Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1.154

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

 Content Type 

Everything posted by chrstgtr

  1. chrstgtr
    There's a lot right here. But the just because a unit is rank 2 doesn't automatically make it OP. For example, look at skiratai. They're rank 3 and not OP in this alpha. I think this clearly means that the problem with mercs is their cost. Mercs cost only one res (super easy eco management) and total res cost is less than comparable unit. To the extent cav mercs are better than inf mercs, that is a function of the underlying cav/inf balance. This is a cav alpha and it is still an option question on whether that is desirable.
  2. chrstgtr
    It's not. The fixes were never reasonably targeted to fixing the dancing problem and the frequency of people complaining about dancing is very low at this point. Even the people who advocate for the turn rates (or acceleration today) do so by referring to how realistic it looks. This is simply an aesthetic change. Personally, I am not a fan. But alas, here we are, again.
  3. chrstgtr
    Didn't know. Doesn't seem like too many people have played it. Honestly, I didn't realize we were so close to a26.
  4. chrstgtr
    After acceleration/turn times. That is a major change that will be hard to assess if you add this too. Borg’s comment has merit. Otherwise, I would 100% say now.
  5. chrstgtr
    Same
  6. chrstgtr
    We just disagree. Nothing you said makes sense to me in my experience or observations.
  7. chrstgtr
    Didn't say this at all. I said i doubt it. Attack group reduces the basic micro that's already there is what i'm saying. You honestly can't disagree with this. How is painting an area to target units more micro than invdividually selecting unit per unit with alt? If that's how you feel we might aswell stop discussing this further with eachother. No one does that once you’re fighting with more than like 30 units. It’s just not worthwhile because you can’t click fast enough to do that and all your other tasks in mid-late game. If you want to spend all your time clicking on 10 out of my 120 units then that’s fine. You’ll kill those10 units but you won’t have reinforcements because you wasted all your focus trying to click on 10 of my units while i spent my time doing all the other necessary tasks to sustain a fight that large. One of the most common mistakes of new players is that they spend all their time trying to micro big fights while their enemy just runs them over by properly managing their macro eco/unit production and ignoring micro. The mirco you describe all but does not exist in large fights because it isn’t worth the other sacrifices you have to make to do it. You’re not getting it. I’m describing things that mostly do not exist now. I know what you think I am saying, but there is so much more to it than that. And to the extent that it is the “same,” it is in an entirely different context that will require different considerations than what exists now while still preserving what already exists.
  8. chrstgtr
    I totally disagree. What you call “over complication” is just a use of more micro, which you said won’t exist. What you banally describe as an “over complication” most others would describe as skill and will differentiate good players from those who just understand all the basic features None of it will be the same anymore because you would be able to fundamentally direct armies in a different way that previously could only be achieve through the the impossible task of selecting hundreds of different units to individually attack hundred of other individual units. That will obviously bring new strategies and techniques that were not possible no matter how good you were. The fact is that right now you cannot truly micro large battles other than moving units away from or towards something because the attack mechanism is too basic. Will it make basic micro simpler? Maybe. But it certainly won’t be any easier than spamming units to a rally point like most players do now. I can tell you with certainty that what I described would be more micro intensive for me.
  9. chrstgtr
    This is a massive oversimplification. As I process what micro would be in my head, I am honestly worried it will be too complicated. It involves: what units/unit types will I select, where will I put them, what group will I target, how many different focus group will I have l, how many attacking groups will I have, how often will I update each groups attacking orders, how close of attend do I have to pay to the groups being attacked so the attackers don’t default to the nearest unit, how big of groups do I target so my attackers don’t default to the closest unit, how do I position my army so if they do default to the nearest unit are they still in a good fighting position, how much do I lure units so the enemy walks into my melee, how close do I pay attention so I don’t get lured, how do I position my melee to take advantage of luring, how do I position my melee to take advantage of enemy units defaulting, etc. And that is just a list of things I can immediately think of before I began an idea repeated itself in my head. How can you do so simply categorize all micro strategy with no imagination? How someone can say it is easy with no risk (esp when compared to something where you literally just select a small area to shoot aimlessly at), I cannot understand.
  10. chrstgtr
    You’re statements on attack group aren’t true. If you select a large area, attack group just makes you shoot father projectiles that are less likely to hit. If it also acts as a tower that randomly selects then that means that it will attack random units walking through the area that you probably don’t mean to target and are less likely to be hit because they’re moving. If attack group selects random units that you aim at until dead or at units that are nearest in that area then You will have to regularly re micro as that area will have units disappear and range units will go back to default attacks if nearest unit. Plus if you do attack group then new arriving units will need to be microed to attack group or they will just default to nearest units. This provides the benefit of being able to target ranged units in the back which is why this whole discussion exists so idk why you don’t think it provides player benefit and as I describe above it also requires regular micro and skill. I described these pros/cons in my initial comments on this thread. I believe those possibilities should be re-examined. The only person who spoke in opposition to that said they thought my proposal would be OP (despite no reason given for that) and that they preferred attack ground bc it would hit the footprint, which is obviously true but equally obvious that that would make attack ground only useful in the very limited situation where extreme chock points exist (which also probably creates balance issues that something like attack group with target of nearest unit doesn’t have a problem with) Not trying to say I told you so here, but attack ground has some very obvious deficiencies that makes it use extremely limited. And these deficiencies are severe enough to mean in the vast majority of situations on the vast majority of maps attack-ground won't address anyone's original concerns that led to this discussion, namely that range units overkill meat shields. If you want it, fine. But it is not something that excites me at all.
  11. chrstgtr
    I think between a23–>a24, bolts used to have slash damage (or something like that). Their stats changed a lot and became less useful honestly, I would be happy reverting bolts back to their a23 stats. But so much has changed since then (ie champs) that the solution may not be that simple (Cata is another story…)
  12. chrstgtr
    Javs only fought melee, though. It was basically archers using the new feature vs javs using the old (many units with overlapping targets) feature. Would need to see more Also, what targeting feature is this? Random ground targets? Or group targeting?
  13. chrstgtr
    I think it's because misses become very important. All units are low health, but slight variations (i.e. a little more luck on accuracy in equal fights or just more units) can lead to totally different outcomes. This is another form of what i was talking about
  14. chrstgtr
    I don’t get what you were disagreeing with then. but fine, the undeveloped option is (always) better than the option that is currently developed. My point is, we should strive for targeting of some type. If you want to implement some intermediate, transitionary option, fine. I don’t think it will be useful, but I’d be happy to be wrong I don’t have to use it if I am right. but development shouldn’t stop there, especially since we know a better option that just isn’t developed yet
  15. chrstgtr
    You aren’t getting what I am saying: randomly targeting units within a defined area (the way a tower works) is always going to be better than randomly shooting projectiles within a defined area (imagine a tower, but half your projectiles go in the wrong direction) I laid out four different ways units can be targeted and only one of those is what you are describing
  16. chrstgtr
    Because if you are shooting aimless then many (and likely most) of your units are guaranteed to be useless. It is like sending your men into battle and then setting 20% of them to passive. more to the point, how is random shooting at an area. Better than targeted shooting at an area? You can achieve the same thing that you want with random targeting of units with an area (1) above, but not have any of the downside.
  17. chrstgtr
    Sure, there are confounding factors. But for every enemy change the attacking player can make an appropriate reaction. What I described is more or less optimal play that will lead to pretty wonky outcomes. But we’ll see regardless, unless the dev team wants to undertake a lot of work at the front end, we are going to need to pick one preferred choice and then test that option. My preference is known
  18. chrstgtr
    Some things are just simple math. If all units in an area are randomly targeted then all units will die more or less at the same time. If I have 10% more units then my units will have ~10% health left when all the enemy dies, which will occur more or less all at the same time. An army of 100 (even if it just has 10% health) is going to roll over any enemy with an army of 0. Barracks won’t be able to spam quickly enough to even make a dent
  19. chrstgtr
    I don’t think you are understanding what I wrote. Either units are targeted, which may or may not lead to many units being targeted all at once (see above), or individual geographies are being targeted—regardless of whether or not units are in those aimed at locations. Shooting at random geographies is pointless. Shooting at units is useful. How you target units is a different discussion, which I lay out above
  20. chrstgtr
    That would be (1) or (3) as I describe above. I believe (1) is bad for the reasons k describe
  21. chrstgtr
    This is either my (1) as described above or random shots. They are either targeting units or not. Not targeting units is useless. If shots aren’t being targeted and are just shooting at an area (as opposed to units within that area) then I don’t see why anyone would ever use that
  22. chrstgtr
    This doesn't make sense. Why would you ever ask your units to attack at random? In every way, this is less preferable than any of the options I describe below. I think there are only four real options here: Tower-like attacks for a specified area that targets units within the area. This has at least two options as I explain below With each volley, a new target is selected. This is the same as a tower. Pro: This will probably encourage healers because units injured units won't just die right away like they do now while they are under attack from several units all at once. Con: It will lead to a slow, sudden death of large armies. This will without a doubt lead to snowballing in 1v1s because large enemy armies will die almost all at once while the attacking army will lose basically no units. In team games, this will lead to a teammate's army being able to quickly wipe enemies even if the enemy army is large because units will be uniformly very injured. This will also make this type of attack Targeting closest units within an area. This is the same way units are now except they will only attack units in a specified area. Pro: It works. Con: It will still probably lead to some units being overly targeted. This will eventually lead to melee units being targeted as they walk through the ranged army Repeated attacking of randomly selected units until they are dead. Pro: this gets rid of the overly targeted problem that we have now Con: Coding? Nothing works like this now. This also leads to less control over attacking unit types here. This also make this type of attack not very workable with melee units. Additionally, this may lead to situations where your attacking units have to walk some distance before engaging in a fight, which is pretty undesirable, but I suppose that could either be fixed with code or itself could be seen as a feature because better micro would avoid this problem. Some combination of the above while selecting targets based on unit types Pro: you won't randomly target melee walking through. Con: Coding? Nothing works this way. Overly complicated? Personally, I like (3) and would like the option of adding (4) somewhere down the road.
  23. chrstgtr
    Not useless. But maybe not the best CS unit in game. Remember melee units will continue to fight other melee units, where pikes will do well, and range units quickly fall when melee is able to directly engage with them. In response to your question, I think it depends. Is it the situation where you pick an area or pick units. Pick units would follow. Pick area would disengage after they leave. No strong preference for me here, but I do think both could encourage more movement in fight, which could be interesting (ie large-scale luring or moving your units into safety
  24. chrstgtr
    Thanks, I didn’t know a difference had been created yet. Can you link me to it It doesn’t sound very functional given what players want it to be able to do, but I would like to be able to take a look
  25. chrstgtr
    I don’t quite get what the difference is. My suggestion had always been that a player should be able to drag and select an area where units will focus their fighting on until they are given a different command or no more units exist in that area. This can be done where units focus on the nearest unit with a selected area (like how normal attack move works) or where they spread out their projectiles within a selected area (like how towers work). Ideally both iterations would be possible what I don’t want is a feature where units will just aimless shoot at an empty area (or stand idle) because they were “told” to while enemy units walk right in from of them
×
×
  • Create New...