chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
3 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
@chrstgtr what do you think about ranged units choosing the closest target to the attack order click rather than defaulting to the closest unit?
I feel that it gives the player more control over the fights.
I always like anything that gives more control to players. Plus you could still use H to get your men to attack the nearest enemy unit
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I am afraid that this alone is what is making pikes frustrating to play against and archers so frustrating to play with. Some people think javelins are op, but I think that they are just the best option to kill the melee fastest.
If everyone is arguing over which unit is best and everyone has different opinions then that is usually a pretty good indication that that portion of the game has pretty good balance.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:
It's different, because then the units do exactly what they would do if they would just have constructed the building. Nice feature
Btw if I build a storehouse in a ring of trees the units will go all to the same tree and not to trees which are close to them instead of the storehouse. Thats a bit suboptimalI'm aware it's different. But that difference is worse because you aren't actually controlling where they go/controlling your eco. Early game it it particularly problematic with women going onto mines.
-
5 hours ago, seeh said:
happy to recognized that if workers behave as if the moment they were finished build of a storehouse/farm, workers starts working immediately getting resources
.
if i set Rally point onto a already build storehouse they don't do like so
=> nice feature to let workers start working immediately getting resources? 
FYI You can basically already do this by setting the rally point on the res itself. Setting it to a storehouse would be more inexact(I.e. should the unit go to the stone, metal or wood that is close to the storehouse)
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Explain? I think there's more to this than what I understand.
Pathfinding was changed this alpha. New pathfinding causes units to "push" one another when they are crowded. This makes melee much stronger this alpha.
-
1 minute ago, Dizaka said:
I've seen a lot of games decided by cavalry champs picking their fights. It's really hard to keep up with cavalry champs on the battlefield due to their ability to escape fights and almost be everywhere. They weren't a problem in the other alphas as there was a lack of metal on maps.
I think there may be an issue with pikemen champions (Sele Silver Shields & Ptol Royal Guard -- See recent post by @Yekaterina under "Magnetic Pikemen"). Haven't seen the champion pikemen used b/c they are slow and not mobile but would be curious to see them used in games especially with Sele surrounding the chariot archers or with Ptol HP/speed heroes.
Regular cav are able to escape now too. That didn't happen in previous alphas. I think the obvious culprit is unit pushing.
-
2 hours ago, Dizaka said:
What I think is happening is that champion are used in a way that "mercenaries" should be used. "Champions" should be super-unique units. A champion implies that you have XYZ people skilled in something but enough of the people that there exist a 1% who are "champions." It shouldn't be a unit that is spammable like regular military units. It should be unique, a "champion."
See.
I would like a more unique role for mercs. I think their train time just needs to be decrease (a lot).
7 hours ago, Dizaka said:15-20 Gaul/Roman Cav Champs should not be the units deciding games. If two pockets do this (Gaul/Rome pockets) it's game over. Currently, champ cav is really unkillable. They mow through units. There are no strategies to counter this other than mow through more units using your own cav. Game should be about building placement, unit attack, and siege availability (e.g., making sure someone has a ranged siege civ on your team). Not about massing 1 unit type (champ cav) by 2 players.
To be honest, I think melee cav is just OP. CS and Champs. Pushing makes it too easy for them to escape bad fights. And, they are strongest units in head on fights. They either need to be slower or have less health/armour. Making them lose the pushing ability would fix it, i think (and it would make sense that a bunch of cav can't push), but I doubt that is possible mechanically.
I don't have an issue with champ inf. Just with champ cav.
-
7 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
However one thing that is an issue, is that champions aren't used regularly. There is few reasons to train champions in 1v1s. So I think first we should make champions more viable.
What I would like to see is moving buildings like Gallic assembly of princes, Athenian council hall, and Spartan mess hall to p2 and allow them to train champions in p2. Since the number of these buildings could be limited, it also allows for some but limited champion training.
Also I would like 1 type of champion per faction being selected as the favoured champions, which can be trained in the fortress and does not require any technologies to unlock them.
Most 1v1 matches I’ve played in that are competitive for more than 15 minutes featured champs.
For me it’s been TGs that are too frantic to wait to build champs
-
5 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Glad you do; giving any suggestions for changes or additions is obviously welcome. As a clarifier, Spartan Hoplites would never be able to be batch trained. That could quite obviously abuse their lack of any cost.
Yeah, this would require a big champ balance overhaul, but that’s ok IMO. Esp since initial reports from a25 seem to indicate that CS balance is good (I.e. nearing a potential final state).
In terms of balancing, in some places, it might be easier to keep with we have (ie standardized champ units that are basically just stronger CS) and introduce all new units with these types of special characteristics. So for something like Sparta we could do as you suggest and then bring back a standardized sword champ or skirm champ. There are some civs that basically already do this (i.e. fire cav for iber is totally unique while Iber’s sword other sword champ is the standardized
Doing something like what you describe above would bring back some of the civ differentiation/unique civ play that was lost in a24 and would also introduce some unit differentiation that people have (rightly) complained about without needing to totally restart balancing -
3 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
At the moment, aside from upgrades that exist for some civilisations, tests that I have made with champion units has revealed that they are for the most part completely identical. This means that in a one on one fight, an un-upgraded spartan fighting an immortal will always result in a tie. I am not criticising this vein of logic; it makes balancing easier by having identical stats for different classes, yet at the same time it seems like a lost opportunity. Champions should have defining features to them that flesh out the culture they came from. As such, I thought up a few potential changes to how some (not all) champions could be altered to better reflect this.
Immortal: capable of swapping to archer mode at the cost of lower armour.
Spartan Hoplite: free but extremely long training time and two population, can be trained in the Village Phase through a the Mess Hall, which has a building cap of one in the Village phase, 2 in the Town Phase, and 3 in the City Phase.
Consular Bodyguard: buffed when by a hero.
Sacred Band: buffs citizen soldiers within a small aura at the cost of taking up two population.
British Chariot: incorporate transport aspect (see Geneva’s thread.).
Naked Fanatic: ignores armour.
Scythian Archer: buffed when fighting in friendly territory.
Marine: small movement buff to ships it is garrisoned within.
These are just a few things I thought up that may not be practical to implement at the moment, but I think that a line of thinking like this would greatly help in characterising defining part of each civilisation.
I like most of these. Balancing gets tough. But this makes them closer to somewhere between a hero and a CS instead of just being a stronger CS.
-
23 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Hardly "a lot". We're talking about preventing 50 archers from blasting a hero with 50 arrows (and missing). But I have no strong opinion on the subject and I'd rather not get into an argument for no gain.
Having 50 archers shoot and repeatedly miss is obviously a big loss of offensive power. That is why there is "a lot" of incentive to organize your troops better to ensure that 50 units aren't doing a duplicative job.
With that said, my critique applies mostly to non-hero units. The main problem I see with applying a max number of attackers to heros (which again do most of the dancing) is that this will limit players' ability to snipe heros, which is often a big strategy in regicide games. In this balance, I could go either way.
-
Setting a max number of attackers takes out a lot of strategy/micro in the game since it takes away a lot of the incentive to position your armies when attacking.
An alternative solution that would have less unintended consequences would be to just make heros' turn rates even slower than they are now since dancing abuse tends to only really occur with heros. Also please note that heros' turn rates did not change from a24 to a25.
Nonetheless, I have not seen this happen much, so I am inclined to just leave things as they are until it becomes a pervasive problem like it once was.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MarcusAureliu#s said:
A25 seems to be the best Alpha so far. It is alot better than the "camel rush and sling" alpha 23, as it offers more dimensions. P1 rush - P2 cav rush - Champions - Ranged focussed army - melee focussed army - i mean i havent played a lot, but seems more balanced so far. I kinda had the impression Camel rush very strong strat, especially with faster game, but it remains to be seen.
Edit: Also i like the new path finder a lot
Camels have shorter range and are less accurate. Still, it remains to be seen if this will make a difference (I’ve only played against it with players who are clearly better or worse than me, so the jury is still out here for me)
-
I’m also very biased (and it is still a bit early), but I think A25 is great step in the right direction.
I would like more civ differentiation in a26 that creates unique strategies (e.g., fanatics in a21, Athens champs/slingers in a23, mace siege rush in a23 and earlier alphas, etc.)
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The biomes are a work in progress.
Jungle biome is a bit too heavy on trees. It makes it difficult to just place all buildings for a fully developed city. Otherwise, I’m happy with the current biomes.
Edit: If you want that look, an easy fix would be to make trees less wood, so that they are cut quicker
-
5 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
Yeah, I still don't get what the problem is supposed to be, or why trading with someone else being beneficial wouldn't make sense.
17 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:You still haven't really articulated what in-game problem there is with it, other than you don't like the abstraction.
Read OP post--it explicitly attributed the problem to int'l trade bonus.
@Gurken Khan Here: There is a market somewhere on the map. Why should it matter if I own the market or my ally owns the market if the benefit is tied to distance. Put another way, if an American company is importing a natural resource from a country in Africa why should the amount extracted increase if the extractor is American or African? The amount extracted is the same. The only thing is how is the benefit split up. If the American company has to pay the African country then obviously the amount of income will be less.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
You still haven't really articulated what in-game problem there is with it, other than you don't like the abstraction.
Read OP post.
-
17 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The int'l trading bonus is to tie together the economies of allied players on a team.
But why give a bonus? It is already beneficial to trade over long distances. Just split the fixed amt of res.
The abstraction causes a problem, and the abstraction itself doesn't really make sense. So why keep it?
-
1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:
@chrstgtr Either I'm confused or you are; metal from trade doesn't have anything to do with deposits? So access to metal deposits has nothing to do with trade?
It's an abstraction of the benefits int'l trade offers?
Again, an abstraction of the benefits of int'l trade? And 'someone else would want' is not how it actually works in-game? So again, I don't get your point of being hurt by it.
There is no need for an abstraction. Trading from far away places is beneficial. Usually trading with a far away place means international, but not necessarily. Given a fixed distance, trading amongst yourself should be more beneficial than trading with someone else bc then you don't have to share the fixed trade. Trading between different countries over a certain distance doesn't magically make it more profitable than trading over that same distance amongst yourself.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
I don't understand the point with the middle man; I also don't understand why you say Carthaginians are hurt by international trade. I think it's historically correct that trading internationally is stimulating trade, if only because other regions have stuff not available domestically.
Fun fact: AFAIK amber from the Baltic Sea was found in an Egyptian pyramid; imagine that trade route, >3,000 years ago...
Trade only generate so much income--the amount of food/wood/stone/metal that was actually being carried by traders from one location to another. If you are trading with a seperate party instead of one of your own colonies then the income is being shared with the other party. Thus, the total income you capture is less. For example, let's say Rome traded 100 metal with Carth. Carth would would some portion of that metal in order to facilitate the trade. If, however, Rome captured Carth or built a Roman colony right next to Carth where they could access the metal then Rome wouldn't have to share the trade income and could keep it all to themselves.
The "domestically available" bit isn't relevant because income is determined by distance (i.e., where the market is). The international bonus is on top of whatever trade income the route would naturally give, which just doesn't make sense.
In other words, trading with a specific trading market shouldn't magically create additional trade income just because it is owned by someone else. If anything, that someone else would want a portion of the trade income bc they are facilitating the trade as a middleman.
-
20 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
@chrstgtr If you can't produce units house/pop cap don't matter either. As I can't think of a way a unit not being able to build or capture bringing up a civ again, I'm fine with healers etc. not counting towards the defeated status.
You can still have a lot of units while having 0 pop cap/production capabilities.
-
Could also just get rid of international bonus. It doesn't really make sense--why should overall trade income increase when there is a middle man? It makes more sense that long distance trade would be most profitable when a player vertically integrates (i.e., when they build a CC far away and build a trade post there).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:
But if they're technically dead by conquest they at least shouldn't have a temple to train new healers, right?
Bigger issue would be houses/pop cap. I think I have seen it only happen a few times before, and in those games the player was unable to help their teammates in any way except for a relatively large force of leveled up healers. Because all players at this point were unable to sustain large armies keeping men alive was very important, which made 20ish leveled up healers very potent.
Edit: My point is: a player shouldn't be defeated when they can still be helpful to a team
The only benefit to not requiring healers to be killed (or for that matter any other unit) is that it makes it easier for players to "officially" win when it is already obvious who has already won.
-
32 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
That was my immediate thought as well, that priests can still affect a team game. But let's be honest, how many priests would it take to actually affect a team game? Then again, you could also ask how many spearmen does it take to affect a team game? It's certainly a rabbit hole one could dive into, but at the end of the day a line has to be drawn somewhere. I would make priests ConquestCritical though.
I've seen games where a player is essentially dead but for 10-20 level-3 priests that greatly helps the "dead" players' allies. This typically occurs in long games where players run out of wood, but food remains plentiful. But to your point, it is very rare.
-
1
-
Batch Training (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly)
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
I'm not sure I understand. Does this mean that each unit/batch effectively take .2 seconds longer when made with auto queue compared to when it is manually done?