hyperion
-
Posts
1.028 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by hyperion
-
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Would you agree that differentiation is less important than balance?
Quite the opposite. It wouldn't hurt to be able to play a strong civ against a strong opponent and a weak civ against a weak opponent. Would make finding a game worth playing easier.
40 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:As long as it is multiplayer it involves some degree of competition, and we need to make that competition fair.
Simple, require mirror civ for rated games. At least make it an option.
-
3
-
-
The flags here which could be said to fall into the category hardening are pretty much standard for most major distributions (part of gcc specs). The error looks more like something wasn't compiled PIC when it should.
-
42 minutes ago, happyconcepts said:
WFG is not being accountable to only offer a download from "other" sources such as other parties' PPA and snap installs.
The idea of wfg provided packages is what is broken.
22 minutes ago, Stan` said:Once again the problem comes from the hardening flags used by Ubuntu, which is one of the only distribution that doesn't provide A24.
Which flag/flags?
-
-
17 hours ago, Langbart said:
but it might end up being buried in the forum
Fine with me.
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:1. Do you think I should keep Outposts capturable? I've removed capturing CCs.
Wouldn't that make them even worse compared to sentry towers. Also doesn't particularly fit the special case relics et al.
-
The primary purpose of wonder is the victory condition to build a wonder. So it shouldn't be cheap nor fast to build.
The popcap increase bonus is powerful and all that is needed for the wonder to be interesting on it's own in other scenarios. Whether to require a tech to get the bonus, research time/cost, and how big the bonus needs to be are enough variables to balance it's use.
3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:Wonders aren't used frequently. But it is helpful as a tiebreaker for those long games that otherwise never seem to end. My point is that right now there are a lot of games that last very long and yet still no one builds wonders.
Originally the intention was for a game to take about 45 minutes. The most straight forward approach to end endless games is to make offence stronger over time. Let's say have techs armour plating 1 - 100 for rams. So if you research long enough defence structures become meaningless.
-
1 hour ago, Nescio said:
the left one the female (yīn) with a cub under her left pawn, the right one the male (yáng) with a cloth ball under its right pawn
... which with limited vertices have roughly the shape of a sphere.
1 hour ago, Nescio said:I'm not advocating simply removing the stone bixies from the structure: the stone platform and the stone stairs are problematic too. I don't see an easy fix here.
Is the issue the snake line pattern? Or that the stairs are made from stone? Pretty sure they used stone for the base of buildings even back then.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I gave it another try. Well, it's hard to say much as I'm simply not used to the changes and all feels new and wired
So some minor stuff mostly:
- an own logo on the start page would be nice
- default play speed should be normal me thinks
- scouts seem to fast
- cc still capture-able
- sele barack has tech to select either champion a or b but neither are available
- sele theatron should probably be dropped or a purpose be found
As you went with the hide territory border approach I wiped up a minimal patch to hide them on the mini-map as well, unfortunately the c++ part needs recompilation. Use as you want.
-
1
-
11 minutes ago, Stan` said:
That assumes we have the resources to make it perfect, which we don't.
Even if you had plenty of resources it won't be perfect and there is no need for it to be either.
If Han is eligible to be added in principle, then just go for it.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
You've argued generally that distance is the bigger variable at play in this conversation. I guess that begs the question; what do you think of the current distances with where animals spawn? I would consider that to be valid to this conversation since the gather rate can consider when the amount of time it takes a unit to gather the resource and drop it off.
Yes, what matters is efficiency (think of it as resource per second added to the resource pool you have available for spending). With increasing distance gathering rate loses importance as most of the time isn't spent gathering. In a simple model efficiency is a function of distance with parameters gathering rate, walk speed, carry capacity. Gathering rate defines max efficiency while speed and capacity how fast efficiency reduces with distance. So gathering rate mostly affects chickens and corrals and much less general hunting.
As for where they currently spawn, well, it's map depended and as such there is hardly just one answer. Generally an additional patch of hunt around the territory borders allows you to create some early cav without being punished eco wise. Changing hunt may need adjustments to cav military potential.
-
On 17/04/2021 at 2:25 PM, LetswaveaBook said:
I share the idea that the role of cavalry seems a little odd and I like the idea of discussing it. However I feel like there is no easy solution and maybe the system we have is not ideal but just the best we can get (for now).
That being said, I am just waiting patiently until someone gets the 200 IQ move that no one else(including me ofc) had thought off. In the mean time, the current system seems okay
It's obvious the initial idea was using the staring cav for scouting. And I agree with your assessment of the current role being a little odd. So you can be almost certain that under the current philosophy some changes will be done. So instead if hoping for a 200 IQ solution better to enumerate the possibilities and and gun for the one you prefer or it be late
At least none of the close to a dozen ways to tackle this that come to mind have major UI issues or some performance impact unlike the cc and fields discussion, so I'm less concerned.
As this thread is about gathering rates I stick to this alone. Gathering rate is something poorly understood if reading this thread. So I present another example.
Distance D at which female farming becomes superior for gathering rate 1, 5, infinity for meat (upper bounds, as you have to kill first which I conveniently ignore, think rabbits and camel archers):
DC1 = 150 | DC5=270 | DCinfinity = 300
DI1 = 50 | DI5 = 90 | DIinfinity = 100
Ergo hunting with cav is still acceptable just outside town borders, while inf is better off farming independent of gather rate in that case. Also luring is an essential skill.
-
If you don't want luck to play a minor role don't use random civ or random map. Also winning or loosing is a minor matter as long as the game is fun to play.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Ceres said:
But why did bisect use this one?
It's due to merging (I presume you use github mirror). This may result in anything but a linear history. Guess there was a bug in the script or some manual intervention with issues.
See
$ git rev-list --count A24b..master 2532There certainly weren't that many commits to svn since then
All the more reason to use git-bisect which is branch aware. In case you come across a commit (check with git show) which you think is pointless to test or you can't test (because it doesn't build etc) just use "git bisect skip" to get a new suggestion.
-
2
-
-
I'd rather see Mauryans get a 50% health penalty for all units so they are bottom feeders if that means they keep the worker elephant, better even get the one from a23. Removing uniqueness with a24 didn't work out to better balance the civs. The difference is just which civ is in which bracket. And honestly the civs are plenty close enough in strength for my taste.
Also there are no statistics, if people are serious about balancing the first step should be to collect data properly. Loosing a game where my opponent used a worker elephant to collect resources near my territory is not what should motivate any changes at all.
-
1
-
-
On 16/04/2021 at 6:40 PM, Ceres said:
Oh, I thought that I need to build so many commits until I find out which one is the last one that works and which one is the first that crashes (top to bottom). So bisect does that for me? How can it know if it crashes?
@vladislavbelov suggest you do a binary search and git-bisect is the perfect helper for this task. You can fully automate the process but consider this advanced usage of git-bisect which is probably out of reach for now. Just use git-bisect for book keeping and picking a commit in between last broken and first fixed and do building and testing as you did already.
Getting to know git-bisect is worth some initial mind gymnastic.
-
1
-
-
Instead of manually picking a commit I suggest you use git bisect instead. See https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bisect
Example start:
$ git bisect start --term-old broken --term-new fixed $ git bisect fixed master $ git bisect broken A24b
After that git will checkout an appropriate commit for you to test and mark as either broken or fixed, this repeats till you found the commit you were looking for.
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
If we set the arbitrary distance number to two
The length of a house is about 15, a barrack 20, me thinks chickens are farther away than that on average.
Anyway it's easy to see that hunting anything besides chicken even with gathering rate of infinity needs to be done with cav. And even then hunting is not that efficient, just that it's better than having nothing to do for cav at all.
1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:Cavalry are more expensive than the other counterparts
They only cost 1 population, therefore the added health and speed for only 50 extra resources make them well worth it.
-
Guess a bit of calculation is required to show the point.
Let's say the average distance for chicken to CC is 25 and ignore path finding and turn rate which make gather rate even less important for current gather rates, then currently cav has an efficiency EC5 = 20 / (2*25/15 + 20/5) = 2.72 and for inf EI1 = 10 / (2*25/10 +10/1) = 0.66.
Increase Gather rate for inf to 5, 50, and 100 it's
EI5 = 1.42
EI50 = 1.92
EI100 = 1.96
Ergo, distance to chickens is very relevant. Even with a gather rate of 1'000'000 the cav still beats the inf.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, faction02 said:
To me this demonstrate a high sense of morality and ethic by this player who wanted to assess the strengh of the combination fort/civic center with the only aim to try to comment on balancing posts in the forum!
Looks like he was just scared of his neighbour.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Well, putting 3 woman on chickens means 3 less on berries. It indeed increases food gathering efficiency at the start slightly but I see little harm here. Currently up to 25 pop there is pretty much only one way to play. Some additional early food would allow some diversification as the limiting factor of constant unit production from the CC can be easier fulfilled.
Bringing gathering rate up to 1.5-2 probably wouldn't make it viable alternative to berries or cav hunting due the walking distance. Gather rates are very high compared to carry capacity in 0ad, which is fine, just if you look at efficiency it makes walk distance (and path-finding) incredibly important.
-
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
1. That Scout cav bringing back the entire deer carcass is pretty darn cool.
Works especially well with elephants or giraffes in 0ad.
As for the cartoonish looks I really don't like them. But then I don't like the modern American 3D animation film style either.
-
1
-
-
Thumbs up for asking in a public forum!
Gather rates and carry capacity of cavalry determine if and what distance hunting makes sense. Besides hunting wild, corralling needs to be considered as well. My take is a slight decrease in gather rate and a slight increase in carry capacity would be acceptable, thou the current values are pretty fine already.
Comparing hunting vs foraging doesn't make much sense to me, having different sources produce at different speed is fine and even desirable. What should be questioned is the relative speed of hunting of cavalry vs citizen soldier and woman. I don't see a compelling reason why there should be a substantial difference for very short distances (~20m).
Having other units having the same gathering rate for hunting still leaves the cavalry as the optimal unit for hunting chickens by a bit due to faster walk speed and higher carry capacity but at least you'd have the choice of using the "scout" for scouting.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Lopess said:
I didn't quite understand your position. I think the best way would be in mixed citizen units, with women and men working in the field, while scouts do not believe that hunting is very different from something they could do, perhaps hunting should be less advantageous because they are agricultural, livestock civilizations yes, it must have a greater weight.
Just making gathering speed for food equal for all units will result in a noticeable paradigm shift. This should also bode well with the realism camp.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
if the problem would be to remove those farms from the civic center, I mean find a way to get the other post some incentives and some alternative ideas.
Well, as long as you must use woman to farm they will be around the CC, just like you can't use the scout for scouting as you need him to hunt chickens.
File locations on Linux?
in Help & Feedback
Posted
Without tooling you'd have a hard time extracting the stats from templates. However there is a mod by wratii which makes what you want available in-game, just can't remember the name of the mod ...