BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.494 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
9 minutes ago, ChronA said:
Players are finally acknowledging the necessity of having melee as a meat shield for their ranged DPS.
I think it can be pushed further though. Real diversity would be having some compositions (other than Spartans) where the heavy melee can be sustained damage dealers, where horse cavalry can be sustained damage dealers.
I agree certainly that melee units being mainly a meat shield is not a good result for the use of melee infantry. Actually, in the "magnetic pikemen" discussion @Jofursloft and I were discussing the benefits of ranged units being able to effectively target other ranged units in the back of a battle. What this would do is allow for the targeting of other ranged units, rather than the melee always dying first, and because of this melee units could become more than meat-shields.
-
4 minutes ago, ChronA said:
and shift the balance a bit more in favor of melee
I can't say for the other players but it is my feeling that melee/ranged balance is quite good at the moment.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, borg- said:
What if we had structures that would give you victory if captured? Or nomadic tribes capable of producing mercenaries very quickly and cheaply to surprise their enemy, or even valuable treasures that give some sort of military/economic advantage if captured. This would encourage another style of play besides the snowball.
A "capture the wonder" or "king of the hill" gamemode could be quite fun. I feel like these are features that would be great to have as optional add-ons for games of 0ad rather than core features.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Micfild said:
In case the agressor loses the fight, then the loot he gathered can actually help him rebuild, offsetting a small amount of the costs of going to war (which can be considered a feature to limit the potential snowball the defender will have).
Usually it is better to leave behind enough units on the various resources needed so that you are able to train replacements to your army.
I think it is more risky (to your team) to not attack. If you have 100 extra units in your base gathering res instead of fighting, you will accumulate lots of extra resources which you are unable to use since you are already at the pop cap (assuming you have all the upgrades you want). For this reason the units have more value if they are used to fight. Also, if you attack first, you can usually decide where to fight, since it is now your enemies' goal to limit the damage you do to them.
Also, attacking does not necessarily mean moving directly to someones base, it can also mean flanking their army, gaining a position close to their base that they don't like, building offensive buildings, or causing an economically unfavorable reaction from your enemy.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
Seleucids: Technologies are 10% cheaper. - The Seleucid kingdom encompassed many different cultures and religions
I feel that such a more specific technology range would allow for more strategy, so perhaps following gaul's bonus that is (-15?% blacksmith upgrades cost) is a good idea. Sele bonus could be -20% economic technologies cost
5 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:Fields are 50% cheaper. - The Kushite Kingdom extended around the Nile which provided fertile ground for agriculture and irrigation.
I like this a lot. Great thinking!
A few of my ideas:
- persians: faster cavalry train time and/or faster cavalry gather rate
- Some civ maybe mauryans: faster berry gathering
- carthage or athens: faster fishing rate
-
5 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
1) Macedonians: Storehouse and Farmstead technologies are researched instantly (Cost remains the same just the research time is reduced to 0 seconds). - The Macedonians had access to plenty of timber and other natural resources and relied on them for a strong economy.
If this isn't powerful enough or exciting enough for Mace, then it could be phases are researched instantly.
-
And in 4v4, it is possible to come back, but it requires a good strategy and helpful teammates. In a24, I observed that comebacks were sort of enforced by the gameplay mechanics and balance, such as building garrisoned arrows being very powerful. In a 4v4, a player could be nearly finished, but then rebuild somewhere else quite easily because of how hard it was to move around the map. In one game, @Dizaka built his city faster than @chrstgtr could destroy it, he built something like 10-15 forts in a counter-clockwise direction around the edge of the map.
I agree that we don't want to have as many player-independent snowballs, like loot. I think a great example of something good that can be called a snowball is healers like @Feldfeld said. Keep in mind that in a24 attacking was like building a snowball in 50 degree heat.
-
15 minutes ago, alre said:
also batch production for military, unless destined to a fight that's already ongoing, in that case single unit spam
Be careful when doing this, because sometimes if you are losing the fight and your troops are still trickling in, then you run the risk of throwing away units.
-
1
-
-
@Yekaterina iber houses are a little large despite being 5 pop, and the walls make it a bit cluttered too so sometimes 10pop houses are easier
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:
Do pallisades really need a big change? The way I see it is that pallisades are there to buy you some time and if you want to really protect an area you build the proper city walls. There could be an upgrade to increase the hack armor of buildings to deal with late game melee units.
It is true that CS cavalry can be stopped fairly easily by spearmen, and if you expect a late-game cavalry raid, you can build well sealed walls and palisades to stop them, but this requires a lot of planning to do in advance and a lot of economic loss if doing it too late. It does take a lot more effort and skill to counter cavalry raiding than it does to do the raiding, so training 10-15 consular bodyguards is an easy way to gain an advantage over an otherwise better player. A defending player needs to either see it coming, or have 30+ spearmen fight your cav while building walls/palisades, which is more effort and economic loss than it takes to train 10-15 consular bodyguards and run around someones base.
I will take your advice to use stone walls though.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Jofursloft said:
Iberians (decent rush counter thanks to walls but not having spearmen is bad, good in late game thanks to hero, mixed army and champ cavarly)
many people, and myself included would put iber at the top 1-3 civs. But then, I like iber since a23. Iber, in addition to having very useful firecav champs, also have the cheapest and strongest infantry swords champion available in the game, once you train the hero Indibil.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Proposal: give infantry and cav hard 0.25x counter against palisade, so that palisade can stop any infantry or cav rush.
I would say just cavalry .25x , as infantry rushes are much rarer and easier to prevent. Also we don't want to see them being spammed up too much. Although I do think that we can give ram counter to them, since I feel they should go down in 2 hits from an un-upgraded ram.
I am not terribly concerned about wall spam, since palisades to prevent raiding are more about sealing off places, slowing down the cav so that local spear production can catch up with them.
In a24 walls were sometimes spammed in haphazard ways just to mess with the pathfinding and allow towers and forts and archers to kill most armies stuck in the "maze". Because of unit movement improvements, I think having a sealed wall is necessary.
I agree with @chrstgtr that we need to see a careful nerf of CS-swordcav, and perhaps a little buff of CS-spearcav.
On champion side, I think armor nerfs for both, but a bigger one for consular bodyguards.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
I just looked at wikipedia, apparently palms are not considered trees. Should I change my complaint to mislabeling
You can probably build a house out of palm "trees" so I think we can call them trees non-scientifically.
idea: date palm food source changes into date palm wood source once all berries are eaten.
-
1
-
-
I agree that palisades should be useful in stopping eco raids. I also think that palisades should be less useful against large, infantry armies, so that the game does not get covered with palisades in the ways we saw in a24.
Because of this I would be in favor of giving cavalry a 0.3x counter versus palisades. This would mean that a good way to counter cavalry raiding would be to build palisades to block routes to vulnerable parts of the base and allow your spearmen to catch up to the cavalry and deal damage. This already is the case, but as evident by the video it is very easy for CS swordcav to break through 1 layer, and even easier if it is 15-20 consular bodyguards.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Anyone remember the ptol ptol Rome iber matchup from a23? Back then civs did not give their own bonuses and Iber bonus made skirms cost 40w 40f.
The two Ptolemies players could boom at an outrageous pace. And if the two best players on your team were ptol it was super op. -
This is better than what I thought of as a solution, since mine would probably have a lot of overkill.
Perhaps one way to do it would be to have selected units, and drag out the rectangular zone with the mouse while holding the attack-click.
-
1
-
-
On 20/08/2021 at 12:17 AM, Jofursloft said:
60/70%
I think we would probably need to be careful with how much damage it does per unit.
We could probably also adjust this per unit. For example we could assign the critical damage to be 5% for eles since you would not want to lose 600 hp from one lucky skirmisher.
I think this could be a great way to adequately nerf champions, especially cavalry champions. However, I think before this is added we would need to be extremely careful deciding which values to use. It is frustrating to see 0 enemy champs killed while they raid.
You did forget one class of ranged units in your percentage chart: crossbows.
Crossbows have a low rate of fire, but do large damage and are very accurate. They would need a slower recharge time, like 5 shots.
Important things:
Critical damage should never be lower than the regular damage dealt by the unit. For example, if a crossbowman shoots a skirmisher and does 60% damage from critical hit, this could be less than the regular damage given to the skirmisher. Or, if any unit hits a woman. Or we could choose women lose 100% health for critical XD?.
Also, the numbers need to be tweaked so that there is great uniformity in gameplay and we do not see erratic or rage-inducing RNG results. See monks from AoE2.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:
They attack other units from a small distance so they react with a counter attack.
Aha, this must be what distracts my swords who are trying to kill the skirmishers in the back.
-
9 hours ago, Jofursloft said:
Do you mean that the attack order can be set on a specific unit (let's suppose archers) and then your units will target the closest archer available?
Sorry, let me elaborate with an example: archer attacks woman under the attack-click of a player, archer kills woman. The closest unit to that woman is a spearcav unit, so it is the next target.
My main reason to like this feature is that it does not strongly deviate the attack target area, and a player can target a mass of a particular unit with the expectation that most projectiles will go there, rather than deviating to the units in front.
9 hours ago, Jofursloft said:While in a open field if you are playing skirmishers you will push in order to get as close as possible to the enemy units, archers will use the different tactic of retreating bit by bit
If there were a battle between pikes +skirmishers and spears +archers (all inf), the person whose melee units die first will have to either retreat like you said or die. However, if the archers get a bit closer to the spears in front (more risk), they can target the skirmishers in the back, and allow the spears to win the melee battle.
I think allowing players to choose their target area is a great way to introduce more skill and battle strategy to 0ad battles that are otherwise overwhelmed by automatic unit behavior.
5 hours ago, alre said:well, it's just that projectiles have a random spread that gets bigger with distance traveled, so they can easily miss distant targets. if they miss their target but they hit another enemy, they still deal damage, if they hit an ally, they do not.
In this case, the player needs to determine if hitting a particular distant group of units is worth the increased amount of missed shots.
-
@chrstgtr what do you think about ranged units choosing the closest target to the attack order click rather than defaulting to the closest unit?
I feel that it gives the player more control over the fights.
-
1
-
-
your point is well taken about micro choices. And when I do see pikes, I always try to kill the ranged units they protect with both melee and ranged units. I disagree about the primary role of melee units being to tank damage, but this seems to be the case with the behavior of ranged units to target melee. If infantry melee units are mostly just to tank damage from ranged units, that makes pikes the best.
Also I can’t imagine what makes it unrealistic to shoot over the first row of enemies. Units can already shoot over their own infantry units. Also, what is the point of archers’ range if they can only shoot the melee units right in front of their own?
I am afraid that this alone is what is making pikes frustrating to play against and archers so frustrating to play with. Some people think javelins are op, but I think that they are just the best option to kill the melee fastest. I think battles need to become more complicated than just a race to who can kill melee the fastest.
I see your point about rushing, but usually this is on a small enough scale that any medium player could individually target units just as well. Also you misunderstood my idea for “following the order”, I meant that they would target units closest to the attack order, not necessarily the same type. So the cav wouldn't automatically select the next woman as the next target.
-
4 hours ago, alre said:
I actually feel that pikes are less OP now than in A24. You must have a huge quantity of pikemen to make their longer range really make the difference, compared to spearmen
This is true, but if you add in some ranged units to both sides, the side with pikes will win by quite a bit, because the pikemen will not die as fast as the spearmen and then the pikemen +full health ranged units can go attack the remaining ranged units. Keep in mind in a24 that people mainly used pikes to push archer-based armies which could easily beat anything else, so they felt more powerful based upon what they could do to an already op unit.
4 hours ago, alre said:I actually feel that pikes are less OP now than in A24
I think stat-wise this is actually true, for example 30 skirms beat 30 pikes in a straight battle with no micro. Their power becomes apparent once you try pikes+skirms versus spears+skirms.
8 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:However you can click an opposing unit and then it will attack it until it dies. Once it dies, you can click another unit.
This is not viable in a large battle as there will be a lot of overkill. I think it would be better if a player using ranged units could make an attack order and then the ranged units would seek targets close to that order as their natural behavior.
-
That 6m pike length is a good thing to consider as well. When I did my tests with real_tabasco_sauce we were fighting in an open field where an even line was formed between spearmen and pikemen, and the spears won every time. For now I will be sure to avoid fighting pikes in a chokepoint.
@Dizaka @Yekaterina Do you guys think that ranged units should be able to hit the units in the back of the formation? or do you guys not think it makes a big difference?
-
@Dizaka I am glad you brought this up
I would say that the best way to balance champions (especially the cavalry) would be to reduce armor. We should be careful about it however.
My thinking of the ideal reduction of champ cavalry health would be that they barely beat a citizen soldier spearman on a 1 to 1 fight (10% health left), this is still an economic victory for the spear. This still leaves their large amount of damage as a remaining factor to easily kill weaker infantry that do not have the 3x bonus vs cavalry
I think another option would be to increase the spearcav counter to 2x and the spear infantry counter to 3.5 or 4x and a speed reduction.
Perhaps it is best to strike a middle ground and only do a small reduction of champ cavalry armor (maybe a little bigger for consular bodyguard) but combine it with changes to bonuses and champ cavalry speed.
Another idea for cavalry in general could be to give them a .5x bonus versus walls (palisade and stone and roman siege walls), this could mean having a prepared base could be an effective counter to raiding cavalry in late game of all types.
-
1
-
-
I think instead of ranged units attacking the closest thing to themselves, they should attack the closest thing to their attack order mouse click. This would give the players the ability to direct the fire of their ranged units, and make the battles less about whose melee die first.
The only way to win if you have a spear+skirm combination versus a pike+skirm combination is to individually attack-click each skirmisher. This allows the greater dps of the spears to win the resulting melee battle as they would if it were straight pikes versus straight spears. I tested this in multiple micro arrangements with real_tabasco_sauce and we both agree about this.
During a25 testing @Yekaterina was very concerned about pikes being op, and indeed there is a whole thread about it. But it is not the pikes' stats that are op, it is their magnetic ability to distract fire away from the weaker ranged units that actually deal damage.
what about snowballing
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
@wowgetoffyourcellphone@chrstgtr
I also notice that in TGs I see good players who have a lot of fun rushing sometimes get carried away and do what I call "over-rush". What happens is the value of further rushes decreases and the overall effect is that you slow yourself down. Sometimes I see one super successful rush where the victim is then placed very far behind in boom, and the attacker can either use the population lead to have a faster boom and finish the victim later or the attacker can keep rushing. If a weaker player has a successful rush against a better player, they might want to keep rushing even if it slows themself down, because the weaker player was less critical to their own team. Sometimes a game can be lost by a good player slowing themselves down by continuing to rush a player who is already behind from the first rush.