Jump to content

Jofursloft

Balancing Advisors
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    211

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Jofursloft

  4. Cheat walls

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, stanislas69 said:

     Any particular reason for there being no more rules ? Just curious.

    I personally don't know. I "was born" where people were even fooling around if they player with cavs, bolts, siege towers or walls. So I was really weirded when alpha 23 was released because I had to learn again how to play in 0ad, and it wook me a lot of time. So, I really don't know why we passed from a rule-based alpha to a everything-free new alpha. ANyway, I personally prefer games with no rules, because they are more realistic and also more funny 

    • Like 1

  6. Cheat walls

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

    I thought usually MP Ranked games had a "No wall allowed rule" ?

    With the new alpha 23 there are no more rules. Walls are part of the game and of the fun, and it's sometimes annoying this bug, cause it allows to some players (that maybe are weaker in game than you) to win for example a wonder or relic game

    • Like 2

  8. Usage of spear cav

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Jofursloft

    35 minutes ago, thankforpie said:

    anyway what you think of ranged cavalry? or is it too expensive

    The advantage of a cavarly army is mostly the fact that is really faster and manovrable than a infantry one. So you can easily attack the enemy from different points with all your army without spend a lot of time. Also, the damage of cavarly units is higher than infantry one, so they are particulary effective even against a good normal army (obv if we are not talking about max ranged upgrades + pikes)

    What I generally prefer is to use cavarly units in early game or to use them in late just to annoy the enemy attacking his eco at base or to defend from rams attacks

    • Like 1

  9. Fellow newbies required for 1v1 game to be used as a Youtube Tutorial series

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, mysticjim said:

    @Jofursloft - hello, it's a possibility, yes. Wouldn't mind playing you 1v1 to begin with, just get some idea of just how far advanced you are - or rather should that be, how far below you I am::) That would probably make for a good early video, then possibly we could contrast how I do later on after a masterclass or two! I'll PM you with my email in a bit and we'll sort something out.

    Don't write an email, just send a private message on forum ;) 

  11. Skirmish Map - Italian Peninsula (6)

    in Scenario Design/Map making

    Posted

    Very good work, I like it. Can you create a mod in which add all your maps? I am really interested in playing this, if possible. 

    Anyway, just looking the map from the screenshots, I wanted to say a pair of things:

    • Is fish already implemented? If it's not, add not isolated shoals, but at least 2-3 together.
    • Sicilia is too isolated by the rest of the map. People on the island can't expand from Messina strait because the other enemy is really near to it.
    • Add more wood for late game? There is not much for a team game with so many players (there is a good amount for a 1v1 game)
    • Croatia player is too advantaged (can expand a lot without enemies nearby)
    • Where are the two volcanos? XD
    • Can you add north Italy? I live there and it would be great to have the Alpi and Po Valley

  13. Not very useful heroes

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, DarcReaver said:

    This essentially forces unit that is supposed to tank damage on the battlefield (and costs a ton of resources )should stay near some villager women to make them collect berries faster? Yea sure... 

    Maybe I used bad words to explain what I wanted to say. I think that fight heroes should all be associated to a aura (like most of them currently are), while heroes that in their life introducted or promulgated edicts about for example boosts for the economy, should be all global. Every hero must also be a tank unit for battlefield, or the role of the hero doesn't make much sense. 

    The type of heroes that are closer to my idea at the moment are Hyrule Conquest ones. They all have a particular unit that can be trained only if you choose him, they unlock a particular type of economy upgrade (really useful most of times) and they have different types of auras for battlefield. Hyrule Conquest is what approached better what a hero should look like. Also, you can train only 1/4 heroes that you choose at the beginning of the game. 

    In fact, what doesn't make sense to me is also the fact that a player can train different heroes during the game more times. 

  16. Missile Dodging / Dancing

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

    What a nonsense.. oh wait I just found accurate video footage of ancient combat in which the champion manages to dogdge enemy missiles easily. So probably this is authentic realistic combat simulation at that point to ddoge hundred of spears and arrows.

    What I think in fact is that for a infantry hero / normal unit is normal to dodge some shots (obv not like 100+) moving really fast: what is unrealistic is a cavarly unit that does the same

    • Like 1

  17. Not very useful heroes

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

    Create a global bonus to units? I mean what's the point to train a combat unit from a lategame military building that makes gatherers work faster? And why would a hero somewhere on the map make all workers gather faster? There'S no logic behind that except for "we need to find a bonus for this hero type".

    In fact in my opinion some hero bonuses shouldn't be global, but they should be associated to a small/large aura, mostly eco ones. Anyway, we ave also to look at the history. I am a historical, but maybe these heroes have economy global bonus or repair rate because they introduce reforms about it. 

    3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

    Question is rather what the Heroes are actually needed for? I mean, at all? They come very late in the game, and are intended for what? attacking, defending, support the economy, support the Army?

    I need heroes for 3 main reason: they give most time a useful bonus, they are a good tank unit for battlefield. Except mauritanian healer hero that has a really weak armor, other heroes, independently from their bonus are useul in fight, because you have a tank unit to dance / distract the enemy units

    3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

    So your proposal is that because Elephants are not useful the aura should affect other siege weapons to make those Catapults even more efficient when spammed? Good idea...

    Also because there is at the moment only one hero that makes catapults more efficient: Cleopatra

  18. Not very useful heroes

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Altrine said:

    But in some Civ like Britons we mostly take Boudicca as its the only one with decent attacks and speed as if we send 5-10 more carrtios it would make a decent army but the second and third are useless as for seige in Britons no one needs it garrisoned as we use Britons only for rush and most games never train an hero waste of time and in Athenian we never mostly pick ( expect naval battles)  and only pick any one for the three as mostly the three of them as useless in land. So, it would be better to give all heroes decent boosts or attack to make it balanced. 

    Boudica is worst Briton hero I personally think. In fact a few people makes champions in team games or 1v1, so it's practically unuseful. Caratacus +15% speed and +1 armor to soldiers, that is a good boost, while the best, Cunobellio, heals your soldiers decently and is a good unit for dancing too

  19. People don't use archer units and archer civs

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    1 hour ago, thankforpie said:

    Civs like carthaginian,mauryan,persian,kushites have only archers, dont have slingers or skirmishers.  while for persia thats not bigproblem because most persian users spam horses and end up with good results, other 3 mentioned civs arent played at all because of too low dps.

    Persian and kushites have also skirmishers

    1 hour ago, thankforpie said:

    ptolemies when run out of stone and iron can as well resign because they wont survive next attack with only camels and pikemen(lol). while pikes are good, camels do no dmg (they have bow).

    Camels are OP mostly in early and late game, cause of their fantastic range that allows them to attack / run away very fast without be hit. They are the best cav unit to amass for a rush

    • Like 1

  20. A need to Hold Ground.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    51 minutes ago, Altrine said:

    Clear sight in Naval battles won't be enough @Vulnux because there is a chance to win without sight in naval maps well Ptolemies are the best in naval battles due to their heavy battleship + lighthouse but you would need to garrison your ships for better attack and repair them regularly. 

    Not so sure they are the best. The problem of ptolemies ships is that you need a lot of time to make enough catapults (and they cost really much) to garrison in heavy ships. A vic like britons or gauls is advantaged because it can make good ships even in P2 and they have to garrison only soldiers. So they have a faster mobility, they use less resources and when you destroy one of their ships they don't lose many soldiers (with ptolemies you lose precious catapults) 

  21. How Do You Attack?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Altrine said:

     It would be better to build 3 early because you could get a chance to win in p2 itself and you would have a steady supply of food and wood for enough meele for a hold ground and get a thousand stone and make 50 ranged and take on your enemy or just wait until seige is available. 

    I assure you that I play a lot of games with Feldfeld and in rush games (that took sometimes also 20+ minutes still in P2) we both had no more than 1-2 barracks. I tried with 3 but I can't balance so well the eco (you finish your resources too fast and when you notice you are done).

    • Like 1

  24. "Very hard" Al

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Servo said:

    The only changes you need right now is their combat discipline and training more armies regardless of types. When you play against AI it’s for fun and you just toy with them. If you want more difficulty then play against multiple Hardest AI and until the challenge is maximized and you get satisfaction. 

    I never get satisfaction :( 

    I already beated 1v4 against very hard Al and it was really relaxing. The problem I have is that when I play FFA with Al they all declare me war at minute 10-15 (and 1v7 is impossible against very Hard Al)

     

  25. "Very hard" Al

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Nescio said:

    As far as I know (please correct me if I'm mistaken, @mimo), basically the only difference between difficulty levels is the resource gain rate (Very Hard gets 160% of the resources they gather, Medium 100%, Very Easy 40%). More difficult AIs can develop quicker because of this, not because they are any smarter.

    In fact in my opinion this is not a right thing. The difference between the Al mustn't be the level of gather rate, but the overall strategy. An utopic type of "Nightmare Al" should be able to:

    • Understand when the attacks it's doing are a failure or not
    • Valuate if it's worth to defend a building
    • Decide better where to build a new civic centre or new buildings
    • When attacked, stop all interested units immediately, not drop off the resources before (most die while they do this)
    • Attack coordinated
    • If one of their allies is attacked send some units (currently or they send all or they send none)
    • Pay more attention where they locate storehouses /farms
    • Don't accumulate a large number of res but use them to train immediately
    • Balance eco by understanding what resource he needs more for a particular tyoe of unit / building
    • Attack with a more compact army
    • Balance better the army (I saw so many times a large number of melee and a low one of ranged, mostly in early game)
    • If the attack is a failure, retire and not keep attacking 
    • Don't do suicide rushes at beginning (you can just garrison and they die immediately)
    • Train less men at beginning (they have too many men and their eco suffers from it)
    • Have a better diplomacy (all games in which it's me and 7 Al ffa they all declare war to me around minute 10, idk why XD)
    • Place better their fortifications (they have too many towers in unuseful places and I never let the Al live enough to see it build a fort
    2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    One aspect in which I think the AI is overpowered is their all seeing eye, especially if you weren't aware that the AI can actually see EVERYTHING... There's no hiding... Even if it's never been to a certain area of the map, it has no problem making a B-line for whatever enemy settlement is located there. 

    I think this can be a fair advantage for the Al, respect to the current many mistakes 

     

    What I propose is to create a prototype of Al that uses the beginning build order of most player (6 women, where to build farms, only cav at chicken...)

×
×
  • Create New...