BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
Seleucids have the best melee eles in the game due to the elephant hero giving additional attack and speed to elephants in an aura. I enjoy Seleucid elephants because you don't need many of them to cause a lot of damage. You can think of the hero himself as 2 eles due to his 2x damage and much greater hp, and with his bonus you can make hero+2 eles and it will be as effective as 5-6 elephants.
-
1
-
-
I remember Athenians had them earlier. I think it would be a good addition for them. Persians seem to have everything already and are really strong right now, perhaps if "Kardakes" skirms are added it would be to the same hero building that Persian immortals come from.
-
Because the elephant hero trains archer champions it is better to have it in low risk situations if you want to keep him alive. If the elephant bonus was added to the ele hero it would be impractical to make use of both bonuses at the same time. The healer hero usually stays with a mass of units due to his healing bonus, so that works very well with a global ele bonus.
-
1 hour ago, sternstaub said:
it can mean that siege weapons deal more damage against pals, or that pals can stop siege weapons as mentioned above.
small fragments of palisade walls take time from rams because they are usually ordered to go through rather than finishing off the other bits of palisades. The community in the community mod also voted against giving rams a more reasonable acceleration value, so each turn that palisades force rams to make prevents them from damaging valuable buildings.
-
20 minutes ago, AIEND said:
That's not enough for them to replace the cavalry's mission
Do they need to?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, AIEND said:
This is what AoE2&AoE3 does. This type of infantry is called "shock infantry", but to be honest, in 0AD, a game that is more realistic and does not favor hard restraint, we cannot make infantry really replace cavalry. If it is true that humans can outrun horses with two legs, why did the native tribes of North America domesticate horses and become the best riders?
There is no need to outrun horses, but just to outrun other infantry.
-
2
-
-
Of course instead of cavalry we could have a couple types of "fast dudes" costing something more like 80 food 50 wood rather than 100 and 50, with adjusted stats of speed, hp, armor and perhaps interesting weapon choices.
-
2
-
-
I am thinking the prices will probably see changes based on how powerful each individual tech or what makes sense.
-
I would like the price high enough so that people don’t just mindlessly click all of them without considering which ones they want. On another hand we want the price to be low enough to justify the purchase. Perhaps adding 50 metal to the first series and 100 metal to the second series would put them in that range.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Umm, just one beef. Who asked for tankier swordcav? They already feel like Medieval Knights with Iron Plate Armor who time traveled into antiquity!
Keep in mind that the 2 basic stable upgrades that give +speed and +hp to all cavalry are gone. To be honest I think that swordcav and spearcav have mismatched armor values, with swordcav needing -1 pierce and spearcav needing +2 pierce armor. Its an issue that is aside from unit specific upgrades, kind of like the nerfs that are being discussed about melee champ cav.
-
Its not as fun to play the game at 1 fps as it is 30 because units dont respond as well, the game slows down and it becomes harder 'do things such as queue up the right unit, pan the screen, or keep your hero alive. Most of the performance issues are caused by the lack of threading and ranged unit queries. There has been a multi pronged effort to improve performance this upcoming alpha however, with engine upgrades, better drivers, and some other code optimization I don't know much about.
-
1
-
-
I think there are some big things we can do to promote 0ad, but there are some issues we need to tackle first. For one I am concerned ddos would become a bigger issue if the player count drastically increased. I think if we have a successful naval overhaul, performance improvements, and a really fun slate of balanced civs, that promoting the game could be very successful. In the past people have been very turned off by performance issues.
-
1 hour ago, alre said:
right now they are way better than not doing anything. the lobby is divided between different versions of the game and this hurts the project.
I find that its not too much of a problem when you have plenty of mod hosts and plenty of vanilla hosts. I occasionally join 0ad in my morning in Pacific time and find it to be devoid of community mod hosts. I think this is because the main promoters of the mod play in my afternoon time and haven't been there in the morning to hype it up.
I am thinking it would just be part of the popup message that plays just when you join 0ad lobby, so it would not be too annoying.
-
I think some kind of lobby message would really help expose more of the community to the mod, perhaps a short intro to the mod and a list of the top 1-5 most popular changes would make people interested enough to get it. It could be an automated message when players join the lobby.
-
1
-
-
I would say a player with better eco will usually wind up attacking more than defending. Palisades can be great for limiting ranged cavalry movement, but sadly sword cavalry can break through in a matter of seconds, hence my suggestion of adding a .3x for melee cavalry.
I think another issue with walls is how finicky they are to place. I would suggest making the obstruction box smaller for resources and buildings than it is for units, or perhaps allowing walls to remove some obstructions upon completion.
15 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:Kind of. The better the player the more optimized the eco, the less time to build
I think decreasing build time would make this much better, since you could decrease the number of gatherers needed to build a section, which reduces both walking idle time, worker minutes while building, as well as risk of failing to complete walls.
For stone walls I think changing the number of turret positions to 16 or 20 could make that feature worthwhile.
-
1
-
-
I think stone walls--> decrease build time a lot, decrease hp a bit
palisade walls--> decrease build time a lot, no hp change, melee cavalry .5x damage multiplier
-
1
-
-
I like the additional stone miners and I think it should be done for metal too. The issue is if you only have 1 metal mine your rate of metal gathering is capped, but with 2 mines you can have more than 24. Raising this level to 48, or even 36, would give players time to expand to other sources, which would make the single source mineral less disadvantageous.
-
-
4 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
For example, I think Rome could get some credit to their flexible military system by giving them a team bonus "manipules" giving infantry swordsmen +10% speed. Also, they probably could use a few more unique buildings.
Would this replace Rome's current team bonus or would they just get 2 now?
-
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Don’t really care, but I would rather lean into what we have now and further decrease costs/build time. Sele bonus does more for CCs and Maurya bonus does much more for temples
Thats a good point, expanding it to many more buildings could potentially put the bonus in a spot where it is either not noticeable, or noticeable and OP since it affects power buildings like rams/eles.
-
Should Persian team bonus be expanded to affect things such as: Athens' Gym, arsenals, elephant stables, maybe temples? or would this be too OP?
keep in mind comparing it to ptol, iberian, roman, or other powerful team bonuses.
-
Sahara biome:
Cretan date palm forest: 300 wood
Other mixed forest: 200/100 wood
Suggestion: change all forests to Cretan Date palm
Reason: it creates wood imbalance between players
-
1
-
-
In a25 with merc javelin cavalry being so OP, I was at times seriously considering building some parallel stone walls next to my woodline to fight the javcav. There is no way it would have worked lol.
-
I think one of the biggest downsides to garrisoning walls is how few positions for units there are. I know that 8 units looks good visually, but 20 would be much more useful for gameplay purposes. Perhaps 2 rows of 8 for a total of 16 would make the most sense.
-
1
-
Predetermined spawn locations on Mainland / Random maps
in Scenario Design/Map making
Posted
It would be nice to have choices for team player positions, although I do disagree that having the better of two players on the border is an inherent advantage.