chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
Overall, though, it looks like a fun map. I really like maps that encourage early skirmishes like this. I would just try to make it a little more unique than hyrcannian shores.
-
I played around with it a little bit.
It seems fine. A couple recommendations from me.
First, I would make stone/metal more scarce in the starting positions by eliminating extra mines outside of the mountains and/or making the starting mines smaller. That would force players to decide between (1) pushing hard early; and (2) going for a long game where they control the mines on the edge of the map. I would make this dramatic by giving players only like 1-2K in starting metal/stone.
Second, I would create a larger dead space between the trees and mines where there are no resources. Right now, a player could place a second CC where that would allow them to get a bunch of extra wood/mines. On maps like hyrcannian shores, players almost always expand for extra wood. When they expand for extra wood, players will also get mines at basically no extra cost. I would make the choice to get extra mines a conscience one where the player has to sacrifice an opportunity to get more wood. This would also have the effect of making wood more scarce.
Third, I would make it a high food spawn map. That allows for lots of early rushes, which I think is fun on these maps where the players start so close.
Edit: Fourth, I would make a lot of hunt on the inland side of the map. Having half the players have easy access to fish creates a natural imbalance in early game.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
map_placement.zip 1 MB · 0 downloads
This has all the placement options on the random maps, and also contains the new migration as well as the Coast Range map.
For coast range, there is a bug with a couple of the biomes, so just use subalpine for the time being.
Thanks. I'll take a look and let you know if I have any thuoghts.
-
1
-
-
@real_tabasco_sauceDo you have a downloadable mod so that I can toy around with the map in the game? The map looks nice, but it looks really similar to hyrcannian shores, so I don't think I really appreciate the differences by just looking at the screenshot/description.
-
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4676
It was done because of a dislike for for the capturing mechanic. There's a lot of legitimate gripe with that meta. This change attempts to thread the needle a bit. To say the least, the other competing proposals were much more complicated.
I think there is no real harm in trying out the change in default unit AI behavior--you'll probably get used to it pretty quickly and adjust accordingly
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Another thing to point out is that Storage Carts won't be able to construct buildings, which makes them different from Worker Elephants. That, plus cost, health, and speed differences.
Curious, but how much quicker would it be?
-
4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I wish I was there for that lol
One of the many times people got exactly what they asked for and then immediately wanted it reverted
31 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:lol that was so fun for a little bit. I think the main thing that made it problematic was that there was no way for the charging units to ever slow down or run out of "charge".
I think that’s right. That’s why I think each unit would need to a “energy” meter that would need to recharge once depleted. So you can force a unit to run for up to 3 seconds but after 3 seconds you have to let their energy recharge, which would take like a minute, before the unit could move quicker than it’s normal walk pace again
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Well this is a bit more complicated. It depends on which method your enemy is using to snipe. The best method for sniping in most cases involves using alt to rapidly task all 80-100 or so of your ranged units on your enemies' ranged units. I think buffing healers would have the effect of nerfing this kind of sniping because spam clicking usually means that damage gets spread out more among enemy units.
Unless they click on the same enemy multiple times. Even still, a healer could only keep 1 or maybe 2 units alive for a little longer than normal? So you have to use 2 units (one of which can’t deal dmg) to fight 1 enemy? That isn’t a winning formula
Anyways, buffing healers can lead to some pretty terrible snowball effects with armies leveling up at full health
-
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I was just brainstorming a way to encourage spreading out one's attacks instead of constantly focus-firing.
Healing just isn’t very effective while in a fight. It certainly isn’t effective when your enemy is basically one-shotting your men by using 20 archers to simultaneously volley arrows on one specific unit at a time. Buffing healers would have the effect of buffing sniping because a good sniper will level up his units and then be able to return them to full health more quickly after a fight
Spreading out units to avoid “overkill” is like a poor man’s sniping.
I agree with @real_tabasco_sauce that changing unit stats would make things unnecessarily more complicated.
Along those lines, though, I’ve always thought it would be cool if you could temporarily force units to run until they get tired. It could function kind of like how sprinting works in the EA sports games. That would introduce charging like a lot of players want. But it wouldn’t create the imbalanced mess that happened when charging was accidentally implemented during one of the RCs.
-
2
-
-
On 18/10/2023 at 3:14 PM, alre said:
I like how ranged melee rebalance would make sniping less important.
but maybe 5% to 10% is not ideal? maybe 0% is ideal. On the other hand, I know that if sniping only becomes uselful at higher competitive level, those players will be more ready to accept this kind of micro, provided that is not allways good, but there is a choice involved.
For me, sniping is ok when it’s small fights that are like 15v 15 units. That is also where sniping is least determinative.
But when you have two armies of 100+ units and great sniping can lead to one player losing an entire army and one person losing 20 units and leveling up their entire army. Then that is a problem. It truly takes a lot of fun out of the game
-
I think I speak for everyone when I say--you will be missed. You oversaw a great development period for the game.
Thanks for all that you've given and I wish the best.
-
6
-
-
9 hours ago, Atrik said:
I think one of us have to stop replying so I'll do it. Seems you can endlessly throw accusations even when it's you wanting to do something, I'll be responsible. Cheat mods, Atrik cheater, Atrik responsible of whatever @real_tabasco_sauce will push for that will downgrade UX. And if you disagree with @real_tabasco_sauce's very smart opinion you are a flat earther. Feel free to make all the claims you want about progui, or even accusation about things I didn't do, I won't reply since it's probably annoying to people to have misleading thread title deviating onto debates about something else.
@BreakfastBurrito_007 created the thread to say what he wanted. You came in as the first reply to call him a hypocrite and proclaim the rightness of your mod. There was back and forth and then @BreakfastBurrito_007 said “yea, anyway” to move on from your nonsense. You immediately replied again with paragraphs to proclaim how your cheat is less cheating than other worse cheats.
But yeah, take the high road. Walk away by “stopping” as you continue to insist to have the last word.
There are plenty of accusations I can make about you that I can’t prove. I know you are the first player to boom to 200 pop at the start of the game but I also know if you lose your CC and pop in late game you can’t grow greater than 50 pop with 10 minutes and mountains of tributes. I know you were one of the worst multitaskers in the game but overnight you suddenly “became” a decent rusher. Can I prove you do other cheats? No. But I already know from what you do tell me that you openly use plenty of cheats.
Stop playing the victim. Stop cheating. Stop enabling other to cheat. Stop playing with people that don’t you in their games.
-
1
-
-
You're pretending that you're helping, but no one asked you for this and you have been told by many to stop.
Be part of the actual development of the game if you want to see the features implemented--the biggest barrier is often the availability of volunteers. Your renegade approach just cannibalizes the process.
-
5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Well it would be way easier if the toggle had a preference for idle barracks/stables/blacksmiths. In that case you would just hit the toggle button even if just to check for an idle building of the type. Usually if you have even and simultaneous batch sizes across all the barracks it means you need to make houses in larger batches, with some barracks becoming idle due to insufficient res to make the same size batch, housing issues, an upgrade, or a previously delayed batch. Of course its not really worth the effort to get this marginal improvement of efficiency if there isn't a good way to do it. To be honest part of my inspiration for the idea for this toggle was seeing how efficiently progui generates batches across different barracks.
Yeah, but you constantly have to check if all your barracks are active. That requires a lot of checking/toggling. That’s a ton of work and really hard to do well (another reason why progui isn’t the same as auto queue). You can try it (I have) but it’s too much work for me to play a game that I play to relax.
I would like an idle barrack button to match the idle unit button. Preferably with a visual cue.
-
44 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Ah, I see what you mean. Doing it with a bunch of control groups would probably not be worth the extra attention span lol. I'll probably try putting all of them in one control group though.
I understand. But you usually hit max pop by the time you get a bunch of groups. Late game, you can have just two groups to transition to cav/champs.
For ease, I usually just create one group for barracks and manually do individual barracks for one or two production cycles. By the end of one or two cycles, I usually have a chance to link the barracks up on the same production cycle from the same group. Cycling through barracks, like you describe above, sounds like too much effort for the reward, to me.
-
16 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Yea I was testing out the existing autociv toggle feature because I wanted to do custom batches on each barracks 1 by 1 instead of making a the same batch across all barracks. The idea came from comparing early game boom with barracks to the last 70-100 pop trained. Usually players will go from 2-3 barracks in p1 with medium or large asynchronous batches to 5-10 barracks in p2 and/or p3 with small synchronous batches. I think its because eventually it gets easier to just select all barracks instead of trying to manage them individually. I think it could be more efficient (especially if you are trying to hit a timing or a transition to cav or champions) to attempt to continue the individual barracks management through the whole boom process, and perhaps even when managing army composition later in the game.
I see what you’re saying, but it’s still possible to do that with preexisting control groups. It just requires a few more clicks than/control groups than hot keys.
-
3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
You forgot:
Autoqueue:
Acts individually per production building, must be turned on manually.
Trainer:
Acts globally on production buildings with no user action required for training.
Also,
AQ: peer reviewed for universal acceptance that has occurred
Trainer: not peer reviewed with no universal acceptance
@Atrik is just substituting terms to make it sound innocuous. “Read user input” is newspeak for “decide which units to make, how many to make, and when to make them” which is exactly how I described it the first time. Just because the player sets the parameters doesn’t mean the mod doesn’t do exactly what I said. Playing with a chess with the “assistance” of AI would isn’t all of a sudden made fair if the “user input” is to play at a 2000 level instead of a 3200 level, and it certainly isn’t fair if your opponent doesn’t consent to the “assistance.”
Even with the substitution of terms, he still has to admit that it does some things differently with no player action.-
1
-
1
-
-
On 4/10/2023 at 2:27 AM, Atrik said:
Dear @BreakfastBurrito_007, you seems to actually like the idea to have features helping with production. This topic should be interesting, I'm looking forward to see more features (or just talking about feature ideas is already entertaining) for this in the game. It doesn’t simply reduce clicks.
Since you again picked up progui (the trainer) as a counterexample, how did you find out it was reducing decisions? Is there any strategy you can't do using it? Is it nudging players toward a particular game-play? In my experience, it's easier to try out different booms/game-plans/strategy with progui in general.
The mod is light years from perfect, but idk why a few people always criticize it for having features that players (and maybe even themselves judging by this post) seems to actually want.
About autociv hotkeys, I guess, they where made too good (aka they can be nearly infinitely customized) that makes them more then hotkeys and deemable 'macros' by your standards:
It also makes less sens to have them, as they are, in base game. Because you may not want to have features only accessible editing the config file or that require to understand logical operators. This is only speculation from me but it makes enough sens for it to probably be the case of why autociv hotkeys aren't in the game yet.@AtrikYour mod can decide which units to make, how many to make, and when to make them. It can also move the units for you. With the exception of only a few players (all of whom use your mod), everyone finds your mod problematic.
@BreakfastBurrito_007 I don’t use autociv hot keys, and am not too familiar with their offerings. But based on your description, it sounds like you can accomplish most (all?) of what you want with control groups and a little more work. The control groups in the base game is what I’ve always used. A hot key button for all barracks would be nice but it would only actually save me like 20 clocks over the span of 30 minutes of gameplay (with most of those clicks happening before any real game action). Nice sure. But I’m not upset that it doesn’t exist.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Norse_Harold said:
He messages me from time to time with a reaction to something I've written on the forum or IRC, or to inform me of spam on the forum or Phabricator. Sometimes he will tell a story about the history of conflict in the WFG dev team or provide feedback on some source code that I've written. He isn't "back". He has told me that he will never do work for WFG again. Apparently he considers the information he sends me to not be defined as "work" for WFG, which is good because I consider the information that he sends to be defined as helpful. He's probably reading this right now, so hi Elexis. :-)
I imagine that he would respond to this similarly to the most recent conversation with him, where he said, "ignorance is bliss"...
I used to complain about how Elexis handled things from time to time. Looking back in it, Elexis did a great job and was under appreciated
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Elexis is a ghost among us. Gone, but here.
The past is never dead. It is not even the past
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, roscany said:
I've seen it once. Player A build a forward CC and Fort close enough to join root with their Ally. Player B on the opposite team captured the CC of Player A, but left the fort standing. Player A's fort was close enough to their Ally to keep the its loyalty and started to attack the loyalty of the damaged CC until Player B garrisoned the CC.
Yeah, in all the games I spec'd I've maybe noticed this once.
Big enough territory influence to take over nearby structures, but not enough to keep its own...............
yeah, I think I’ve seen it one or two times for real and it was in the context of an ally fort being accidentally too close to an ally CC. It is easy to imagine if you are building a new CC in unsettled area.
but most of the time, it was trolling by an enemy or ally
-
15 hours ago, Norse_Harold said:
A lot of this has already been reported by Elexis and me to the only two people who can remove the spam
Elexis is back?
-
23 minutes ago, roscany said:
I don't really understand the rationale behind this. If a sole fort has no root attached to it, why should it affect the loyalty of a building that does have a root?
I think it is a bug. Forts have a lot of territory influence, so when they are placed close by they begin to take over nearby structures.
Functionally, this basically never happens unless you're trolling. You have to build so close to the CC that your builders are under constant fire.
-
Forts used to have territory root but that was taken out in a24–>a25 because it encouraged too much turtling. (I think fort only gave root in a24.)
Maurya hero building gives territory root. (Maybe Persian hero buildings does too.) I don’t like that feature. Taking out territory root against Maurya is effectively “kill CC and find the hero building.” The Maurya building isn’t a last stand location. It’s easily captured as soon as it’s found but that might not be easy to do.
It looks like your connection to your ally was just a little too short
-
1
-
Random map "Coast Range"
in Scenario Design/Map making
Posted · Edited by chrstgtr
Yeah, depends on how big the map is and when it is placed. I think this map is probably best played in a large map, which allows for quite a bit of seperation.
Seems reasonable given some civs reliance on stone for slingers. The reason why I suggest this is so that players actually go after the mines. I like the idea. But I don't want it to be like Ngorongo where everyone ignores the center mines. I don't know how the math works out, but maybe making it so that you have to expand to get all military upgrades would help. Your choice on how dramatic to go.