 1 hit more units, which I see as a positive.

    Does anyone think 7 shouldn't be added even though there are more yes votes?

    edit: nevermind, I guess the votes keep coming. When should we call it?

    What was the criteria we used last time? I thought it was a super majority or at least a majority of all votes cast.

    Lots of people pick the third option as a "I like some but not all choice." At a minimum, I don't think something that skids by on a 40%, 35%, 35% votes should get in. 

    • Like 2

  18. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    41 minutes ago, Stan` said:

    I would like to stress that so far only the rice field and regicide fixes have been committed. Nothing from the mod itself. 

    A possibility is for the mod to be rebased for A27 and continue to exist as standalone.

    We have not decided what to do yet because there is too little activity on the other side.

    Only three people are active. One is working on a new Atlas, the other on Vulkan, and the last one is working on some minor art fixes.

     

    The mod is great. It allows for quicker improvements that players want. I'm just saying that, at least for a26, the mod represents a large portion of all regular users and therefore has replaced vanilla as the 'true' a26. 

    I would love to see it back for a27. 

    • Like 1

  20. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    55 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    each unit gets their own tree. All the upgrades play a role in unit (and civ) differentiation.

    It doesn't make sense to overlook an upgrade for a unit type, that would be inconsistent. I think you are still assuming a lot. For instance, the javelin cavalry upgrade is not available in p1, where prepare time and accuracy would be the most problematic. Also, civs that already have strong jav cav for some other reason do not recieve this upgrade. See? Very easily modified as needed. 

    The objective part is the content added, not balance because we can't predict the future meta (at least very easily).

    Its like rejecting the entire hamburger just because you don't like pickles.

    But my question was why do all need to be implemented at once? A pickle can make you reject the whole burger if you are allergic. I just don't see why all have to be implemented at once. 

    43 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    Yes, but these were OP due to their inherent stats, not due to upgrades

    Units will eventually get to the upgrades, though. If a unit become OP after upgrades it is still OP. 

  21. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by chrstgtr

    33 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    Why would you rather throw the entire proposal out the window than allow the possibility of 1 or 2 (slightly more) OP units in an experimental mod?

    We can call it "experimental" all we want, but for all intents and purposes--it is the current alpha. The vanilla version of a26 does not function, if for no other reason, because of the Han farming issue and as a result most regular players exclusively play the mod. The mod will also likely be a27.

    And, again, a single OP unit can ruin gameplay. For example, in a22, a common rule was the no one was allowed to make cav or bolt shooters. In a24, no one made anything but archers and OP defensive structures made games extremely long and enjoyable. Those are two alphas where a single OP unit was sufficient to ruin gameplay. We should not brush off just a few potentially OP units. 

    I have other issues besides the specific ones I named, but the ones I named provide a general preview.

    33 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    No, it's definitely a system. It is commonly referred to as a tech tree.

    That is also true if you add just one tech--it becomes part of the tech tree. Each of these can standalone. What requires all 23 to be implemented at once?

    • Like 1

  23. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

     

    46 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    Sure, some particular upgrades may be imbalanced for particular situations. I get that. But why would you rather miss out on all of this content on the grounds that some things may be imbalanced? Remember this is an experimental mod.

    A single unit can ruin gameplay. I prefer a game with 2 balanced units instead of a game with 3 unit options but only 1 is built because it is OP. 

    57 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    currently, military upgrades are basically an arms race, with very little strategy involved. 

    This isn't true. You have to decide which to techs to get, the order to get them, and when to get them. Unless you are playing death match settings, it is a game of limited resources. I very rarely get all the techs and I doubt I have every played a game where everyone got all the techs. 

    1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    Unique upgrades like 'archery tradition' and 'hoplite tradition' are the exception, and the improvement to gameplay these techs bring inspired me to make a larger group of techs.

    I like these too. I would like to see some more tech options like this. 

    1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    You are drawing too many assumptions on individual technologies instead of looking at the system as a whole.

    I don't think this is truly a whole system instead of a compilation of several individual things that could be individually implemented. I identified a 3 instances where I believe the proposal would be too strong. 

    ------

    I am not trying to say there aren't good ideas. I am trying to say that I don't like the package as a whole. But I would welcome some aspects of these. 

    There have been a lot of people with grand overhaul visions and everyone who has tried to do it has created greater imbalances than they started out with. I don't think anyone should assume they are better than anyone has proven to be. 

    1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    also, keep in mind that these upgrades replace the rather boring cavalry_health and cavalry_speed upgrades. These upgrades currently serve as a blanket buff for all cavalry at a very low price.

     

    I like when the health bonus was only for specific civs. If it is kept for all civs then there should be a trade off. 

  24. Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    Just curious: what are some reasons to vote against number 3, unit specific upgrades? I would have expected more popularity due to the amount of content included.

    (1) It's a complicated system with 23 new techs.

    (2) It basically tries to rebalance everything all at once, which will inevitably create greater imbalances. 

    (3) It contains some specific things I find concerning.

    For example, jav cav have a massive buff. Their spread (accuracy) improves a massive amount and their prepare time also is almost cut in half. 

    Similarly, a massive buff is available for sword cav, which can get +10% health and +1 pierce armor. 

    Additionally, a massive buff is available for archer cav, which get 1.15x dmg pierce dmg and 1.25x projectile speed, which increase accuracy (but does so indirectly). 

    Taken together, the three best units, which many people already think are OP, all receive really, really large buffs. These buffs are also better than comparable inf buffs (e.g., archer cav get 1.25 dps plus increased accuracy but inf slings only get about 1.1x more dps). 

    Likewise, projectile speeds are modified for several units and these modifications are inconsistent (1.5x speed for inf archers but 1.25x for cav archers and 30 for inf jav). Changing projectile speeds was a big part of the problem in a24. Honestly, I see no reason to ever change them because the same result can be accomplished in other more direct ways and their change isn't transparent to players. 

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...