chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.034 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
37 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
in that case, I think we just chose whichever gets more votes than the other. I would also say both might be overkill.
I think you need to split the health proposal. It has too much going on. For example, I don't want to nerf skirm cav health, but I do want to nerf melee champ cav.
19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:The game has very few structure/building/construction/defensive techs and bonuses (but mainly techs). Consider those.
There's a decent number but no one uses the ones that exist. But, yes, it is an area of potential--we just haven't seen anything for it that widely appeals
-
7 minutes ago, Stan` said:
@chrstgtr does it work now?
yes
-
21 minutes ago, Stan` said:
I don't see a voting option. Maybe it is because I already voted? Maybe reset the poll so people can revote on the new stuff.
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
@chrstgtr @Fabius My thoughts on the centurions are that the rank three swordsman is more easily obtained by training using the army camp (rank 2 already). Also, once you have one centurion, the other units nearby will also rank up more rapidly (due to promotion bonus) making it easier to get another centurion.
The limit of 8 should avoid computational worries, also the auras are non-stacking.
I think it would be better to only affect melee damage, as the roman skirms could get way too strong if there is also a hero. I will also bring their damage back down to 11.
The idea is that these units are "officers" for their army (hence the auras), so it makes sense they should be limited to 8. Since they are quite strong, I would like them to be a little difficult to get, but if they are too obscure in practice, maybe I can expand the upgrade to veteran swordsman too. Maybe spearmen too?
I like the idea a lot, I just question whether it ever really gets used. Rank 3 units are rare, especially for melee units.
-
1 minute ago, Fabius said:
Centurions are supposed to be highly proficient individuals so combat proficiency in excess of a champion is a good bar to set I would say.
Yeah, but isn't that the point of al the champions? Champions were the best of the best for all of these extremely powerful civs that excelled in war.
-
2 minutes ago, Fabius said:
4 minutes in the barracks gets you rank 3 on a hastati, but thats not overly ideal for games that often run quite short. I would prefer just a straight limited recruitment from the barracks or some other place like an army camp.
Yeah, I know, but that's a really long time. It limits your ability to fight and it causes a drag on your eco. (related note, I think this experience via garrisioning features needs a buff).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
They take 12 seconds to upgrade and upon upgrading they take the form of a sword champion with an aura of 30 meters. The aura is a 10% damage buff as well as a -25% promotion experience effect on CS.
I like this a lot. Only concern here would be computing concerns--I believe similar features have caused lag concerns in the past.
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:They will be the strongest sword champion in the game with 14 hack compared to 11.
I'm generally not a fan of making the "same" units have different stats because it makes the game harder to learn. Perhaps the aura means this isn't the same unit, though.
Also, query whether this is necessary given the aura above.
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:rank 3 (elite) swordsmen may be upgraded
This feels quite restrictive--melee units are already very hard to promote up to rank 3 and melee units often die shortly after reaching rank 3. I would consider removing in order to make this a more used unit.
-----
Overall, this seems nice
-
3 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
- Removed "Imperialism" Structures +10% Territory influence Aura
3 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:- Retained Conqueror Aura: Radius 60 Meters, Enemy Civic Centers -50% Capture Point Regeneration Rate
I think it would be cool if this was replaced with a roaming territory influence aura. This would encourage players to make really aggressive attacks into enemy territory because after a certain amount of time the attacker could gain control of barracks and other buildings.
I really like the rest of your proposal (it also really bugged me that the greatest(?) conqueror of all time was a pretty unhelpful hero)
-
1
-
51 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
to be honest decreasing the cost and build time also would give seles an advantage when it comes to diminishing farmer returns because it would be easier for them to build extra farms to spread out workers to 3/5 per farm or so. Perhaps the diminishing returns is something more players should consider even with the current game, at least I have never intentionally spread out my farmers.
Sure but that’s more attenuated. Field costs changes build order more. For example, I would be a lot less likely to expand my territory with buildings to get extra berries if I know I can save 100 wood (farm stand cost) and not have to walk all the way to the edge of my territory if I have free fields.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
ok, I'll remove the diminishing returns part, since this is an obscure game mechanic that might be removed anyway.
I like that. I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 made a great point about how the diminishing marginal returns is not actionable--it really just makes Sele easier. In that case, I think you can give an even bigger cost and/or build time decrease to make it "more" actionable and relevant. Deceased cost/build time could open up some different build orders (i.e., people would be less likely to chase berries).
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, hyperion said:
The only sensible thing is to remove the diminishing returns for all civs, @maroder had such a plan, a hidden bonus to a hidden feature doesn't make sense at all. Just because a parameter exits doesn't mean it has to be tweaked. Increase gather rate for a civ if you want a farming bonus.
I tend to agree. I don’t like hidden features. Diminishing marginal returns is disclosed, but it’s magnitude is not. So the true impact of this bonus isn’t obvious (hence the above discussion). @hyperion’s suggestion makes the game more comprehendible and can easily be adjusted to do @real_tabasco_sauce‘s civ bonus.
On this, I would also eliminate the diminishing marginal return for buildings, which is entirely hidden (I think).
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
yeah not huge, but it's substantial. The main thing is that its present for the whole game time, unlike the discount on construction.
See above. I lean towards just making it the diminishing marginal returns. Or going bigger on discount cost (i.e., make fields free) and forget about the diminishing marginal return issue.
-
10 minutes ago, alre said:
cumulated effect of proposed bonus:
1 farmer per field: +0% food income
2 farmer per field: +5.3% food income
3 farmer per field: +10.7% food income
4 farmer per field: +16.3% food income
5 farmer per field: +22.1% food income
so if you keep your farms fully staffed, it's +22% food income. it's not wild but it's very good from the moment you get farms.
Thanks.
So this is about double what the Gauls' extra gathering tech is except it starts immediately and you get it for free. Could be fine--I don't know. Sounds substantial, though.
My guess is that in the long term this would be less impactful than the extra pop that Persia and Maurya gets, but in the short term this would be one of the best booming features.
-
5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
no, this is for farmers here.
What the normal diminishing marginal return?
Also, do you know what the actual quant impact is? Say how much more food collected by min 10 assuming all fields are max staffed
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
no diminishing returns for farmers.
Do you mean the number of builders?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, binobo said:
camp could slowly heal troops inside at the cost of an upgrade.
It used to do this too. The camp used to be really useful and open up a lot of new strats, but it was entirely gutted.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Fabius said:
I see. I remember they complained we were using them as impromptu siege workshops and so bypassing the need for a fortress and proceeded to ruin it, which struck me as rather much like punishing the player for being creative with things. I used that as often as I could, not just for siege, when I realised it had veteran spearmen I always made some camps somewhere on my back line so I could make use of those veterans.
All in all I would love the old camp with the complete original training roster of hastati, triari and Equites(veteran equites maybe?) with all the siege as well. It wont make the siege workshop a redundancy either as that still can be placed back home.
It also lacks techs and other functionality.
I agree for all your reasons and more. But that’s how we got here
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Fabius said:
Why is there a metal cost anyway? fortresses cost wood and stone, so why does this have a metal component? Why not just make it 200 stone and 400 wood?
This was one of the mistakes from a23-->a24. Someone thought it was massively OP and made the camp useless in a24. It's been partially fixed, but I would have no problem going back to a23 where the camp was actually used (and wasn't OP imo). Now, it is very rare to ever see one built
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Try them with Boudicca tho.
Sure. I’ve expressed skepticism about Boudica many times before in these forums. They’re very very strong with Boudica. That may be a different problem.
But I’m personally undecided on whether Boudica is a problem. She only helps heroes, which means the impact is limited unless a player masses a lot of chariots, in which case it’s probably already gg. Compare that to the cav hero for rome, which boosts champ and CS cav, or Vercin, which boosts all soldiers
-
2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Melee champion cav may be non-counterable, but that does not make them OP necessarily, just frustrating to play against.
A unit is not OP if it is counter-able OR it is prohibitively difficult to obtain. Good game design requires that units not be prohibitively difficult to obtain because a prohibitively difficult to obtain unit is superfluous.
Melee champ cav cannot be countered and are not prohibitively difficult to obtain. Therefore they are OP.
2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:Melee champ cav do not have the same damage/cost as ranged and are less survivable
No, they have more health and more armor. Even if they die, 10 champ cav paired with a normal army in a 200 pop game can leave the attacker at 190 pop while the defender has 130 pop. That is GG. A unit can die and still be OP if it leads to a player winning a game.
2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:As for briton chariots/firecav I think fire rate of firecav should be restored to its a25 value and briton champion chariots should have their damage reduced from 36 to 30 (still 5 more than firecav, even neglecting the firecav accuracy nerf).
Brit chariots are not OP. They are counter-able by any melee champ cav, CS spears, sniping, and by other means.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Fabius said:
well they do have diverse melee options, but their ranged section is anything but diverse
Yeah, only skirms. But that's better than some civs. Also, you get many siege options and camp, which other civs don't have.
All in, Rome is by no means the worst civ.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Fabius said:
Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.
Agree
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
My understanding is that it will be incorporated into a27 after more important engine changes and stuff.
On 18/06/2022 at 3:58 AM, wraitii said:To summarise: we'll give you the keys to the car to make A26 a more fun game. By the time A27 comes, we can hopefully use your work (and our own) as a good template for a better game out of the box.
If this experiment is a success, we may reproduce it after A27, but time will tell.
I think it still needs to be ported over and incorporated. My understanding is that the mod won't be a27 because other technical stuff needs to happen, but we could use the mod as a testing ground for things that may or may not be incorporated into a27.
-
I can’t speak for everyone, but I would like to see basically all of the community mod changes accepted into the regular game for a27. Only one I am iffy on is the ptol building cost/build time change. Maybe more testing is needed.
Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by chrstgtr
No, these are just the spelled out things. I would nerf all melee cav health. I don't have a big problem with jav cav health. Champ melee cav is a huge problem.
I think speed is an issue, which is the way I would try to nerf jav and archer cav.
I'm just trying to tell you how I think you could get wider acceptance on the cav issue, which is I think you could get a consensus on certain cav needing to be nerfed, but the current package as a whole is too divisive to gain large acceptance.