Jofursloft
-
Posts
211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Jofursloft
-
-
54 minutes ago, alre said:
I don't get your point about realism, in reality archers could, and sometimes did, shoot volleys against enemies further away. at agincourt they did.
You are right. What I mean is that if we want an attack order who automatically sets your units to attack the enemy ranged units avoiding the pike shield we should add a "failure percentage" (even if the units are in range) . As I already said above in another comment: "in real life it's true that you can modify the angle of your bow while shooting an arrow, but you won't be able to see exactly who you are shooting at."
-
14 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Also I can’t imagine what makes it unrealistic to shoot over the first row of enemies. Units can already shoot over their own infantry units. Also, what is the point of archers’ range if they can only shoot the melee units right in front of their own?
True. Units cannot shoot their own ones, but I think that make them being able to shoot even over the enemy melee units line it's too unrealistic. I don't understand your question: the point of archers' range is to damage units from a safer distance. While in a open field if you are playing skirmishers you will push in order to get as close as possible to the enemy units, archers will use the different tactic of retreating bit by bit. Range is good also to defend a base (you can keep them behind a safe building like a fort, a wall or a palizade...
14 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. I think battles need to become more complicated than just a race to who can kill melee the fastest.
I agree. That's why I would nerf pikes just by slowing them down a bit (especially sele and ptolemy champs). I think that a 8.1 speed is too much compared to the 9 of spearmen.
14 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:Also you misunderstood my idea for “following the order”, I meant that they would target units closest to the attack order, not necessarily the same type. So the cav wouldn't automatically select the next woman as the next target.
I'm sorry I don't understand this very well. Do you mean that the attack order can be set on a specific unit (let's suppose archers) and then your units will target the closest archer available? But in this case after having killed him they will just continue to attack archers who are in their range. So this logic applies to what I have said about rushes.
-
9 hours ago, alre said:
I'm not sure I understand. what you are asking is the game to behave differently if you use the keyboard shortcut respect to when you use the related command on the GUI?
I am not sure that "related command on the GUI" = manually clicking the icon of the soldier you want to train.
In this case no, I am asking the exact opposite. I want the game to behave the same. When I manually click on the icon of the soldier I want to train the game just doesn't allow me to do it (so if I am training with 5 barracks and I have 400 food/wood res the barracks will automatically train 1 soldier from each. What happens if I use the shortcut is expressed above.
-
I think that when talking about mathematics related to a game like 0ad there are 2 things needed: a good knowledge of math and a good experience in the gameplay. Fortunately I have both. Here you make 1 mistake for each:
- You are considering the case in which we train in batches but you analyze with charts only the first batch. Let's consider the first example in the chart you did (the one with 2 units). What you have to consider is that after 20 seconds 1 by 1 training method seems the to be the most efficient. But you have to consider that the player will continue to train units in batches, which resolves to the following conclusion:
Time Elapsed (s)
1 by 1
Batching
#Units Produced
ActiveTime(s)
#Units Produced
ActiveTime(s)
20
40
160 (2 mins 40 secs)
2
4
16
10
30+20+10=60
...
2
4
18
5.18
25.18*2 + 5.18*2=60,72
...
As you can see, after another 20 seconds the batch training method does way better than 1by1 for what concerns Active time. After 2 mins and 40 secs it's 2 units ahead. Obviously the gap of speed between 1by1 and batch training method becomes more evident when you apply the same logic I did with higher batch training numbers.
- You need to have more experience in the game. 1) Even if there is not a definite rule about it, for early game is not intended only the first minute of playing (wouldn't make sense) but something like the first 12 mins of playing. In these 12 minutes, the gap of speed in terms of economic development between 1by1 training and batch training methods becomes huge. 2) A good player never uses the same batch dimensions but variates it (when I train women in the beginning of the game I like to train them 6+3+2+4+4). 3) You can build houses while training in batches without being slowed down (just manage the correct number of wood you are collecting).
In any case, I would suggest you to spectate a pro level match. You will notice that by using the batch training method it's possible to get easily 100 population within 7 minutes, and reach 150 within 10 minutes.
-
6
-
4
-
46 minutes ago, Angen said:
Why are you trying to queue number of units for which you dont have resources for in a first place?
Because it can happen in situations in which you have to do that really fast because of pressure. For example 1) when you are microing a fight and you need to train more soldiers 2) when you are under a rush. In these cases if you are a good player unless you are in late game it's rare you have a large amount of resources (so maybe you have to train from 5 barracks when you have like 400 food/wood resources). In addition, after minute 10 I practically never train units one by one, I only train in bunches of 2/3 units (which make this happen a lot).
I'm talking about high level matches with 1400+ ranked players.
-
This is a small feature I think players who use the shortcut SHIFT + Z,X,C,V... could benefit from.
I find that when I use this shortcuts and I have not enough time to see how many resources I have happens what is showed in the video.
(The video is obviously taken to the extreme thanks to the cheat "gift from the gods")
The barrack automatically divides the number of soldiers I would like to train (but I can't because of resources lack) into the number of barracks I am training them with (in this case divides 1914/3=637), which becomes 637+637=1274, but one barracks ultimately doesn't train soldiers at all. Being 1860 the limit number of units to train whith my resources, I would like it to become automatically 620+620+620.
I think that this feature would help all that players who use shortcuts in all that stresfull situations in which you cannot select precisely the number of soldiers to train from multiple barracks.
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
This is true, but if you add in some ranged units to both sides, the side with pikes will win by quite a bit, because the pikemen will not die as fast as the spearmen and then the pikemen +full health ranged units can go attack the remaining ranged units. Keep in mind in a24 that people mainly used pikes to push archer-based armies which could easily beat anything else, so they felt more powerful based upon what they could do to an already op unit.
That's true if you compare two armies with the same number of ranged units and the same number of melee units. Making a difference between different composed armies I think it's what makes this game beautiful under the strategic point. If you want to counter a classic ptolemy army (pikes+slingers, which I consider maybe the best combination in the game) you can:
- Make melee cavarly to go behind the pike enemy line and target directly the ranged units, or do it with some of your melee infantry (swords preferibly);
- Use the hero or a few cavarly champions to distract the enemy ranged units by moving them back and forth the line during the fight;
- Just don't fight and turtle the enough amount of time needed to build a cav army (which is a perfect counter against pikes because pikes are really slow)
13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:This is not viable in a large battle as there will be a lot of overkill. I think it would be better if a player using ranged units could make an attack order and then the ranged units would seek targets close to that order as their natural behavior.
In my opinion this is problematic.
Firstly, I don't think that an attack order would be realistic. In real life it's true that you can modify the angle of your bow while shooting an arrow, but you won't be able to see who you are shooting at (the failure percentage is be much higher).
Secondly, you have to remember that the range of shooting remain unvaried (60 m for archers, 45 for slings, 30 for skirms). If you want to target the enemy ranged units you will have to keep your own ranged units really close to the enemy pike line, which is really risky for the safety of your units.
Thirdly, I think that this feature would cancel the original importance of melee units, which is in fact creating a shield for the shots of the enemy ranged units. Being a good player in the game (1700+), and seeing what different changes in different alphas have brought to the game when talking about games between good players, I think that this would bring to armies composed just by ranged units.
Lastly, rush would became so easy that even a medium skilled player could easily destroy the eco of a pro player in early game (just imagine ordering the cavarly to focus only on women and skirms/archers/slingers when rushing a woodline: the only skill required would be being clever to avoid the enemy pikes).
-
I think that in this alpha there are still some units who need to be buffed or nerfed, such as:
-
Archers (except champions) who seem to not be anymore affective against any kind of pike shield and melee cavarly (especially sword one), which makes them practically unuseful in late game (especially in games with a 300 pop cap);
-
Consular bodyguard: in my opinion this unit is not counterable by any kind of other unit in the game when attacking a player base. You just need to have 15/20 of them to completely destroy the enemy eco (no point for the enemy to have soldiers near to the cc to protect the fields or even walls or palizades, which can be easily destroyed by them);
-
Heroes: I expressed my thoughts in the topic here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/51406-dancing-lowering-heroes-health-adding-headshot-damage/
I think that one way to “easily” balance this is to implement a headshot/vital-areas-shot damage. It is 1) Realistic, because in real life an arrow can hit a leg, an armour or a vital area 2) Useful in game, because it can be a counter against all the op units mentioned before.
This damage would not be applied only to ranged units but also to buildings (maybe not all, I think this kind of damage is needed especially for the civic centres).
-> I think the damage should not be a instant kill but a hit that cuts down something like a 60/70% of the enemy unit health points.
Here are some idea how it could work:
-
By percentage. An example could be:
- Archers: 20% chance
- Slingers: 15% chance
- Skirms: 10% chance
- Buildings: 30% chance
-
A rechargeable damage. I don't like the idea of having a bar that recharges after a definite amount of time (just because if you have an army of many ranged units with all this damage recharged would be op). I would like this to be rechargeable in proportion to the effective hits the unit succesfully gets. An example could be:
- Archers: rechargeable every 10 hits
- Slingers: rechargeable every 13 hits
- Skirms: rechargeable every 16 hits
- Buildings: rechargeable every 8 hits
-
1
-
-
Just now, LetswaveaBook said:
What I would suggest, is that if a unit misses a certain amount of shots, it will switch to a different target. That new target should preferably be something that is easier to hit (close, big or stationary).
It's not specific about missing a target (maybe ranged units can hit the hero 30% while he is moving around). The problem is that the huge health of heroes allows them still to get a lot of hits from ranged units without dying, and they can be easily healed.
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
If this is happening as I have observed, then it usually leads to skirmishers killing the enemy melee faster than archers can do the same, which makes them better units in many battles.
I don't think they are better units, you have just to use different strategies. In a open fight in a open field it's obvious that macedonian pikes + skirms beat pikes + archers.
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:What if there was a way to make units prioritize the type of unit they were originally ordered to kill?. I feel that this would not only help with hero micro/dancing and archer/slinger frustrations, but it would also add a large amount of controllability to the units that would raise the skill ceiling of fights and make them more fun.
My personal experience is that ranged units focus their attack on the nearest unit. I don't like the idea to make units prioritize the type of unit they are going to kill just because it would kill micro:
1) there would no be reason to have a shield of pikes to protect the ranged units (in particular for slow melee units such as macedonian or ptolemy pikes);
2) rush would became so easy that even a medium player could easily destroy the eco of a pro player (just imagine ordering the cavarly to focus only on women when rushing a woodline: the only skill required would be being clever to avoid the enemy pikes);
7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I suggest having a <MaxAttackers> element in the <Health> component. That way if it's set to 20, only 20 of the enemy's archers will target him and the rest will target the next nearest unit. Could set buildings to something ridiculously high or turned off by default, while units would have a much lower number. (We could eyeball it by approximate unit size or health or both?)
I really like this idea but I think it should be implemented only for heroes, not every unit in the game (for the reasons expressed above by @chrstgtr).
39 minutes ago, chrstgtr said: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.
In regicide games moving back and forth the hero during the fight is extremely risky. Maybe in regicide games this "max number" could be turned off by default.
-
In a lot of tg matches I've played recently I noticed that some players get annoyed by my usage of heroes during the fights (not only mine of course). What I do is basically moving back and forth the hero, distracting a large amount of the enemy ranged units. These technique allows me to win a lot of fights. According to some of these players this usage of the hero is "dancing", and it should not be allowed in the match.
First of all, I want to underline the fact that "dancing" was a term that was originally related to a bug in the past alphas: moving the unit with rapid clicks could allow it not to take any damage from the enemy ranged units (so you could do it even with a unit with very low hps). So, I believe that this kind of skill should be considered micro and not a cheat, because 1) It is something you could do also with a fast unit with less health like a champ cav or a gaul fanatic 2) the unit still takes some damage from the ranged units.
All of that said, I believe it still represents a major problem in the game, for 3 reasons:
- even if the unit takes some damage that damage is practically nothing compared to the excessive hp of a hero unit (so the unit can be healed easily);
- it is historically unrealistic (I cannot imagine a hero whose purpose was that of moving back and forth to distract the enemy);
- if every player did it, every fight would last hours;
In conclusion, I think there are 2 solutions to this problem (connected one with each other), and I hope you can help me find more or make these ones better
1) Lowering the health of the heroes in the game (in my opinion it is exaggerated):
- Infantry: 1000 hp -> 500 hp
- Cavarly: 1200 hp -> 600/700 hp
- Elephant: 1500 hp -> something around 1000, because the slowness of this unit makes it much more vulnerable to ranged units
2) Implementing a "headshot" damage in percentage for archers and slingers (maybe not instant kill but something like of a 70% of the enemy unit health).
I would really like this "dancing 2.0" to become something realistic and usable by most of players.
-
Dancing with patrol is clearly a bug, so it must be fixed. Only infantry units should dance (manually obviously), because in real life it's impossible for a horse.
In my opinion, manual dancing should be reviewed too. Maybe it should be possible to dodge some arrows but not a 100 archers army...
-
1
-
-
Select your units and while attacking press "Ctrl"
-
I love it. When will this mod be avaible? Are you also going to implement new maps or they will be default 0ad ones?
-
Please balance units in order to obtain better attacks for melee soldiers, so it's avoided to have only ranged units armies
. Maybe for an interesting (and faster) game set better attacks for melee units respect to default 0ad (like 6+ damage at least, arriving to even 16-20 for a maceman, maybe).
I'm anyway loving this mod
-
2 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
Losing 7 siege towers to 2 rams can only be summed up to very severe user error. Siege towers have good crush damage and easily destroy buildings, siege machinery and units, while outrunning swordsmen, spearmen and rams. The reason most have an impression that siege towers deal low damage is that they send the siege towers into the middle of the enemy base where the siege towers are firing upon 15+ buildings and probably some units, making them appear weak.
I wasn't into the enemy base, the enemy just sent me the two rams followed by some sword cavs and pikemen. The sieges so weren't focusing in killing rams
-
1 hour ago, Dade said:
- Same as battering rams, should get lower base speed and increase it with garrisoned units but walking units should be still able to catch it
- They should be able to capture at least certain targets (castles, cc, military colonies and towers, to not make them OP) to better define their role into the battlefield while being able to keep attacking - maybe at a slower rate when capturing
The current problem for siege towers in my opinion is that they are easily killed by rams, catas or sword units. This is what makes them not so useful in the battle. I personally thing that, if the speed has to be decreased, the damage should be increased or noone will even train them. For example, 2 rams from another player could easily kill 7 siege towers in a game I did, that is quite exagerated.
1 hour ago, Dade said:- Suppresion. Archers and slingers should slow enemy units to better reflect their support role in the battlefield. Spears, but specially pykes, should also slow enemy cavs to increase their utility on the battlefield.
You mean that they are slowed because they have to defend with shields from the shots?
1 hour ago, Dade said:-
- Siege engines should not be able to cross rivers, but need to be transported instead
Ships can't pass a ford. In a low height water map it would be impossible to kill the enemy then...
Anyway, I like really a lot your opinions, so thanks for the comment
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:
An attacking eagle or falcon is maybe a bit exagerated, I don't think there is any account of this. But a scout unit, either a lonely bird or a horseman with a following bird, with huge vision and hunting bonus, it is justified from historical accounts.
But how can enemy units kill him? I don't think archers have the precision and the range to do it, but maybe I'm wrong
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Dade said:
Basically, there's a dominant choice with civs as far I have played this week: civs with slingers. After that, there's no real strategy other than spam the most slingers you can, put something in front of them (will depend on the selected civ) and smash at least the first line of defense of your opponent.
A mass of slingers is not what makes you win a 1v1 game or a team game. There are too many variables to explain in a comment, but I don't personally think that the best civilizations are op only because they have slingers.
-
2 hours ago, ffffffff said:
Opinions please.
I personally don't like them... Too bright
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, soshanko said:
1. number of units working on different resources including how many man and women and cav unit in which kind of resource..
2. the number of idle units including how many man and women and cav.
This number is really really variable, so I don't think it can be usefull during the gameplay. For example, every second I change something in the number of people gathering res, so it would be in my opinion a total mess stat.
1 hour ago, soshanko said: 3. the gather rate of each resource.
Maybe it can be more interesting a stat that makes an average of how many resources of one type you collect per second, but also this is too variable
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, JC (naval supremacist) said:
jc's-haters that they can't give me 10 names of players better than me
- Boudica
- Valihrant
- borg
- Phyzic
- camelius
- chrstgtr
- Feldfeld
- RolandSC2
- Emperior
- faction02
(And I didn't want to put myself on the list)
-
2
-
I personally think that instead of a nerf for celts there should be an improvement of the other civilizations
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, thankforpie said:
so stacked bolts are less op than stacked walls?
Yes. Something like 12 walls on the same place are OP because behind you can put a large quantity of catapults to destroy attacking bolts for example, while the enemy takes a lot of time to destroy them and your units a really low time to build them
I appreciate a lot the question mark man anyway XD
magnetic pikemen
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
Not sure about it, I would like to know more