Jump to content

BreakfastBurrito_007

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    1.392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by BreakfastBurrito_007

  1. metal is different from other resources. 50 metal is not worth 50 wood in a game of 0ad. The mining rates are slower than wood and food. And most importantly, metal is a limited resource, which is ok, but it means the things you buy with it must be consequential. This is why I don't like mercs costing metal (a side note). so 25 spear cav are cheaper than 5 cataphracts
  2. Oh yea that effect probably did depend on what "order" they were on, they probably would not move then. The reason the ranged units move I think is to try to get within range boundaries again. It is quite rough and would need to be more developed if it were to be implemented.
  3. I am not sure how I feel about buffing champions more. Seleucid spearcav are very good units and I don't think they die too fast, they are strong and do high damage, their main weakness is players correctly choosing to kill them first with their ranged units. If you have 15 sele cataphracts, and you attack 50 archers with them, the champions will all die. If you have 10 persian cataphracts (same unit) and 25 spearcav, you will have much more success at a lower cost. Buffing each champion does not help this problem. For nearer to future alphas I would advocate for adding a suitable minimum range for slingers and archers. Some skilled mod folk demonstrated the effects of this earlier in the year, and I thought it produced a nice melee versus ranged unit "rout" effect.
  4. Seles are basically not a cav civ what on earth. Iber cavalry is way better than seles. If it is true that antiochus does not effect ranged cav then there is no excuse not to give seles a spearcav unit for a25.
  5. It better, because seles hardly have cavalry besides ranged cavalry. All other cav civs besides seles can pair a more expensive melee cavalry (champions, or mercenaries if they were ever worth getting) with CS melee cavalry to extend their lives and make the metal investment worth it. With a melee cavalry sele army, you would be relegated to never using champions or mercenaries in open combat since they are too expensive to lose. People recognize how much metal champions and mercenaries cost and will simply focus them down. Even if they lose 100 units to 40 units, economically it is a win for the non-cav player. Melee champions are most useful when they are embedded with large numbers of citizen soldiers so that an enemy has a harder time killing your most expensive units first, seles do not have this option and I really think they should if their mercenary or champion melee cavalry are ever to be used for anything other than killing traders or killing women (a task CS cavalry can do just fine).
  6. I think civ differentiation, balancing, and mercenary rework (depending on how good they are in a25) should be a focus during life-cycle of a25. In the long term I think it would be cool to add new mechanics that deepen gameplay and could contribute to historical accuracy/physics realism. These things are undestandably quite challenging and I am ignorant of how hard they will be to code. Also some of these are divisive and will need long discussions to get right. Cavalry acceleration and momentum system more realistic system for ranged units, volleys, walls blocking projectiles in different circumstances unit differentiation: examples seleucid champ spear cav different from persians spear cav champ, advantages/disadvantages to both. extended debate on blacksmith upgrades.
  7. Personally I have never seen a player use autotrain to any winnable effect. I feel that if it were to be the ideal unit production method that it would be very bad and boring. It can be like AoE2 Auto-scout. Lazy players or players who are going afk for beer or coffee or both can use auto-train and accept the losses in exchange for comfort and concentration elsewhere. Sometimes it may be a good way to top-off the population during a battle, but it should not be comparable in results to a player putting focus and effort into eco. I would be in favor of making it slightly inefficient. The one I saw seems quite inefficient, but I have not seen many players use this. I think it is important to note that @chrstgtr's point about APM works the other way too: unit training and timing is APM that serves a purpose to the game, and it is skill based. Much of the frustration in the game comes from Actions that have a probability of being translated into the game, like moving an ele past a house. We need to reduce necessary APM in the right areas: like how many clicks it should take to get an ele past the godforsaken house, or how many clicks you need to make to keep all of your units from bleeding to an enemy tower, or how many times you must click "unpack" or "pack" on catapults.
  8. I was thinking a very unique way to have lancer cavalry would be to have a very low attack repeat rate like once every 4 seconds, but a high pierce damage and very low prepare time. This way, the best way to use them would be to attack with smaller groups and then run away to charge back and attack again. My thinking is that this would be worse versus ranged units, since it would be harder for them to get out of range in time before losing quite a few of them, but actually be very good vs swords and acceptable vs spears and still bad vs pikes. I think ideal micro for them could be like trying to get melee inf to pursue, but then doubling back and sniping individuals before too many of the enemy melee inf get into attack range. I could see this being a CS soldier for some civs that were famous for using long pointy things with their horses, maybe it should be a unit for civs that have a strange/underpowered/not persians cavalry selection. Perhaps a champion version could be made for the civ with the most historical tendency for pikes. I think if it is balanced right as a CS unit, then it should not need any price or train time changes.
  9. It is a good thing that auto-training is quite slower than manual, at least for eco growth. We have batch training to thank for that.
  10. People in the topic were trying to figure out separating lancer cavalry versus spear cavalry. I was confused and wondered how far they got in making a gameplay distinction.
  11. maybe she could train marines capable of swimming? so it would not affect a huge number of units. if they swim, what stroke should they do as an animation? Butterfly backstroke breastroke freestyle People may be joking, but I think it could be a fun feature Unit could be like naked fanatic. Little armor but strong bod from swimming.
  12. Are lancers and spearcav being differentiated in a25? It just sounds like they are/will be.
  13. It is indeed a map issue, however I think it would be nice if forts and towers costed a bit more stone. In a23 stone ran out a bit before metal because of the amount of slingers everyone was making, usually this would happen around minute 30 rather than 20, in most games people never saw stone completely run out, unless you were unlucky enough to only get one 5000 stone source. In a24 about half the time players can expect to have only 1 metal mine. Right now choosing map to increase metal means choosing a larger map, many players don't like this due to sometimes increased lag and some players just don't like walking so far. I usually like playing on bigger maps for 4v4s. I would like it if there was a size between medium and large, or better yet, a slider between minimum map size and maximum, with a percentage listed for consistency. Beyond metal supply issues, there is also the problem of having a maximum rate of 24 people on metal for one mine. Probably this is also solved by your mod. It remains to be seen how bad the metal problem is in a25.
  14. @alre@Freagarach If I understood you guys correctly, this would mean that when garrisoning the fortress with ranged units, the ranged units appear on top, like on stone walls, and can be killed. How would this mechanic work? I imagine it would go along with a more comprehensive siege/fortress overhaul. I might make a separate topic to discuss this. Increase garrison limit of fort to 40. First 20 units just stay in fortress and don't go on top, additional units get sorted so that only ranged units go on top. If there are 19 spears and 1 archer, then garrisoning 1 extra spear would make the 1 archer automatically go on top. Top capacity: 30 units. I think a UI button could be added as a formation for fort: where you choose "man the walls" or "hold the gate". "hold the gate" maximizes your internal garrison and leaves remaining ranged units on top. "man the walls" moves up to 30 ranged units from your overall garrison to the top positions. ranged units on top of walls/fort do not contribute to arrows or capture defense. Bonus to ranged units on top of Fort: +20% range+200% hack and pierce armor. On top of wall: +10% range, +200% hack and pierce armor Units that can damage units on top of walls/fort: bolt shooters, archers, catapults (with splash), siege towers (explained below) arrows/bolt from siege tower do 5x damage bonus versus units garrisoned on top of stone wall and fortress, and normal damage to all other units. These changes would make defending forts a more active situation: I think we should remove 1250 HP from forts and raise their stone cost back up to 1000. Also, removing their territory root would be good. Fort's strength, low cost, and territory root made forts less about defense and more about drawing out the game time in a24. I think that britons' and gauls' rams should get + some hack armor, because it is very frustrating to send 5 rams to a fort so that a few cheap swordsmen can quickly de-garrison and kill the rams. The overall changes would make a fort/wall siege a more interesting mechanic that takes effort and planning from both sides to be successful, but a process that can be finished fairly quickly, unlike real medieval and ancient sieges.
  15. I would say that autotraining is considerably worse than manually training. I could only see it being useful to resume wood gathering during/after a big attack when you are already at max pop and are losing units. @YekaterinaI don't know how to tell which diffs are being added to the game, or how to navigate that page very well. There was one that reduced elephant pierce armor while increasing HP and there was another that extended the 3x counter to cavalry found in spears and pikes to also include elephants, also another was to give ranged units 3x counter versus eles. I personally don't like that last one since I would hate to have my ele get deleted by a single volley of archers while it gets stuck on a tree XD. As for eles 1-banging units in game, I would say a spread attack of hack would be ideal, for the 120 ˚ angle forward of the ele. For that matter I would like to see splash return in some form for catas.
  16. Ok, I imagine it is a frustrating bug, but there are many issues that are more exciting/rewarding to work on, like new artwork, game mechanics, pathfinding, balance ect. This is like people who played cyberpunk 2077 complaining about small gaps between wheels of car and the road (if you get the reference).
  17. hmm, I have not heard anyone explain why seles shouldn't have spearcav. Ah, well I suppose its past the feature freeze anyway. It sure would be a shame not to use that actor wink wink.
  18. Can someone photoshop Borat in here? I feel like it would be funny.
  19. less goooooo does this mean spearcav might make it into a25 for seles?
  20. I totally agree that siege towers (and for that matter archer eles) ought to be more interesting/dynamic units. History is definitely the right thing to use for inspiration in this regard, but we should not be slaves to it. I do quite dislike the way elephant archers are used in a24, as simply meatier archers. I think making siege towers garrisonable with a variety of unit types could be fun/ interesting and owe to their flexibility (I'm no historian but it seems people can't quite agree with what should go in them, so why not any ranged unit?), we would need to be careful with the accuracy while moving (decrease), range and repeat rate values to make sure it stays balanced. Elephant archers and siege towers remain great topics for discussion during a25.
  21. Not really. Just think about the time it takes to go p3 from p1, even with instantaneous buildings, and infinite resources it would take you 1 minute and 20 seconds just to go p3. then 30 seconds for the first ram. It would be impossible to get 1 ram by minute 5 if you have 300 f 300 w 300 s 300 m starting res. Anyway, 1 ram at minute 5 is no problem, just use women to kill it. Just because you can get p3 early does not mean you can get a p3 eco early. Also, people would see you phase up based upon the expansion of your territory, they would see the ram coming minutes in advance.
  22. At first this seems outrageous, but is actually hella logical. This also opens up a bunch of possible strategies that are out of the envelope due to building constraints on going p2/p3.
  23. don't they still have the spearcav, javelin cav, and champion "fire-cav"? I hope so. :I +speaking of adding cavalry...... How about adding a spearcav unit to seleucids? :D.
  24. @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded So what would the gameplay role of siege towers be? would they kill infantry from 90 m, with bolt shooters? would they be stronger than rams in health, or in melee damage vs buildings? would they be able to destroy buildings from a distance? would they still need to be garrisoned by inf? From your description of their actual historical characteristics it seems like they would be a merge of all the siege engines available.
×
×
  • Create New...