BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
5 hours ago, alre said:
I'm in for doing some testing. I especially like the territory mod inclusion.
by the way, I must warn those here who don't frequent the lobby, that the comnunity mod has actually split the community. as a rule of thumb, those above 1400 use the mod, those below don't.
It is worth considering that it is easy to download and that the community was already somewhat split by those skill levels anyway. It would be nice to add some kind of news rundown in the lobby that advertises some recent changes in the mod, @guerringuerrin was manually doing this by hosting a game with such a title, but I think one made automatically in the lobby chat would be great.
-
2
-
-
I would be ok with arson if it did not affect gameplay and was just an animation for units to make it look more realistic.
-melee units (aside from clubmen and axemen) would just lay burning sticks against the building. While holding weapon in other hand and shield on back.-ranged units (aside from slingers) would just do normal attack but with some small amount of glow or embers on their projectiles.
The main obstacle isn’t really fire effects but all the multiplayer players who would dislike it and prefer development be focused on gameplay improvement, lag reduction and those sorts of things.
-
1
-
-
Loot would be a decent bonus by itself if it was addition based rather than multiplying to already quite low loot values. Maybe +10 food for each woman kill and + 5 food, 5 wood for men kills. There is also no problematic interactions with other bonuses or civ specifics as far as I am aware.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, borg- said:
- Guerrila: The preponderance of throwing spears, and the near total absence of body armour, indicate that the style of warfare was highly mobile and loosely formed, based around raiding and short. Javelins +10% movement speed.
- New healer aura: Deas Celtica: Soldiers +10% attack damage.
- Javelin infantry moved to village phase. Increases the number of units available to early rush, also historical accuracy of the predominance of javelins.
- Fortress can be built in neutral territory. There were small villages with centralized fortresses. With the root territory of the fortress, it is possible to build small bases, great for small attacks with chariots and other units.
Some new technology Sevili Dusios / bodypainting tech.
These sound great for civ specific bonuses, but I am wondering what kind of team bonus they should get. Did you intend this to be the Team bonus for britons? I would like to see something that has dual military and economic purpose, but I haven't thought of any good ones myself.
-
I would like to mention that swordcavalry do purely hack damage, and javelin cavalry start in p1 with 3 hack armor. I think the best way to counter them in p1 is with a few extra spearmen on the woodline and a few javelin cavalry to do damage and lead the swordcavalry to the spearmen; also it is notable that most civs have this setup. I saw @Boudica do this very effectively early in the alpha, but I have not tried this myself, nor have I come across the swordcav rush.
The best course of action would be to add a pierce armor to spearcav and subtract one from swordcav. Also we can look to Unit Specific Upgrades from @real_tabasco_sauce as a method of diversification of units and finer balancing.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, hamdich said:
spear-cav which obviously weak against jav-cav
This is not intended lol. I have kept arguing for a jav cav damage nerf from 18 to 16, but almost everyone seems to be ok with this unit being considerably OP. Jav cav are not only too powerful in this regard, but too powerful in almost every application. Most cavalry compositions eventually lead to pure skirmcav because it is plainly the best unit for general fighting, with 2 more pierce attack, 2.2x the hp, and +2 hack armor over skirmisher infantry, all for the small price of 50 food.
Acceleration was implemented to make cavalry easier to chase, specifically to allow spearmen more chances to get hits off on cavalry. Rather than eliminating acceleration, I think it makes sense to speed up acceleration for: melee inf, melee cav, and of course rams like in the community mod.
Also I do think more heros should come from unique building rather than the fortress, with only a few civs getting heros from cc. Ptol heros should remain from the fortress since ptols are likely to attack a minute or two before other civs, they should at least need to do that without a hero, or else wait for it.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Feldfeld said:
Given how hard it was in the past to make players go out of their way to install gameplay/balance mod
I think many people who make new features, discuss gameplay, and advocate for certain features are all very excited about this mod due to the potential to make progress on ideas that have been discussed for a long time but never tested to any degree because players would never do anything on svn, release candidates, or concept mods. Also there is the potential for feature optimization, where a feature can be tweaked to be more fun based on more prompt feedback from the community.
Despite the excitement I think its important to start of with bugfixes and tweaks and gradually expand the scope toward balance changes, new civ differentiation work, and maybe even new mechanics.
-
20 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
CC provides 20 population, like two houses and can produce CS soldiers like a barracks. Also it is a dropsite for resources. So it has a lot of functions. Furthermore it grants territory and garrison space. It also allows you to grab a strategic position. I think the proposed cost is to low.
250 metal I would suggest for the cc, rather than 100.
-
47 minutes ago, BeTe said:
Is expansion actually required if we have plenty of resources around CC? You still can use Barracks to reach that 25%, right?
Maybe also reducing resources ( metal? )would help?
Usually extra metal, stone, or a better woodline can be reached with a barracks or two, but this change would reduce the amount of territory increase that happens when p3 is clicked. I think it also reduces the territory value of colonies too so it is harder to secure a multi-resource location with one colony. I think this will make ccs and map control more important in the game, potentially increasing the value of p2 for map control.
With this change we should probably check to make sure minimum placement distance is not a problem.
-
1
-
-
@chrstgtr what is your opinion on the gameplay potential of the [male economic unit]? Could it be designed to offer a divergence between booming and turtling? Would that be good for gameplay?
I am leaning toward that it could be great for gameplay, but needs to be carefully considered.
-
14 hours ago, BeTe said:
I can't even estimate how big army is..
It is usually safe to assume his army is slightly bigger, at least I do whenever I have a battle. Remember your opponent knows much about his own army, so if you can try to read his behavior you can have an idea whether or not you can beat him. Unless it is visually apparent, the army size difference will be less important than micro and upgrades and unit composition.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Agreed. Calling them "freemen" or "peasants" or some other euphemism would be silly. Even "serf" would be a euphemism for most of the civs besides Spartans.
And this brings up one of the major annoyances of developing this game. You can have 9 people agree to something, but then one guy comes in with some left field opinion and stifles progress. A good example is the discussion about using the swastika symbol on Mauryan and Samnite shields.
Well, there are options holy moly. I guess there will need to be a big debate about what to call the unit and how to model it.
My interests lie purely in the gameplay quality that we could provide with the unit.
If different civs have different types of slaves or lower social status men or whatever it is/was, then we can call it that and model it that way, and the basic stats and cost and gameplay functionality can remain the same between the civs.
-
5 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:
Please don't call it "slave" or "serf". Better would be "skilled worker", "peasant", or "freeman". Peasants were not slaves, they got most of the harvest and had more days off than the average American worker. "Freemen were, as the name suggests, the peasants with the most freedom. They had less obligation to the lord, but they were still subject to manorial jurisdiction and custom."
Certain groups would like to see slavery restored in various areas, and games can have a formative experience for people, especially children. Do we want the next generation to think that slavery was so ubiquitous in ancient times that there must have been some good in it? It is not even historically accurate to say that slavery was ubiquitous in every culture around 0 A.D.
Check out this cool documentary, "Modern TV - How did English medieval peasants see themselves?" about slaves vs serfs vs peasants.
That's a good point. Calling the unit one of those options you discussed also gives us more freedom to design the unit to suit gameplay, which was my main motivation to investigate its potential.
I think the stats and attributes we gave it are still valid, even with carth training them from markets, since its not unreasonable to think you could hire them from the market. The cost we were thinking about was 60 food 20 metal, that is still reasonable I think.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I think from cc in p2 would be best to be honest. Perhaps Carthage could train from markets too.
markets maybe at 1/2 rate.
@wowgetoffyourcellphone what are the gather rates and costs of the slaves in DE? what about hp and armor?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BeTe said:
I am thinking about being able to capture or kill something in early game (P1) with infantry - now only cavalry can eventually work. All other strategies are risky and will put you behind in eco if you fail which is high likely with an equal opponent.
The main issue with sending infantry is that you use and lose your economic units. I have been thinking that adding a slave or serf type of economic unit would allow for citizen soldiers to be more efficiently used as military units. The idea is that it has better gather rate than CS infantry, which would relegate CS infantry's economic value as mainly supplementary while there is a break in fighting. I am not yet sure if this would be a better game after the unit is added (it absolutely depends on the units stats), and there is yet to be any mod that implements such a feature into otherwise vanilla 0ad.
It is worth noting that infantry can be used very successfully in p1 too, usually if there is a border fight.
-
2
-
-
@real_tabasco_sauce I think sele team bonus should be better than that. Here are some I have come up with.
-Maybe add to women farm rate? More of a plain option.
-30%cost, and research time on farmstead techs as well as fields
+20 food capacity to cav and buff gather rate of men to be .45 base rate. (Women are .5)Maybe add a 50 wood upgrade to farms (similar to sentry->stone tower) that gives +3 pop and adds a shed to a corner of the farm, 2 woman can garrison.
Add some creativity:D
-
12 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
I find healers quite strong at rank 3. It’s not that they keep units alive—a unit under fire dies. It’s that that can reheal a unit after a fight so it doesn’t die right away in the next fight. That has a snowball effect. It also allows you to rank up your fighting units, which also has a snowball effect.
A couple rank3 healers can heal an entire army quite quickly. Denying that strength is basically saying that a half promoted army isn’t OP, but we all know it is
also if there was a way to task healers on melee units then you are basically healing at a faster rate.
-
1 minute ago, vinme said:
based on the screenshots, both heroes will be totally useless so i dont see why you guys are working on that, except first one on naval ofc, but no1 plays naval rn. 15% tech cost and -50% resarch time is such a tiny advnatage, i doubt it even justifies building+hero cost.
Considering you must first go p3, make building, get hero, this takes so much time(by then you have p3 eco techs unlocked, if you are going for boom option, otherwise why p3 and idle that 1.5min or however long the building takes to build+hero takes to unlock) and all this cost, for nothing, compared to getting +3 armor hero.
by the time hero comes out there are no techs to get, even last p3 military techs, will be gotten or if you wait it out, youve just fallen behind, so the 50% less resarch time is irrelevant, if you waste 3X that long.
15% cheaper if you hope to use on castle, that is -675 res, again why waste hero for this, all that time unlocking and the cost of hero+building for nothing.
denying enemy the loot is also an irrelevant stat, considering, you have this useless hero, and enemy has a good hero.
loot only really matters if dead even exchange, but if enemy has better hero, hell get a far superior exchange.
The 50% capture improvement, again is a "utility" type of advantage not power/eco direct advantage, it will rarely matter, compared to 20% dmg hero for example.
I like comparing to standard 20% dmg boost of army hero, any hero bonuses, to think if they are op/weak.
this one is maybe like 3% dmg hero, id take a 4% dmg hero over this one, every single time.
XP also doesnt matter rn, in direct battle units die way b4 they can get xp(mele units), and ranged get small advantage over long period of battling/killing that gets negated by their inability to work as efficiently.
In raiding, it matters, a small bit, as over time you can retreat, heal, repeat and get maybe 10% of army on rank 2, again tiny small advantage, totally insiginifcant. If you can get so many kills, while your units dont die, that they get promoted and get a relevant power boost, youve won the game with 10/1 kd anyway so it doenst matter.
I wish XP requirements would get reduced by like 5X, would make the game somewhat more interesting.
I have not seen very many battles where both players are sniping ranged units. In such a case I would predict that melee units rank and dmg would be more important. I agree that the two new Athens heroes bonuses are not very powerful and could use a buff. perhaps the xp bonus could also boost friendly units xp while denying enemy xp. XP does boost ranged units more than you think, an HP boost puts them from a 2 shot kill to a 3 shot kill from crossbows which almost doubles the time to kill. -15% tech cost could maybe be increased to 20%, it won't help that much for the blacksmith or eco upgrades since a lot of those would come before the hero, but it would help more for expensive things like will to fight if a player decides to get it. (I predict if the research buff was good enough, a player would make the hero, get upgrades, delete him and then get iphricates in time for the main fight).
To be honest, Iphricates is a very powerful hero, so I don't think the new Athens heroes should be equally powerful as him.
-
I think the community mod has been great so far, so I think we should take it slow from here and gradually expand the scope of the mod to see what works well, being careful with gameplay changes. I think after these few ones go in we should look at adding a few other team bonuses besides rome, iber, ptol, gaul, kush, and mace. It could potentially be very fun to add these to civs that currently have a negligible team bonus.
-
7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Not needed--no one makes these heroes
what is this logic lmao.
@Darkcity, @real_tabasco_sauce's solution to the naval hero was to add a bonus that works on land too, so that the hero can be used in either situation so that map generation won't make the hero totally useless.
-
1
-
-
The first gameplay changes were just fixing the han fields. I would guess we would gradually introduce more comprehensive changes to see what can be accomplished with the mod. For example, @LetswaveaBook's idea about house women training is not a drastic overhaul so I think it would be an easy next step for the mod.
Adding gameplay features quickly can still leave time for people to comment on them so long as they dont interfere with each other. For example, the sparta overhaul followed by a cavalry rework can be tested and evaluated independently in the same mod. But we should certainly leave time for players to evaluate and play new features before we add ones that are dependent on those earlier additions.
I don't think we should be afraid to add gameplay elements that we are not 100% sure are improvements, because getting player feedback is essential to improving the game, and the mod can be changed and updated semi-continuously.
We should look into ways to ensure only the most recent version of the mod is playable, because players could have the tendency to settle on the older version and not care to try anything new, which is what the mod is all about (as I understand it).
-
2
-
-
@LetswaveaBook I think since the first series of upgrades are so cheap, people get them on the way to p3 anyway. So a player who gets them for a p2 fight will only have a small window to use that advantage. I think adding 2-tier blacksmith upgrades in p2 will allow the player who postpones p3 to get a bigger military advantage in p2 that wont be overshadowed by the enemy clicking p3 faster along with 1-tier upgrades.
If players dislike the change by and large, we can just pull it in the next update of the mod. At least we will finally have a little feedback.
-
1
-
-
On 06/10/2022 at 10:34 AM, LetswaveaBook said:
For example: I made a mod where women from bigger houses are created in 25 seconds instead of 30 and I allowed Carthage to recruit women from apartments even faster and without fertility festival (though I think more factions could maybe use an apartment building). I also added some mathematical justification for the 25 seconds, showing that reducing the time to 20 seconds for big houses would shift the favor to much towards the big houses.
I think this would be great to add to community mod.
Other quick things that could be tried would be giving team bonuses to carth, han, pers, athenians, and britons who don't have one worth considering. I think some simple, but multipurpose bonuses would be nice.
I think if some creative and powerful ones are added, people will soon stop complaining about the ptol, iber, roman, and gaul bonuses. I definitely think athenians could offer a cost and time reduction to phase up research (or maybe all cc-based upgrades), this could be justified by democracy. This would be flexible because you could rush into p2, rush into p3, or delay metal/stone mining to try to have a faster pop increase for example.
Also a side note: its amazing how many players are using the mod and getting it in MP, it seems to have had a very smooth entry into MP lobby.
-
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:
It would be amazing to see a multiplayer aspect added to the game. At least one where you can directly control military units. The villager control via buildings is a very nice system and the amount of realism is impressive, but not detrimental to gameplay.
Also, if you remember the camera zoom fiasco in aoe4, this game obviously puts it to shame.
Alpha26 feedback and suggested changes
in Help & Feedback
Posted
What is the source of this bonus? On paper there should be nothing to give Han a farming bonus