Jump to content

BreakfastBurrito_007

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007

  1. A unique feature of a civ is one that departs in some way from the established trend of other civs. Creating an entirely new area of functionality for a particular civ, as was done frequently in Aoe4, is bad and gimmicky, if not impossible to balance. People often complain that Aoe2 civs are "all the same" but it is because they fail to realize the significance of a small bonus or small unique feature or upgrade to certain units or structures or economy.

    We don't have to do wild new changes in the name of differentiation. We need smaller, but key distinguishing features that players can use to beat one another.

  2. 14 minutes ago, alre said:

    Spearmen hero

    300 Spartans: all allied melee infantry gets +20% speed, 2 pierce resistance, +2 hack resistance, +20% damage. 30m radius. This ability only works when Leonidas is engaging an enemy.

    Last stand: when Leonidas is engaging an enemy, he cannot be ordered to disengage.

    LOL I actually like this idea. It could be thought of as a yolo hero. Unfortunately I think most of the time he will just get sniped.

     

    16 minutes ago, alre said:

    It would be even more fun if helots rebelled everytime the max number of them would go under the current number allowed by spartiates.

    That doesn't sound fun. Would they go to Gaia or just stop working? either way it would enter the player into a death spiral.

  3. 4 hours ago, borg- said:

    Sissitia range aura of gathering rate on farms for citizens infantry skimishers near. Gathers like a woman, but her attack is reduced a little

    Some people will say this is op, but this champions in p1 will be very hard to get since there is so little eco available then.

    I am a little confused about this one. if I understand it right, the skirms have a reduced attack but increased gather rate for grain around the sissitia. If I understand it correctly, it would mean that sparta can have a great defense of its fields, but up to a point where skirms are weaker than the invading force due to that negative damage part of the aura.

    @borg- Since spartan hoplites have been described above as members of the ruling society rather than just military people, I wonder if it makes sense to add a house type of spartan estate to add to build limit of spartan hoplites.

    Spartan estate would be a place where spartan hoplites could gain xp at a faster rate and become an Olympic Champion. The estate could cost 80 wood 50 metal to offset spartan hoplite cost by 20 wood 10 metal. +5 build limit per estate. Since their relationship to helots was respective to their land as described by @wowgetoffyourcellphone, perhaps it makes sense to give the grain range aura to those estates rather than the sissitia which would just train them and make upgrades. 

    Overall I think the meatshield role for melee units that we largely see right now would be reduced by players having a commitment to keeping champions alive (so they can become olympic) and investing in melee damage that they can exploit with the movement speed upgrade. 

    @borg- I like a lot of your ideas, and I think this is a good way to go about civ differentiation.

  4. 8 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

    Don't know if he thinks it's unreliable. Doesn't he have more of a 'be prepared' mindset?

    btw Noam Chomsky said that the financial/business newspapers have much less bs in them (probably not his exact words), because their audiences demand reliable information to base their decisions on.

    Exactly what I was thinking. I am of course not excited about a recession, like most people. But accurate information is sought after by some investor type people because they are looking to find a way to make money even during a recession, or are trying to figure when/where to move around their money to minimize their losses.

    Of course some media outlets will just say "the economy is great" when a particular group is in power, and "the economy is terrible" when another group is in power. 

  5. 23 minutes ago, maroder said:

    they don't but I would say the crossbow cav is not that far off.

    Ah, I had hoped that one was getting booted, will it have the same range and damage as crossbow infantry?

    Given how powerful horse archers are, I am worried about how powerful crossbow cavalry would be if they had longer range than slingers and skirms, and were used similarly to how horse archers are use currently.

    Imagine how OP a horse archer rush would be if they could kill women in one hit? 

    I understand that they are slower, at 14.4 m/s, but I still think non-archer infantry would have no way of countering them. I am very worried about this unit. @AIEND says they should get booted from the roster, and I think archer cavalry will be easier to balance too.

  6. @maroder they don't have javelin cav right? It is quite powerful to have both spear and sword cavalry, but I think not having javelin cav makes that less op.

    It is a good roster, but I think its ok. My main concern is the individual balance of particular units such as the Pike(Ji),  crossbow and the champions.

    Kush are another civ that has all three of the main melee inf types, but they have only one ranged CS inf, the archer.

  7. 1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

    There is simply something different about fire cav and chariots and I don’t think comparisons are useful because of how different players use the two units. 

    Well its a good point. Everything points to brit chariots being op but they are not complained about as much as firecav. I guess if more people play RCs we and try various strategies we will see if its a different situation for a26.

  8. One comment I have for ministers is that all of their eco buffs seem to be very small (2% per minister), and the most effective way to use ministers seems to be to garrison them in the ministry

    For the Minister over the Masses: I would prefer it to be some non-percentage based bonus that requires some management, like if its garrisoned in a storehouse or farmstead an extra 1/10 of the quantity dropped off by a unit will be added to the player's bank. For example: 10 wood dropped to minister occupied storehouse will result in 11 wood added to bank. For horse with 20 meat, 2 food will be dropped off. Garrison limit of 1 for storehouse and farmstead and docks (ministers only)

    Building speed one can stay but I think it should be increased to 4% per minister, this would be significant enough to allow unique building rush strategies.

    Ideally different uses for minsters could be used at different times, and for different strategies without one particular use that is better than them all. I am not sure if the dropsite garrison feature is possible, but it would be nice to have some more non-percentage based upgrades in the game.

    I think the garrison in ministry should be kept since a Han player might not always have time to manage the other bonuses, so garrisoning them in ministry might be a "safe" option for them to keep their huge investment 900 f 900 metal safe.

     

     

  9. 1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

    Yeah, I get that. I’ve just never seen anyone actually make a case that chariots in and of themselves are OP. All statements seem to be “they have the same stats as fire cav, which were OP.” But we know that a big part of the fire cav problem was the hero that made them so easy to mass. That problem isn’t present with Brits.
     

    It’s a fair topic to raise, but I haven’t seen them ever become a game-breaking problem and my only my concerns with chariots come when they get paired with Boudica. Fire cav start becoming a problem even before they are massed (ie, having like 10 in your normal army will start to really turn battles) whereas chariots only become a problem when you have boudica paired with them, which only really makes sense once the chariots are already massed 

    Damage/cost of chariots with boudica is greater than damage/cost of firecav with indibil, in that sense they are cheaper (also consider less population space taken= more on eco). The remaining differences are that the overall hp and armor of firecav is greater (more mass), that firecav are harder to prevent (walls on food eco), and that firecav can destroy buildings. Firecav are also both smaller and more numerous, so they are harder to snipe. The most important of these differences is the walls on food eco, CS cavalry wont be as easy to use in a26 and raiding eco will be harder.

    -4 pierce damage is not a large nerf and I think the unit will still be op after the nerf anyway. And the unit is "not problematic" because of the food raiding ease that we have in a25, not really because of the strength of the unit in the first place.

    I think at the end of the day, the briton chariot won't be as frustrating as iberian firecav of a25 due to having more chances to raid food eco because even if it is harder in a26, it will still be possible. This should not be a release blocking issue, but if we do more TGs in the RC (plz guys), then we could make a more informed decision later.

  10. 22 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    Possible stats of repeating crossbow:

    -50 food 40 wood 10 metal

    -40 range, 8.5 pierce damage, .75 repeat rate (unless this makes performance problems), and very low accuracy. This means that the have damage per second of 11.3 compared to 12.8 for skirmisher and 9.2 for slinger.

    This unit would fill in some gaps for Han infantry and allow other areas like champions or cavalry to be balanced without making the civ overall more vulnerable.

    @maroder that change would be assuming crossbow training is removed. Even if it is not removed, then 10 pierce/second would be greater than the slinger dps which is 9.2 pierce/second, so I would argue for a range reduction to 40 meters to accompany your change, or perhaps an accuracy disadvantage compared to slingers. The unfortunate result will be that the unit will play very similar to slingers (but with some key differences), despite seeming so unique. 

    @real_tabasco_sauce told me he would be willing to work on a repeat crossbow concept mod similar to the quote above as a potential long term solution, however his computer right now is busted. I think a repeat crossbow is the best way to achieve a uniquely played ranged infantry unit for the Han.

    Another thing to look at is the Han champions and heroes, but I have heard there were already changes in this area.

    There has been some concern about p1 swordcav for Han. I don't think it will be the end of the world because javelin cavalry, spear cavalry and home infantry will be ok at countering them. It is possible that a fast rush: (no stable, no barracks, cav from cc to chickens, attack before 2 minutes) will be quite OP for Han, so I might suggest that swordcav can only come from the stable and not cc. I have only seen a few swordcav rushes in the RC, and none have been chicken-based like we see sometimes in a25, so it is something I will look out for in future RC multiplayer tests.

     

     

     

     

  11. The main reason they are not problematic is because it is just too easy to kill britons food eco, unlike iberians where it is very hard to raid. Iberians have -15% cost hero, although briton chariots are better with a hero that gives +25% damage, and some speed, so less resources are needed for the same damage as a given number of firecav. This makes them more cost efficient, but more vulnerable to sniping especially considering that they are larger and stand out more from an army. This food eco protection could change in a26 as acceleration times will make it possible to stop raids with some planning. I still think there is 0 chance the unit will be underpowered after 36->32 pierce damage, it just might not be an end-all unit like it currently is.

  12. 2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    I think crossbows should stay in p2, but be balanced around slingers stats. I am happy with the halberdier replacing the spearman.

    The above improvements to infantry xbows (slinger damage per second, 50 hp, 50 food 50 wood cost) should accompany the removal of the crossbow training tech, or at least balancing it (not effecting champions -are they not already trained?-).

     

    In any case, the crossbow unit should not be "trash" with low stats and low cost. A civ with bad CS infantry and OP cavalry and chamions will be impossible to balance and I would call it a flawed design strategy for that civ. I think the crossbow training tech is a way to accomodate that design, so if that design is changed like I suggest, then the upgrade should be removed or changed to not influence damage per second. No matter what happens to crossbow training, it should not apply to champions.

    The main issue with Han is that they have no high damage short range unit like slinger or javelin, other civs have javelin cavalry which can be used to overcome those limitations, Han do not have that.

    I would suggest making the CS crossbow into a "repeating crossbow" type unit. I am no historian, but on wikipedia glance I saw no shortage of mentions of repeating crossbows in China at various time periods from 400-800 BC and onward. Majority of those weapons seem to be hand held

    Possible stats of repeating crossbow:

    -50 food 40 wood 10 metal

    -40 range, 8.5 pierce damage, .75 repeat rate (unless this makes performance problems), and very low accuracy. This means that the have damage per second of 11.3 compared to 12.8 for skirmisher and 9.2 for slinger.

    This unit would fill in some gaps for Han infantry and allow other areas like champions or cavalry to be balanced without making the civ overall more vulnerable.

    • Like 1
  13. These changes sound great! Ptol heros are a bit op so them coming from fort will make the fast ptol attack less OP.

    merc cav changes is good for shorter term balancing, later ideas can be tested by mods and stuff

    I think after we nerfed firecav both for damage and accuracy, it makes sense to nerf celt chariots just for damage.

     

    • Like 1
  14. To be honest, the people who keep on focusing on the smaller sources of emissions are not doing global warming a favor. We need to prioritize the biggest sources first. Of course ecosystem destabilization and industrial agriculture do in fact contribute substantially, and those sources will eventually need to be accounted for.

    To be fair, scientists and media that agree with scientists are not arguing that eating insects and eliminating cars are the most important steps. The main place where these ideas are hyped up is climate denying, anti-science, and russian-based online forums and blogs. The purpose of claiming that these are the main steps is to reduce the popularity of acting on climate change. 

    For example: it was claimed by those same unreliable platforms that the "green new deal" that democrats introduced some time ago would "ban hamburgers", even though it was not a package of laws, but a funding-based thing much like the old "new deal". The idea of banning hamburgers, as false as it was, turned out to be a great excuse to kill the bill as soon as it came up, because it resonates with voters.

     @Genava55

    thanks for the graph, it helps a lot.

    • Like 1
  15. 38 minutes ago, myou5e said:

    I agree with the first part about the meaning of recognizing Taiwan. I also agree that wind and solar have the potential to be sabotage resistant due to locally installing them. This capability would seem to be lost if you are exporting that power to another country! In this case it might do the job, provide power, at the cost of being expensive, easy to sabotage, and damaging to the Australian landscape, but it does the job!

    great points. I totally should have brought up the ecosystem costs those renewable systems have, as they are many. The main thing with renewables is to have a diverse source of energy sources and something reliable to back it all up. Nuclear energy seems like a good way to back up variable sources like wind and solar, and I have heard about small scale nuclear reactors that self-contain the waste and fuel and those sound promising in terms of safety and cost, but nuclear energy always has its concerns. Another option is large battery systems that store and smooth out supply variability of renewables, but these have their own problems like high losses and high cost.

    • Like 1
  16. 1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    "It’s not that China understands Latin America better than the U.S. Rather, China has a pragmatic approach that fits the profile of Latin American governments and leaders."

    us-china-latin-america-influence-03.thumb.jpg.5d32bb92e03229daf6c96828114f9394.jpg

    America has lost the entire continent.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5936037/us-china-latin-america-influence/?amp=true

     

    You don't understand what the map is showing. The US formally does not recognize Taiwan's indpendence only because of a deal made with China a long time ago. The map does not show whether countries are allies of the US, it only shows how much they value their relationship with Taiwan, and how much they can benefit from a relationship with China. Many countries currently want a good relationship with China because of the amazing economic power China has.

    Think of it this way: If a country recognizes Taiwan they might make the Taiwanese happy, but if they don't recognize Taiwan, it makes China happy, because it makes Taiwan look like its not independent of China. Many of these countries who previously supported Taiwan's independence are doing it so they may get better trade or foreing direct investment from China.

    Also, renewable energy such as wind power is not a scam, it is a very fast growing energy sector because it is cheap to install and allows for a distributed, sabotage resistant grid. There is a huge project going on in the Northern Territory in Australia for wind and solar that will be serving the Singaporean grid.

  17. 5 minutes ago, borg- said:

    With the patch he's able to fight cavalry and run away without taking damage, and that's what I mean in creating other problems

    It loses to any cavalry even plain javelin cavalry loses handily to spearmen despite costing 35 metal like skiritai spearcav can kill them very easily. So the main concern is its speed yes, I think @real_tabasco_sauce could tone it down a bit so that its easier to catch and trap them, but overall the unit is much more balanced than a p1 gimmick.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...