Jump to content

Nobbi

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    54

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Nobbi

  1. Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 06/06/2022 at 12:33 AM, gui456wSERTDYF said:
    • You cannot just demolish your buildings by pressing "delete" for free, to demolish a building should be some time/resource consuming process. It is hateful when you are stealing your enemy's city or CC and he just destroys it in your face. It also does not make sense. A nice implementation would be that when you demolish a building, something similar to what happens when you upgrade a wood tower to a stone tower happens, but instead the health of the building gradually decreases. You may also need to pay some resources, or even garrison some workers. The cost and time would be a function of the building. Even more, the more resources you pay the faster the building is demolished, so you can decide this depending on if you are in times of war and in need of speed or in times of peace and you don't care to spend some time and save resources.
    • Some unit/technology that can be garrisoned into stone walls to burn rams (like throwing fire down the wall). This would make stone walls much more attractive (or at least attractive).
    • New building complementary to walls: "trenches with water and crocodiles" that block the passage of siege and make the movement of soldiers slower (well, the water and crocodiles are not necessary haha). This would be nice because you can place them in front of the wall to avoid rams destroying it (like it was done in real life).
    • Soldiers cannot attack buildings, except some "arrow with fire" or so. It just makes no sense that a bunch of soldiers with arrows and swords can destroy a building, and it is annoying when your enemy does this...
    • Elephants cannot attack buildings, instead they are very strong against soldiers. It just does not make much sense that a bunch of elephants destroys a fortress...
    • Rams that cannot move unless you garrison soldiers, and increase movement speed/power as soldiers are garrisoned. Make rams very cheap to build, but add this feature to use. Also, rams belong to gaia when no soldier is garrisoned (of course they cannot move or attack in this case), so then if I bring my rams to your city and left them unattended, you can just garrison your soldiers into them and they are yours.
    • Randomize the attack of units. In this way it is not obvious that 100 soldiers will defeat 99. The distribution gives more freedom to tune units, consider for example the attached `damage_distribution.png` for some unit before and after it is trained (increased rank or whatever).
    • Ranged units that switch to sword when very close to enemy (at least optional this). In the movies this is always the case. They are weaker than sword soldiers but anyway.

    Cossacks and other games from the same developer had some of this features implemented. You could not simply destroy houses. After deleting the buildings, they lost most of their health and slowly burned down. If repaired over a certain health level they could be saved, which in my opinion is quiet realistic, because if you can't hold a captured city you would try to burn it down. In American conquest they also made ranged units fight with daggers when melee units came close. If implementation of a second attack is to hard, one could also add minimum range, so ranged units have to run away to fire as in aoe2.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  2. Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    17 hours ago, Fabius said:

    So I have an idea to put forward. And I did a little research prior to ensure this would be historically reasonable, which it seems to be.

    So the idea is for a Roman unique tech that references the spoils of the Punic Wars and allows them to train a very limited number of war elephants, roughly 5 I am thinking, maybe more if you deem it fit.

    My brief research brought up their use in the Grecian conquests and the use of captured Carthaginian elephants after the Punic wars, so I think this is reasonable overall :) 

    Well, its cool to have more siege options available. But I don't worry about the Romans. They already got rams and catapults. I worry more about CIVs wich just have rams. They really could need some alternatives for scenarios where you need siege.

    • Like 1

  3. Why mercenary cavalry is OP?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    ???????????????????????????????????????????

    I am sorry you feel ignored, but the spear cav buff discussion is quite relevant to the topic at hand. The fact of the matter is that balance is not black and white, it depends on other units and features.

    There are already nerfs to merc cav and these should be tested before adding an additional 5 metal cost.

    How should people find the discussion about speer CAV and contribute to it when it is hidden under the topic "Why mercenary cavalry is OP?"? I mean more or less everything in the game is related to each other. I think an own topic will help people find this discussion easier. The discussion about speer CAV is also very specific and is valid for CS, MERC and champs. Everything related to the OP-ness and the price of the MERC would suit this topic very well. Anyway, I appreciate that there is already an balancing proposal and I would be keen to test it for team games. Do you know if there is a testing phase with all patches before the actual launch?

    • Like 2

  4. Why mercenary cavalry is OP?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    7 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    Currently, the nerfs in a26 are: 90 metal cost and slower rank up time. I think these nerfs may be enough since it will take more time for merc cav to reach the dreaded rank 3.

    One big difference between inf mercs and cav mercs is that inf mercs are more effected by the inability to gather resources. I think this could justify the 95 metal cost, but we should test rc1 first before we make this change. You have to consider other changes such as a possible spear cav buff ( @LetswaveaBook plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz make a new patch with +1 hack and 2x multiplier).

    I am not satisfied with this change. As I wrote before I think 95 ME cost would do fine. Changing other stats is a balance option but it might have side effects. Now MERC CAV and CS CAV is different ... When people abuse your topic for other content it looks like they did not understand you...

    • Like 1

  5. Why mercenary cavalry is OP?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Nobbi

    All know cavalry (CAV) mercenaries (MERC) in a25 are over powered (OP). But how is that? I felt like people didn't get to the point why this is so and far more important for balancing you would need some quantity to do the right adjustment. However, this comment is not the guide to perfect balancing of MERC CAV it just shall give the numbers to do a good balancing. Additionally, it compares MERC INF with MERC CAV which was not done so far, but I really believe its necessary.

    My first simplest thought was, MERC infantry (INF) cost 60 metal (ME) and in relation to the costs of citizen soldiers (CS) MERC CAV should cost 90 ME due to the 1.5 higher total resource cost of CS CAV. But this assumption is to simple and does not reflect the time needed to gather resources (RES).

    I made some assumptions and simplifications. Men gather non food RES and women just food. Walking time is not considered. Also rank two of MERC is not considered. Upgrades are considered as all researched in one phase. If you think about it, all assumptions and simplifications cheat for the MERC. Most player will have women gathering wood, walking time for wood is increasing over time compared to ME mines and having upgrades just for ME is cheaper then getting upgrades for 3 RES.

    I calculated the time needed to gather the resources to make a unit in total RES gathering time (TRGT) and compared it to the CS counterpart.

    • INF MERC (60 ME, here I realized I was a bit lazy this is just valid for skirmisher INF)

    0 upgrades: 72.0 % of time is needed to gather the RES for a INF MERC skirmisher compared to a CS skirmisher

    P1: 70.2 %

    P2: 68.5 %

    P3: 66.8 %

    • CAV MERC (80 ME, here for speer/javalineer CAV, sword CAV is a little bit cheaper, see attached file)

    0 upgrades:  60.0 %

    P1: 56.8 %

    P2: 55.1 %

    P3: 53.4 %

    • Findings :P
      • MERC have less total RES cost which results in lower TRGT, so they give a time advantage (obviously :D)
      • RES gathering time for MERC decreases stronger with more upgrades, this is due to different strength in upgrades, food upgrades add less advantage, making MERC even more efficient with more upgrades
      • MER CAV has a lower TRGT than MERC INF and with all other advantages (mobility, attack strength, HP) making them much better than MERC INF, probably the reason why MERC INF spam could not be seen in a25
    • Price for CAV MERC adjusted to the same time discount as for MERC INF
      • Speer/JAV CAV: 96 ME
      • Sword CAV: 99 ME

    This is just an proposal but it would kill 2 birds with one stone. It makes CAV MERC less OP and adjusts the TRGT of MERC CAV to that of MERC INF.

    I know there are also other ways to re-balance MERC. But as I wrote there are simplifications and assumptions favoring the MERC and therefore I think 90 ME for CAV MERC is still too low. I think the already elsewhere recommended 95 ME is a good starting point and I think there was even a mod were people tried this adjustment and were satisfied.

    I also might be wrong about that price. There are also other things to consider like the limited ME on map or in range of the CC, players making MERC also have a certain risk to get raided early on and CIVs more or less surely making MERC and being predictable therefore. But if you stay for 90 ME and it results in being balanced please make INF MERC also cheaper.

    a25 - OP MERC.ods

    • Thanks 1

  8. Feedbacks from A26 SVN tests

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    I would like to try the new revision, but unfortunately I cant build the game. Before a25 I was able to build and play the revisions. I don't know what changed? I get an error during the make process. It says:

    ../../../source/ps/GameSetup/HWDetect.cpp:47:10: fatal error: ft2build.h: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
       47 | #include <ft2build.h>
          |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~
    compilation terminated.

    Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden - means: file or folder not found

    Is there anyone else with this issue or can anyone help fixing it?

     

     

  9. boonGUI

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    Thank you for improving the mod further Langbart and making it possible to switch of the side panel! However, after playing today I realized that you removed the native panel for res and units and I didn't understood why? I think it is still required. Is there any way to switch it on again? I know most of the stats can be seen in the boonGui panel too, but it is simpler when u see all your team mates resources to to look at your own resources and the thing I missed the most, was the number of workers on each resource...

    • Like 1

  10. boonGUI

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    Ty for the mod. I really like the bigger minimap and the stats in the upper left hand corner. Is there any way to switch of the new information about the Units and techs on the right hand side solely (So I still want to see the stats)?

    As I wrote I like the minimap, but have a little problem with it. It takes more space as it actually visually takes. So approximately a cm around the minimap I can' click on units even if I can see them. :( Maybe u can have a look at it and find the reason for it. ty

    • Like 1

  11. Autociv mod 0ad enhancer

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    47 minutes ago, Nobbi said:

    Now it works. I had to exactly put all the files in a folder named "1.0.3".

    Before I used the folder "autociv 1.0.3".

    Ok, I take it back. It works when I use the folder name "autociv". When I use "1.0.3" then I can activate the mod and it will also be activated after restart but in lobby it says I didn't activate the mod. :D

    • Like 1

  16. A25 Feedbacks from testing

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Nobbi

    21 hours ago, Stan` said:

    Fixed in https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25773 thanks.

    Thank you. Steppe Agean-Anatolien is working now but the two other biomes are not working at all with Rev25778:

    Generating Wild Lake of size 320 and 8 players.

    Setting biome generic/nubia.

    ...

    ERROR: JavaScript error: maps/random/wild_lake.js line 286 farmEntities[currentBiome()] is undefined @maps/random/wild_lake.js:286:95

    ERROR: CMapGeneratorWorker::Run: Failed to load RMS 'maps/random/wild_lake.js'

    and

    Generating Wild Lake of size 320 and 8 players.

    Setting biome generic/steppe.

    ...

    ERROR: JavaScript error: maps/random/wild_lake.js line 286 farmEntities[currentBiome()] is undefined @maps/random/wild_lake.js:286:95

    ERROR: CMapGeneratorWorker::Run: Failed to load RMS 'maps/random/wild_lake.js'

  17. A25 Feedbacks from testing

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    On Wildlake biome Nubia and Eurasia Steppe is not working and for Agaen-Anatolien some errors appear about the iberean champ missing.

    Nubia (I think the same for Eurasian Steppe):

    ERROR: JavaScript error: maps/random/wild_lake.js line 286 farmEntities[currentBiome()] is undefined @maps/random/wild_lake.js:286:95

    ERROR: CMapGeneratorWorker::Run: Failed to load RMS 'maps/random/wild_lake.js'

     

    Agaen-Anatolien:

    ERROR: CCacheLoader failed to find archived or source file for: "simulation/templates/units/iber/champion_infantry.xml"

    ERROR: Failed to load entity template 'units/iber/champion_infantry'

     

  18. Autociv mod 0ad enhancer

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    Very nice mod TY. I realized that in the stats you can see in game worker elephants count as siege. :D I have a little issue with the new version 1.0.3 which I didnt had with previous versions. Despite enabling the mod and saving mod choice the mod wont be active after after next restart of the game. So I have to activate the mod every time starting 0AD. Anyone else with this issue?

    • Like 1

  19. A25 Feedbacks from testing

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    On 05/06/2021 at 1:22 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Sheesh. I've been playing with these trees for over a year and run into no problems.

    The trees look really nice and might have realistic size but I had the same impression like Yekaterina about the size. I think it could cause some trouble because you really don't see whats going on under the canopy (Except changing camera angel, which I believe most players wont do.). Ever fought under a treetop like this? I have the feeling players won't like this trees.

     

    3 hours ago, Ceres said:
    On 05/06/2021 at 10:40 AM, Yekaterina said:

    U need any 3 town phase building, can be the same thing built 3 times

    Is it intended that it can be the same? Would it make (more) sense to have at least 3 different buildings?

    I thought about the same. A real city needs a blacksmith, a temple and a marked! Not 3 of one type of this buildings and also not any mixture of 2 of one type plus one another. :)However, most of the Civs need stone for the temple and stone is what u already need to go to P3. So this change might have a stronger impact then assumed. So far as I know most players avoid building a temple and prefer building a second black smith to go from P2 to P3. People should think about this and test it. It should be a future change and not as a last minute change for a25.

    • Like 2

  20. A25 Feedbacks from testing

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    Hi, thank you for reading through my post.

    14 hours ago, wraitii said:
    Quote
    • Roman army camp should not lose ownership in neutral territory or in enemy territory from alone. Training time of units in the camp is 11 min. Is this on purpose? Other buildings have less training time now.

    The decay is on purpose, though whether it should be changed is an open question. Not sure what you mean about train time.

    Sorry, I mean seconds not minutes. :D Training of soldiers for Romans in barracks, with team bonus, is now 9 sec and in the army camp it is 11 sec. But it might also be on purpose because soldiers from the camp have already rank 2?

     

    14 hours ago, wraitii said:

    Made a ticket for that, it's less trivial than other things.

    Thank you I appreciate that very much. I also thought this is not a simple task.

     

    14 hours ago, wraitii said:
    Quote
    • I miss open knowledge of counter units and fighting bonuses. For spear men there its written 3 vs Cav, but its missing for other units, as far as I remember there are more bonuses, or am I wrong?

    You are indeed incorrect, there are no other bonuses in A24/25 (so far)

    Well, good to know. I remember the wiki ( https://0ad.fandom.com/wiki/Infantry_Swordsman ) where you still can see some bonuses mentioned. But this then is outdated very much. :D  Nonetheless, there are still some secrets which I could imagine are interesting for more people to know. For Ptol its sometimes possible to build more than 1 CC. I don't know under which circumstances this is possible? I also wonder about the promotion of elephant archers. The pierce attack doesn't approve, but you find more archers on top of the elephants. Is there any effect on the pierce attack or just an increase of health and armor? I also don't know how many kills an unit needs to get promotion. I guess this has not much to do with the a25, but access to information about things like that is interesting for players like me.

     

    14 hours ago, wraitii said:
    Quote
    • From P1 to P2 you need 4 buildings of P1, but to change from P2 to P3 you now need just 3 buildings of P2? Feels wrong to me. Should be the other way around. For a later phase you should need more buildings than for an earlier phase.

    I don't necessarily disagree, but I think removing towers was a good move and we don't really have more than 3 town-phase buildings as things stand, so it's simply not possible.

    Its even 5 structures of P1 needed to go to P2. :D Anyway I understand there are no more P2 structures. But why where towers removed? Was there a discussion somewhere? I would like to read it.

    • Like 1

  22. A25 Feedbacks from testing

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    I stumbled over some things they might to be changed and sorry if I repeat anything because I didn't read all comments in the thread. Maybe some of the things can be still added/changed in a25.

    General things:

    • Cav can be garrisoned in barracks, but Inf can't be garrisoned in Stables, also units rank up when garrisoned in barracks but not when in stables, this is kind of inconsistent. I think there are several solutions. I find it alright when all kind of soldiers can be garrisoned in military buildings and also when the rank upgrade can be achieved in barracks and stables. It would make sense when Inf just could be promoted in barracks and Cav just in stables.
    • Roman army camp should not lose ownership in neutral territory or in enemy territory from alone. Training time of units in the camp is 11 min. Is this on purpose? Other buildings have less training time now.
    • When AI captured my Kush mercenary camp they were able to produce Kush mercenaries. The enemy had Gauls. As far as I know this wasn't possible so far. Is this new?
    • In fights it easily happens that one gather resources instead of attacking the enemy. It would be good if attacking other units had priority before gathering resources. What I mean is, I wish that the mouse cursor would primary choose the enemy unit instead of the resource in front of the enemy unit.
    • Civilisation overview needs to be updated, bonuses changed e.g. pop bonus of Pers and Maury, trade bonus of Mace
    • I miss open knowledge of counter units and fighting bonuses. For spear men there its written 3 vs Cav, but its missing for other units, as far as I remember there are more bonuses, or am I wrong?
    • If Team bonus of a Civ is valid for the Civ itself now, bonuses could appear in structure tree, e.g. Iber cost reduction of javelineer, Kush elephants, Brits healer, Maury temple, ...
    • The stone mine can be mined from 48 men now, making the stone techs needles, you just use more soldiers instead of wasting metal. Why was it changed?

     

    Balancing things

    • Archers are to strong, just getting the same accuracy with upgrades wont solve the problem in mid or late game.
    • From P1 to P2 you need 4 buildings of P1, but to change from P2 to P3 you now need just 3 buildings of P2? Feels wrong to me. Should be the other way around. For a later phase you should need more buildings than for an earlier phase.
    • Kush are already strong, so getting the own team bonus will make them even stronger, elephants are very cheap then and they already have stronger rams. This is not good for balance. Maybe normal rams and the elephant bonus would also do it?
    • For Ptol the mercenary with the hero Ptolemy I will be really cheap. 39 M for Inf and 52 M for Cav. I think its good if mercenaries will come back to the game, but I think this might be OP. As someone mentioned before mercenaries which just cost metal you just need trade as economy. Why were Food cost reduced?

     

    My general feeling is with the actual changes the game will be much faster than it was before, might even be faster than in a23.

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
×
×
  • Create New...