Jump to content

Jofursloft

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jofursloft last won the day on October 21 2018

Jofursloft had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Jofursloft

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Italy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Jofursloft's Achievements

Sesquiplicarius

Sesquiplicarius (3/14)

139

Reputation

  1. The only difference is that merch are automatically trained rank 2 (and I think it makes sense). If you see stats of merch and not merch sword cavs are the same. An army of "normal" sword cavs is exactly as op as an army of merch sword cavs if they rank up. The problem is not about ranking, the problem is about sword cavs themselves.
  2. Absolutely agree, they are insane strong. In the chat he is talking about me: in that match I faced a fort+cc without an army to defend it. I also had 2 eles (1 died soon) which helped me to take down the cc and weaken the fort. Then my ele died and I faced another full garrisoned fort: my sword cav (about 40) + jav cavs (about 40) + some arch + spearmen were able to take it down in about 30 secs. The fact is that I faced the fort alone, there wasn't an army to protect it. The army was already dead. Take into account my army was composed by 100+ soldiers. it's possible to take down a fort even with full infantry if you have enough. This said, my doubt is: if we make units less strong against buildings how is it possible to take down a turtle city with a lor of forts? If I send rams there are swords garrisoned, if I send eles there is an army ready to kill them, if I send catas they are just too slow to be effective in a match where I had to be as fast as possible. I think this would just encourage turtling. Anyway, I still think sword cavs are too op, so just lower their hp or damage, but don't make units (cavs or infantry) less effective against buildings.
  3. What am I doing wrong? I downloaded the zip file from the link and then unfolded it in 0ad->mods
  4. @user1 @Stan` 1v1 against "Msg" (1635). I was clearly winning when I "lost" connection. Rated game. From lobby I could see he had resigned after I went out, so I gained no points. Edit: obv my connection was absolutely stable (I tried to join other matches I could), but I could not rejoin the game until he resigned Jofursloft vs Msg.zip
  5. I think that shooting the closest unit is something related to a kind of survival instinct for the human being. A unit shoots the nearest enemy because it is seen as the biggest threat at the moment. When a unit is not forced to do something in 0ad it will stick to the last order you gave him. When this order is gone, it will take his own "initiative". For example, when a unit definitely cuts a tree it will move to the nearest tree near him: you didn't gave him that order, he deliberately decides to cut the closest tree because it is the one that requires less effort in distance terms. What I'm saying is that if you give a specific order to a unit that unit will go against his own nature and do even things that will bring him to death or suicide. If you don't the unit will try to preserve himself (which ultimately is eliminating the biggest threat). A 0ad unit doesn't reasonate for the long term good in a battle, but for the short term one (his own life instant by instant). In addition, I will copy and paste some reflections I already did under the thread "Magnetic pikemen". I think that this feature would lower the original importance of melee units, which is in fact creating a shield for the shots of the enemy ranged units unless they don't actually reach an enemy unit (at that point their main purpose is: kill). Whouldn't letting ranged unit decide what unit shoot by default lead to armies composed by only ranged units? And as I already suggested, I think that a solution to this "problem" could be a simple shortcut: when you press that shortcut while having selected a group of units (archers as shown in the image below) the game allows you to select a zone (the zone should obviously have a maximum size), which is represented by the red area in the image (in which there are the enemy slingers). Then your archers will target first all the enemy units who are in the area (in this case the slingers). Then when the area is cleaned up they will return to focus of the nearest unit available. Obviously the opponent is able to move his slingers out of the zone in order to protect them, so I think that this shortcut could bring to a new nice micro skill.
  6. I think reflexes are important too in the game: I find it to be a good warm-up. What I don't like about the starting sequence is that who has a fast pc or really good connection can enter the game before the others, so he has some seconds to look around and see exactly where to direct his units (if you have autociv you can even pre-set the command so when the game starts your units move immediately). Maybe it can be a good idea to give everyone a 5-sec countdown before the start of the game (like a 5 seconds freeze), so you have the time to see where are the berries and the invisible chickens and what woodlines are the best to use (choosing the correct woodline in a 1v1 is of huge importance).
  7. I was curious to test healers because I think they are mostly a "psychologic" unit rather than a useful one. In my opinion if you have healers they help you to feel more confident when attacking, but their practical utility is low. As shown in the video below 40 slingers + 20 FULL UPGRADED healers lose against 50 slingers. Same rank, 0 fight upgrades for both armies, almost 0 micro (I just pressed "H" a few times in order to prevent light blue slingers from chasing the healers when they were running away). In my opinion the main problem is that slingers are not targeted by only one unit each (in this case this type of healer would make sense), but they are rather attacked from multiple units, so healers begin to heal them when it's already too late. I think a solution could be giving healers an aura which could heal slowly every own unit inside it (same principle of Acharya Chanakya maurya hero). 0ad 5.mp4
  8. I don't like the idea of having the possibility to take control of allied units just because currently many of this "hurdles and special situations" happen because allies are not able to cooperate in synergy. Being in synergy as a team is a skill often too much underrated. I would personally prefer a feature that allows you to select the exact point where to ungarrison a definite number of soldiers you placed into an allied building. Currently if you can garrison some sword cavs into an allied building in order to defend it from rams when you press U your units will be ungarrisoned randomly and they won't immediately start to attack the ram.
  9. I play since alpha 21 and even when in aggressive mode it has never happened me that soldiers deliberately stop working without an explicit order. They stop working only if attacked, so I have always used this shortcut
  10. Just select your units and press "H". Your units will immediately stop to collect wood and attack the nearby enemy units.
  11. @nani already created a "king of the hill" map back into 2018:
  12. I don't agree with this for what concerns 1v1 matches. I watched the replay of some 1v1 I did against very good players recently and I found that the total number of kills each players gets before the end of the match is around 300. Using skirms and spearmen as an example: 300 kills means something like 5 food and 5 wood per soldier killed = 30 units you can train thanks to the ones who you kill. In my opinion it's a totally fair number. The main problem in my opinion is that when playing some players don't remember that when a unit dies the enemy player loots the resource they're transporting. I've see this mistake so many times. Always remember to pass from storehouses before going into a fight. I agree with this if we are talking about 1v1 matches (and still not medium/low level ones). However, being ahed in eco doesn't justify you from not having trained a proper army. If the enemy player attacks you with a big army and you have no way to fight that army back I think it's your fault and you should lose. I also remember a 1v1 @chrstgtr (kushites) vs @ValihrAnt (maurya) in which Valihrant failed his archer ele P2 rush but even in terrible pop and eco disadvantage he could win the game thanks to micro and building positioning. The replay would be really interesting (even if I think that game was played on svn)
  13. I decided to upload these 2 replays because some people asked me on the lobby and because I think they can be useful for many players. Uploading these replays is NOT a way to say "Hey look, I am better than @ValihrAnt or @Feldfeld: 1) they are players way stronger than me 2) when I will have a replay of a game in which I lose against these two gods and I play decently, I will upload that too surely!. Nevetheless, these games are two exceptions in which we both played really well and that I think can teach many things to many people Jofursloft vs Feldfeld.zip Jofursloft vs Valihrant.zip
  14. Ah also I don't absolutely agree with this statement. I personally boom much better with 150 wood cost houses than with 75 ones. You are right. My ranking is not meant to be objective and is just based on my personal style of playing. I just don't feel ibers to be "my civ".
  15. Absolutely. In fact, I lose none because my men arrived quite quicly. The problem is 1) if the stone and metal mines near the cc are consumed they have no enough time to arrive from woodlines and I cannot keep 20 idle soldiers around my cc; 2) Vali decided not to keep pushing that way, but if he did he would have probably killed some or at least slowed my food eco.
×
×
  • Create New...