BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
Maybe this movie was cool, but I have seen way too many ads for it to really want to watch it.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
When trample is implemented
sheesh, talk about differentiating units!
Is this in the pipeline? how would it work?
-
1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:
aren't supposed to use strong (rank 2/3) cavalry
why would that be? Perhaps each civ could have 1-2 units that dont get more powerful than rank 2
1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:Can you give an example (that does not include fire cav or roman cav) for such a situation? You might be referring to factions that lack a infantry spearman/pikeman champion against cavalry, but all these faction could fight opposing champion cavalry with their own champion cavalry. If I said Gauls are disadvantaged against Gauls, because the Gauls have no infantry spearman champion option to counter the opposing cavalry champions, that would be non-sense.
A player who does not have cavalry can't just make their own champions even if they have access and resources. There is a great advantage to being the first to make champions (especially if they are firecav or roman cav but it applies to most other champions too), and that is that your enemy must sacrifice much more of their economy to take on your champions than you must leave behind in your base to create resources for the champions. If champions were harder to train (restricted buildings, bullet 2) then transitions to champions would take more time and players would be able to react faster; it would take more time for champions to form a game-winning mass. In TGs I have noticed that players who form large amounts of champions have the fewest workers on farms, wood, metal etc, and the most resources stacked up in the bank (steady state); the point of adding rank 2/3 training options is to make the decision to make champions less obvious, less safe as it is now, it is not to make champions obsolete, it is to make them more skillful units.
To be honest, I think champions should start to lose economic effectiveness after they form more than 40% of an army. I think rank 2/3 CS would be a much more balance-able higher-power army to scale up than champions; champions should not beget more economy, they should beget more military power.
1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:If rank 2 soldiers give more power for 1000 resources, you will never see rank 1 soldiers once the economies are fully established
rank 2, 3 soldiers have reduced gather rates, so you would definitely still need rank 1 for emergency retraining or retraining for economy (I am not sure if it is a significant difference, but it could be made that way). Rank 2, 3 would be useful versus champions despite having the same power/cost as rank 1 because rank 1 units will never rank up against champions, while rank 2,3 will live long enough to do a noticeable amount of damage to champions. Ideally, rank 1 would be the most economical, rank 2,3 more powerful but less economical, and champions even more so.
-
On 08/10/2021 at 3:09 PM, alre said:
"Whoever is playing sucks, because they never make it past the Stone Age."
LOL.
The hacker was "just kidding around"
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
Seriously, again? Wasn't this the primary thing that made about half the player base quit last time?
All that aside, doing massive changes like this break the progress made in balancing units
I think if more players had seen/tested the a24 turn rates before release people would have realized how detrimental they were. I think acceleration should only be non-negligible for cavalry. For infantry it can be there, but it should not feel different.
I wish I knew how to test the attack-ground code because I am very excited about it and its balancing implications, these are both things I want to try out this weekend. I agree that there has been great progress in balancing units, the main exception being the meatshield superiority that we see in a25 and a few freak units. This is precisely what I think attack-ground can solve.
-
1
-
-
I do not know the full situation of course, but I can say that there are two likely possibilities for why the host closed early
- The game may have been lost after everyone but you was destroyed, so the host closed before it was your turn to get destroyed.In this case, I would recommend that you fight alongside your teammates. It may seem that your allies are quitting early because your base has not been attacked yet, so I would advise to seek out involvement in the course of the game rather than waiting for the battle to come to you.
- the host was rage-quitting, which means they don't see the value in letting the game play out after they have lost their part of it (selfishness).
-
18 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
soft battalions (already committed for A26) are such a huge step, more people need to talk about them
hmm, this and the unit acceleration seem to be two large gameplay features very much worth testing to make sure they are great for A26. @real_tabasco_sauce and I can try the SVN maybe this weekend.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, soloooy0 said:
for iber fire cav, it would not be easier, put a little more attack time or a little less precision, which are designed for buildings and support, they were not a unit for direct combat
(since they keep falling like flies vs any other champion cav)@soloooy0 if you use them again, try retreating the firecav until some melee are in front of them, then the enemy champ cav will fight the melee and be killed very quickly by the firecav.
-
@bad playerWhat is interesting to me about AOE4 is that it does not have any ranged units, they just have melee units that can follow a ranged animation to attack a target with 100% accuracy (basically spears with very long poles and a time delay).
I don't think people realize what a downgrade this is from having at least some type of trajectory or accuracy system in the game.
As for wether or not your should buy it, I would say the safest thing to to is wait 3-4 months and see if the game has a good, strong playerbase.
-
1
-
-
@alreI noticed this change as well but I have not tested it out. Thank you for bringing up the topic and starting the conversation.
I had envisioned the change to help differentiate cavalry from infantry, as well as improve balance between the two.
Compare swordsmen and cavalry swordsmen, and we realize that cav swords are just fast, strong, swordsmen. Adding differences in movement behavior is the main way to distinguish cavalry from infantry, and I feel if the unit acceleration values are done right then at the end of the day we would have cavalry that have quite noticeable acceleration while infantry are harder to notice.
I predict the following results if unit acceleration is less noticeable for infantry and quite pronounced for cavalry:
- cavalry rushes in the early game will be harder
- palisades will be more effective against cavalry even if they have the same time to kill when attacked by cavalry (cavalry will have to stop)
- cavalry taking a bad fight will be more punished (I hope this would extend to cavalry champions)
- cavalry micromanagement in battle will be less easy
A key remaining question to do with acceleration values is how to assign them to the different weapon classes, such as spear, pike, archer, sling? or should these values be strictly determined by whether or not the unit is riding a horse?
@alre did you find the acceleration rates too slow when you tried them?
-
1
-
@LetswaveaBook that’s a great question to ask. I think it is reasonable to have the extra cost of rank 2/rank3 units equal to the extra value that it creates. In this way the power/cost of the units stays constant from rank 1 to rank 3.
This way 1000 resources of rank 1 will equal 1000 resources of rank 2.
-
I think a good example of this is how all battles between ranged and melee units will always go the same way: melee die first, ranged die after melee. If we add player control to the areas shot by ranged units (like attack-ground, attack-area), it adds a new way to avoid ranged unit shots and a new way to deal damage to particular sides/back of an enemy formation rather than just the front.
If you think about how one-dimensional the battles are in 0ad, then you would probably realize what a welcome change this would be. And even that would be ignoring all the positive balancing outcomes that would result.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Maybe it helps if I rephrase the question. Suppose we want to make 50 spear cavalry. A player could chose between having 30 rank 1 CS spear cav and 20 champs or the player could chose for 50 rank 3 CS. What is the big difference between the two assuming things are properly balanced? I don't really see the effective difference between the two options myself.
This is a good point, it probably would not be such an important unit for this particular civ that can also train spearcav champs. However, there are a few civs/unit setups that would benefit from the increased flexibility with CS. I am thinking of all the situations where a civ does not have a good champion counter and is now totally defenseless against an army of a particular champion, so they would want to make a rank 3 CS counter unit for the most economical trade. Another way they would help when the player wants more powerful unit with the extra resources they have but the champion options available to them do not fit their army. It is also not just about whether or not they can beat champions, its about beating a player who is trying to boom to mass champions (all their CS will be rank 1 for max eco), so there would be ranges of attack strength rather than a 14-15 minute attack with CS and rams and/or a 16-17 minute attack with some champions. This way, around minute 12-16 there would be considerable risk to having all of your units be rank 1, since someone who planned for having a powerful, partially ranked CS army could attack you (and disrupt your economic process to reach champions).
-
32 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Instead of training all your spear cavalry at rank 3, you could also train some spear cavalry at rank 1 and mix it with spear cav champions. What does the rank 3 "in between" option solve? If you want to have a better army, you can also currently mix in some champions
The rank 2,3 option creates the possibility CS can beat champions in some instances, not 1 to 1 and not between units of the same class. Champions are good but they are flawed in that there is not much diversity of champions accessible to each civ. Being the first to champions gives too big a reward and often means that other players won’t have enough economy left to make their own even if they have access to a champion that can fight the enemies. Truly rank2/3 units’ purpose is to provide a non-economic unit that players can afford when their economy is not quite good enough for champions. Because of this, it bridges the power gap between someone who has champs and someone who does not.
Do you think the feature has any merit beyond the topic of countering champion-masses, like in the booming=military discussion?
At least the champ race is not as bad as A21. +thanks for explaining the iber cav fire statistics, I totally did not know the fire damage ignored armor. I can also anticipate the problem being greatly reduced with the removal of fire damage to units from fire cav, and reducing armor from firecav and consular. In the meantime it is worth noting that there are in-game options to stop players from transitioning to champions. Seles are my favorite for this.
-
@Philip the Swaggerless It is already very easy to disrupt food economy. It is common in TGs to see the barter rates show food as the most sought resource for bartering (rather than metal in a24).
I agree with your idea about having bigger mines further away from cc, but I think that rather than buffing palisades, it would be better to give cavalry (the primary disruptor of food eco) a .3x counter versus palisades. This is good because it does not make palisades hard to take down given the army size advantage that comes with a large attack (larger than defending force).
Another solution could be making CS men almost as good as women in farming (not sure of their current rate) so that it is not too inefficient to farm with CS men.
-
1
-
-
@LetswaveaBook it should be harder to afford a lot of something expensive rather than easier. Getting champions should generally allow you to win a battle where the enemy does not have champions, but getting a critical amount of champions should not make you undefeatable by CS. Most champions can be defeated by CS, like spartan hoplites, champion archers, and most melee inf champions. Changes to unit acceleration slated for a26 should make bad decisions by a cavalry player more punishable, but I think it will still be very easy to keep them alive. Perhaps only reducing armor of the most OP champions (consular bodyguard and iber firecav) is the most reasonable option for bullet 1, like you said.
on the "mass champs=cheap" note, take iber as an example. If you are making cavalry you might use a combination of spear and javelin combined with the firecav you could afford initially. As you win engagements, you will still take losses from spearcav and CS javcav dying, but you can retrain with firecav until you have 30-40 total, and at this point it is very hard to lose more firecav than you can afford to retrain.
The reason for bullet 2 in my starting post was to allow all players to more easily train at least some quantity of their champion, meaning a cav player with champions could still run into champion spear inf of some type. Also, it would mean that unique champion buildings are actually important/good rather than a hindrance to champion training, because they are cheaper than a fort and do not have a unlock cost (which would be a lot more than 600 food) like the barracks/stable.
As for the rank 2 rank 3 cs bullet, the point is not to have people waiting in their barracks/stable, I agree that that is a bit cheesy and boring. I give a scenario that I hope demonstrates the possible tradeoffs for rank 1,2,3 cs training. A player plans to go for champions, so they make all CS rank 1 so they can have a fast economy and produce the game-ending mass of champs, another player starts making rank 2 and 3 units in anticipation of launching a fast attack as the other player is trying to unlock/train champions (the attacking player has an advantage of being prepared and training ranked units for use in battle sooner rather than having them gather res for a long time before fighting). Having rank 2/3 units more readily available bridges the power divide between champions and CS: it is a way to break the steady-state where a player can afford only to retrain more and more rank 1 units that are instantly defeated by the critical mass of champions and will never reach rank 2 or 3. As an example for how it could help reduce the ease of champ massing, imagine mace player making rank 3 spearcav (at a large cost, but much less than champion) to try to beat iber firecav.
As a side note for the third bullet, I think this would be a great way to break from the big eco=big military confinement that is caused by CS being economic. Players would have the option to procure rank 2 or 3 units which are not so useful to economy (slower gather rates) and cost more, meaning they are most valuable if they are used right after being acquired.
-
@LetswaveaBook do you think champions overall are balanced right now? or do you just disagree with the ideas I had to try to improve the gameplay?
I think all the infantry champions are pretty reasonable, but iber firecav and consular bodyguard for sure need a nerf and imo it should come from an amor reduction.
You seem to disagree that the barracks/stable xp generation as it is implemented now is a feature fulfilling the "can get rank 2/3 CS units" idea; do you support an improvement of this feature or do you think it should be eliminated or left a mostly useless feature?
I do like your idea about giving an xp boost aura to all heroes though.
7 hours ago, alre said:About the fact that champions are easier to use than CS: that's not true
well, once you have 40 of them, your kill to death ratio will increase more and more, and you will be re-training fewer and fewer of them. Ideally it gets more expensive to maintain more champions rather than less expensive as it is now. What makes them easier to use is how easily they can survive a misplay and that comes from very high armor levels.
12 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:Why? Aoric used it to great success. With pikemen...
For most players/stituations it takes too much time to be worth it, the main exception being the spartan or athenian hoplites.
-
In a25, champions have been considered by some to be op in general. Particular champions are more problematic than others, and it seems very easy (and cheap) to maintain a champion mass once it has been established. Champions are fun to use and they should be very powerful units, but they should not be easier to use than CS. Please consider the following ideas, counter them, or bring up your own; I am interested to hear.
- Broad armor reduction (this way it will be harder and more expensive to keep a mass of champions, which will also help prevent the champion armies from growing as easily as they do now). Special attention would be paid to some of the worse offending categories like cavalry overall, and iber firecav and consular bodyguard.
- return champion training to fortress/unique building with no unlock technology. Also, give some kind of nerf to training champion from barracks/stable (or batch buff to training in fort). The purpose of this is to make it easier to train some champions and harder to make a lot.
- Allow some mechanic to make CS at rank 1, 2, or 3 without fighting. The purpose of this is to allow a player to make some kind of economy vs military decision for the CS, and to help bridge the power gap between champions and CS. My favorite idea (not sure who thought of it) to implement this was to add the rank 2 option in barracks/stable in p2 and give it extra cost in the form of food wood and metal, subsequently rank three in phase 3.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
4 hours ago, Stan` said:
One could test https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1971 pretty easily by making a mod, no compilation needed.
I suppose I could try to figure it out sometime. How can I do that? (for dummies aka me). If it eventually works I could team up with @real_tabasco_sauce or someone to check out how well the feature plays in more realistic battles. I am particularly interested in how balance between pikes, skirms, and archers will be affected by the feature.
-
17 minutes ago, alre said:
Attack ground would still be better than nothing only if the targets are very concentrated in the target location, which is very possible, but the requirement in term of micromanagament make it probably unworthy
Do you know this for sure or are you speculating? The only piece of content about it that I saw was a video where the demonstrator used 20 archers and a single horse (before turn rate increased), he danced the horse back and forth, but it does not give me any clues as to how it would perform in normal sized battles.
My favorite idea for the concept was from @Jofursloft, he brought up the idea to have attack-ground just establish an area to attack, drawn by a corner-rectangle, and have the ranged units prioritize them. I am not sure how hard/laggy it would be to make each ranged unit target a random unit in the area, but I think using the current preference system (closest=best target) would be ok to prioritize the units inside the area.
-
1 hour ago, alre said:
I think literal attcak ground wpuld be always inferior to normal attack
not when you now have the option to shoot enemy skirms instead of pikes, because they would be further back in the enemy group, and 1/4 damage output vs skirms will get you more value as 100% damage against pikes. I suppose there would be times where either mode of attack would be good. I do see what you mean about attack-ground doing less damage overall and I remain open minded to other options like the ones you mentioned, but I would still like to try out the feature that currently exists.
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone I think this would be fine, but not if you could select a particular kind of unit that you want to attack out of the bunch.
The existing diff demonstration only shows it vs a single horse, I wonder how it might behave in a more realistic 0ad battle. I feel like a mod could be helpful to evaluate whether or not the feature would be a good addition to 0ad and we could also investigate whether it results in the unit balance improvements that are anticipated.
-
@Gurken Khan perhaps trees could be given double their current value and spread with 1/2 density.
-
1
-
-
mod: Grapejuice
in Game Modification
Posted
@Grapjas, the mod looks awesome.
I have long been against ammo system but the way you have implemented it seems quite reasonable.
I like the ram/unit interactions as well as charging mechanic. I wonder if some units could be given more charge damage than others as a way to differentiate them. I can also try to test it this weekend.