Jump to content

BreakfastBurrito_007

Balancing Advisors
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1.456

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BreakfastBurrito_007

  1. BreakfastBurrito_007
    I wonder if this will be done by forgotten empires like the other definitive editions or if it will be done by relic who made aoe4. Different things can be said about the two groups lol.
  2. BreakfastBurrito_007
    no. I will say it is interesting that he will intentionally put himself in a situation where he depends on his allies' success so that he can then scapegoat them after his team loses.
  3. BreakfastBurrito_007
    Interesting, I encountered this player earlier and he was nice to me, but I only played one and probably did not catch on to his behavior tendencies. I would say Shyft_sierra and his smurf accounts rank as number 1 on toxicity scale. He makes JC look like an angel. It seems most people let Shyft sierra play despite his level of toxicity, but I would support hosts that ban him from their games.
  4. BreakfastBurrito_007
    @seeh I think maybe the best middle ground would be to have them disappear rather than walk out of the map. If people don't like to "kill" their units when they delete them, disappearing would be the best solution in my opinion.
  5. BreakfastBurrito_007
    was this an issue in a25? I think the main issue with ram acceleration is when they go through or around corners, and it is usually impossible to get the ram to avoid big turns.
  6. BreakfastBurrito_007
    The voting turnout so far has been nice to see! I am pretty excited to try out these new changes when they come out.
  7. BreakfastBurrito_007
    Wow I have never noticed people doing this before. Maybe I should try it. Is it op enough for han to need a nerf? to be honest I think the main thing to nerf from han would be crossbow. Changing cost from 50 f 50 w to 50 f 40 w 10 m would make it more expensive to mass them, and they would be similar to swordsmen in power/cost setup.
  8. BreakfastBurrito_007
    That would mean that 1 woman per farm has a higher gather rate per woman than 5 women per farm, right? I have heard of this before, but I had assumed it was not in the game.
  9. BreakfastBurrito_007
    Ok, but is han OP for this? I am just confused what is the problem or needed change?
  10. BreakfastBurrito_007
    What is the source of this bonus? On paper there should be nothing to give Han a farming bonus
  11. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  12. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  13. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  14. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  15. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  16. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  17. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  18. BreakfastBurrito_007
    250 metal I would suggest for the cc, rather than 100.
  19. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  20. BreakfastBurrito_007
    @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.
  21. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  22. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  23. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
  24. BreakfastBurrito_007
    markets maybe at 1/2 rate. @wowgetoffyourcellphone what are the gather rates and costs of the slaves in DE? what about hp and armor?
  25. BreakfastBurrito_007
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...