BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
lmao welcome back!
-
4 hours ago, MarcusAureliu#s said:
A small but helpfull improvement could be to display hotkeys in the building menues, like it is done in aoe 2 for example. I am aware that building placement hotkeys are currently done by a mod, autociv which hopefully can be integrated in the game, but this could already be implemented for unit production.
This would make it so much easier to build or adjust muscle memory for using hotkeys. If you forget the hotkey or simply forget to use it you'll see the little "h" on the icon and be reminded of it.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, SKAcz said:
Thanks for mods, we will try it, i hope it will be easy somehow
Some people actually try to master challenging skills instead of just making the game easier. There's a lot of fun and re-playability in games where you can build skills to beat other players.
I'm not against automated features, I just think that ANY automated feature should remain un-optimized so that direct management and application of skill can outperform the automated features. For example, people laugh at how inefficient autoscout is in aoe2. The devs would have an easy time making autoscout highly effective. The reason they don't is so that players can build multitasking and prioritization skills that come with manual scouting.
-
1
-
-
On 19/04/2024 at 6:32 PM, Gurken Khan said:
but people have done the numbers and I believe the time/work ratio is only beneficial when the batch size is >17 or something.
If I remember correctly this is true with some caveats. His conclusion was that 1 by 1 is most efficient by resources spent and earned by the units trained. However he didn't factor in that accumulating unspent resources is another cost of 1 by 1, at some point in real games (as opposed to a math scenario) it becomes considerably better to make batches of 2-10 so that you can spend resources faster. If you do this your bigger population will cause your eco score curve to be faster than someone doing 1 by 1 even if the 1 by 1 player is getting a better return on investment for each unit he makes.
This is what makes progui so op because it makes sure all your resources are spent on the maximum AND most efficient production method (aside from the fact that you can completely avoid having idle time on your production buildings, which even the best players of 0ad can't eliminate).
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
That would obviously be OP
That would obviously depend on how you implement it.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:
Melee citizens have been nerfed which is bad, because for example Athens and Sparta rely on these units, as they don't have any champion cavalry. Also, for some civs the citizen spearman is the only unit which can counter cavalry well (Britons, Mauryas). Furthermore it weakens melee mercenaries even more and using them didnt seem to have been a good strategy any more.
Siege units have already been rather hard to destroy, now even more.
As I said, Athens have the big disadvantage to not have any champion cavalry, so it might be a mistake to nerf the Iphicrates hero. This civilization relies on him.iphricates was very problematic, its good that there was a nerf. Now I do agree athens could use some other good heroes, and perhaps some justification for their champs coming out of a super expensive building. Also citizen spearmen counter cavalry perfectly well still so I wouldn't worry about that as of the new comm mod.
-
1
-
-
It was, I just checked it out. unless something went wrong with your installation?
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
"chicken rush" have been successful against good players. If that strategy was anywhere near as effective as you and your bro insist
The strategy is more effective for 1200-1400 players who can lessen the performance gap between themselves and a higher level player. This works to some extent even if they defending player has prepared for it because then their boom will be much slower compared to players of their same level. To be honest, its not very relevant to discuss this since the "chicken rush" as I call it seems to be just as effective now as before.
Games are fun because of the skills and strategies that you learn to win. There's not much to learn about random arrows, because there is no player control over them. The goal of non-random building AI was to add another aspect of the game for the players to play.
On a side note heres an interesting game where H.Herle managed to make archers look good:
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Your brother (I think) tried to do against me to prove his point when I built ALL women and failed miserably
I can't remember that one, but I tried another one against other good players and it worked just fine although I didn't keep all of my cav alive (boo hoo, its still ~60/9 across 4 players). Also there's no need to insult someone who rarely rushes.
7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:My point is if it was balanced before, which I think it was, then this is a change designed to disrupt what is already balanced
Thats a good point, I think the whole purpose of the change was to try find a better game mechanic that, if balanced could allow for better gameplay. Just because something is balanced doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. Mercs were balanced before a25 but they played pretty much exactly the same as normal CS, so people decided they could be improved and now they play an interesting role in 0ad games after an alpha of being imbalanced.
-
5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
balance was fine before and there were very few (zero?) complaints
It’s true that the building ai was better balanced before the mod, but it was very underdeveloped and led to a very simple gameplay result. It would be foolish to say that random arrows is the best possible building ai system, so it was definitely worth trying something new.
Also I’ve seen high skill players avoid losing units to the cc despite the cc shooting the closest unit. These weak cav or infantry then just go back and gather or heal in their own cc. Interesting micro has arisen for both the rusher and defender. The best part of the building arrow change is that there is now an immediate cost to entering building arrow range instead of it being negligible for big armies. The worst part has been how fast units die especially with overlapping ranges.
-
2
-
-
I'm not sure if autociv mod can do this, but it would be my first suggestion to try.
-
@Feldfeld thanks for working on these map balances, I'm excited to play "pizza" with balanced wood!
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, leopard said:
look how much time it takes to micro away from the pikeman and my cav died anyway, in 0AD time play a big factor. I feel pikemen is buffed too much. and even after hitting too many javelins pikeman is barely touched. watch the second video.
pikeman is reasonably strong but still getting hit by javelins and eventually dies I had to micro hard though and wasted lot of time killing one pikeman.
The situation changes when you have 100+ unit battles, some players have complained that everything dies too fast.
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, leopard said:
In theory you could micro well enough to completely avoid damage from the pikeman. It's really interesting to see the long reach of pikemen play a role here, where before it didnt matter since they did negligible damage anyway. It's nice now to see pikemen and spearmen having different strengths versus cavalry.
-
@leopard you are playtesting them. Thanks for your efforts. The pikemen here are rank 3, melee units have added damage, armor, and hp with each rank, compared to ranged units which only get accuracy and hp. The strength of melee rankups is acknowledged to be a problem by most players, so there will be some reduction to the rankup bonuses. Try the same scenario with rank 1 units from both types and you'll find it much easier to kill the pikemen.
-
2
-
-
I've found that cavalry only compositions are very rare and hard to pull off. I've had some successful cav play and some disasters myself. A lot of players are having success with some cavalry and some infantry, sometimes operating independently. I think the main change has been that cavalry is not universally superior to infantry as it was before the mod, which is good. A balance challenge emerges for civs like persians whose strengths lie mostly in cav.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
That means units are dying faster because of melee's buff despite range's nerf.
the change to net damage across all units is definitely smaller than the net change to units durability (melee lost armor). The driver of any net ttk change is because of the reduction of melee armor. Before this mod, battles felt slower because either before or after sniping there was this damage sponge you had to kill.
I think one reason why melee seem to kill ranged units faster is because they rank up while killing them and this increases their damage, hp, and armor further. I think further changes to melee/ranged balance aren't clear, but reduction to the rank up bonuses of melee is a clear change.
-
21 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
The more I play, the more I think this is the answer. Not sure if it is necessary for towers but I am leaning towards no.
I don't think the meta has really been figured out yet. I think we still need to wait to see how things shake out. With that said...the below are all things that I was independently thinking.
I also think there is a general problem with how champions aren't being made as much anymore. I like how melee is being made more now. But that diversity has come at the cost of less cav and champs. Personally, both neither system is better than the other for me. But I do think we could make the current system better to address the cav and champ issues.
Interestingly, quite a few players particularly Havran have argued that champions have become meta. I'm not saying I agree. In fact my argument so far about balance is that its actually pretty good. It is truly a weird situation to have almost every player claim one thing or another is OP with some certainty, all while having very little agreement. Clearly the meta has been more elusive than everyone thinks.
If there is any one thing that I think most people can agree is now OP it is spartans and athenians, the reasons being several bonuses and heroes that combine particularly well with the melee rebalance:
- iphricates (previously determined to be OP): seems to be more important now that melee units have less armor
- Leonidas: the damage addition to spearmen is much more significant now that the base rate is increased
- Skiritai commandos start rank 3 which is now a much stronger advantage over rank 1
- hoplite tradition: improved rank up speed means hoplites can reach rank 2/3 in one good fight, fast enough to make a big difference in the fight in which they rank up.
Combining these civ specific bonuses with the melee rebalance has led to melee units from these civs being too strong. I think removing armor from melee rankup bonuses, and nerfing iphricates would solve these concerns effectively.
-
1
-
At the start of the community mod changes were limited to bugfixes and small unit/hero/civ tweaks. The main vision of the mod was to act as a testing environment for future changes. Through 2022, 2023 and until now the community mod has served as the base game for quite a few 0ad players. This is the first release of the community mod to feature significant experimentation, and it has been both successful and unsuccessful. Every player has felt some level of discomfort as their established understanding of the game is challenged, some people reject such discomfort and some people tolerate it.
People who have considered the changes and adapted to them by and large are contributing to the mod (and 0ad) with constructive criticism. That is really good to see.
Another group of people who do not wish for the game to change, who are unable to adapt and learn, yearn to execute the same strategies that they have always preferred. When they encounter the discomfort of looking outside of their box, they become enraged. For this group it feels like the end of the world, or the end of 0ad.
Its obviously no use to include people of the second category in playtesting as it is in the community mod, because they can't or don't explain what it is they don't like (what is imbalanced?, what is broken?, what plays poorly? ect.). In previous alphas where there were balance issues there was nearly unanimous understanding, think of merc cav, firecav of a25, slingers of a23, or archers of a24. In the case of comm mod 6, there is almost no agreement between the most vocal disparagers of the mod. The lack of constructive feedback from this most vocal group is an indication that its best to protect these people from new things by making sure that the base game is in a bug free and balanced state upon alpha releases. This way, players interested in contributing to balancing/game development can test things, provide feedback and then go back to the base game if there are issues with the community mod version.
-
1
-
1
-
-
There are many proposed ideas for adjusting non-random buildingAI for better gameplay outcomes, I'm gonna list some here:
- reduce max arrow count in cc
- random arrows for cc and fort, but keep non-random for towers
- increasing arrow damage with phase or blacksmith tech (ranged damage)
- fixed ranges for buildings, or adjust the default range so that it matches the current default+bonus for a flat map.
- random arrows default, player click focuses arrows.
I've noticed that the primary change is that the cost/benefit analysis of diving under the cc to get kill is much more complicated now, it used to be that you would only trade hp that would eventually make you need to heal your units in the cc. Now that there is an immediate threat (units actually die) from the cc, a rusher needs to make sure that what they do under the cc is worth losing at least one unit.
At the same time rushers and rush defenders are learning ways to distract and focus cc fire respectively. It's good to see players developing skills to maximize their results for both defense and offense in these scenarios.
-
I think people should also recognize when making their vote that keeping the changes in the mod allows them to be balanced and tweaked, where as "bad change" is preferring the previous version with any undesirable features that we have accepted for a while as a playerbase. Basically "bad change" is if you see absolutely no potential for the change to improve gameplay.
-
2 hours ago, zozio32 said:
reagrding the first one, I would only change the fact that building should target units if in range before buildings. There is no point in a tower shooting at buildings around when ennemy units are attacking
this is how the implemented buildingai works unless there are bugs. Be sure that there are units closer than buildings and that you didnt attack-click the building.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, king reza the great said:
Hi
To control sniping (that is annoying) u dont need to change damage of units
The best way is to limit the number of units that can snipe ( like max 30 units)
The same limitation should be put on number of champs ( like max 20) because some players ( often op players) turtle and spam many champs in that case nothing can stop them. This limitations can help to balance the game.
The new community mod ( 0.26.6) doesnt solve the mentioned problems and also can causes problems ( like op early camel rush)
Arbitrary limitations on in-game functions like champs or sniping show that balance problems are present, capping the number of these things isnt really a solution but a coping mechanism.
So far there hasn't been enough gameplay of the new mod to establish what, if anything is OP. Many people claim certain things are op when they lose to it, but there needs to be widespread agreement to make a conclusion.
In fact several in game factors in the mod are changed to the detriment of the camel rush, consider:
- non random building arrows (kills individual camels as opposed to weakening all of them)
- spearcav have increased damage (this is mathematically before the 3x counter, so the counter is effectively buffed)
-
1
-
7 hours ago, Atrik said:
ith @real_tabasco_sauce patch, defense buildings mechanic are about: For attacker, bringing a/a few units closer to cc and dance, for defender, shift-click all non-dancing or weaker units (new spam sniping mechanic). These micro seems to me extremely predictable
Well this micro is really only theoretical until someone can make it work. I agree that the logic is simple, but this would be very difficult to execute. Don’t throw around the word sniping here as it’s not applicable here. The value of shift clicking in the situation is not there either, since the defender would want to respond in real time to the movements of the attacker. “Spam clicking” is a highly unrealistic projected outcome, like your personal boogeyman that you see around every alley.
-
1
-
1
-
Two General Improvements to Gameplay
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
I think a tutorial covering the basics is all that is needed. Sharing tips and tricks and helping each other learn is part of building a community