BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.395 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
Wait we can make jesus!!! OP hero. Maybe he should have a feature where he dies and then your temples change into churches wow. Maybe he can train apostles (up to 12).
Maybe jesus could make a trickle of food as a hero bonus. From the miracle of spontaneously multiplying the food for all those people that one time.
-
1
-
-
Age games tend to have a really good balance system, but 0ad has another layer of complexity because we have citizen soldiers. I think most people will agree that a23 was more fun than a24, but many good features and changes came in a24 (blacksmith upgrade categories, stables, melee vs ranged balance, viable champs) that are being overshadowed by some of the bad things (ranged vs ranged balance, palisade spam, not enough metal, really bad mercs, turtleing). I am optimistic about a25.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
Also archer civs dont even make champion archers , their eco is basically wood and food.
Mauryans, Persians (champion chariot archers).
17 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:Team games are often so laggy that again ranged inf and elephant armies always win because the most played maps are just awfull for anything micro intensive like cav or artillery.
Lag is a problem, but it's not so bad on certain biomes of mainland and with pop cap of 200. I think the main thing that makes micro frustrating/ not worth trying a lot of the time is the longer unit rotation times. From what I understand the unit rotations for CS are going to be reduced, and the number of necessary buildings will also be reduced, (faster unit production). My hope is also that forts, towers, and ccs will see range and damage and health (forts and towers) rebalances after their buff in a24. These things will make the congestion considerably less in the games, and make non brute-force strategies more viable.
As for successor civs, I think Seles are my favorite in this alpha, try combining a couple garrisoned siege towers and eles against some archers, along with a big army with plenty of pikes and spears. If you send this army with the ele hero, be careful to go for a good target where the archers will be forced to die to your siege towers.
-
@PyrrhicVictoryGuyIt seems you know firsthand the struggles of playing a non-archer civ versus archer civ. I know 1v1s can be frustrating or stressful, and this is why I stick to Team games.
-
@Yekaterina 13-14 minute was the big fight time for almost all the games I played and watched. (for a 4v4 on mainland). This is one of the first things I noticed about a24.
-
I would argue that unit speed is actually not that important in woodcutting. If you add up the effects of unit rotation, pathfinding, and storehouse proximity, these things matter much much more than skirmishers being .5 to 1 m/s faster. If the storehouse is close as it should be, unit rotation takes up a greater portion of the time to move between the tree and storehouse too.
-
Yea. As I was thinking about it I was wondering whether it would be more a fun mechanic or just an economic frustration. Also, I am thinking that someone could re-inforce their income by bartering for metal to make traders, thereby increasing their revenue. If players have 50-60 CS on wood, then they could float wood, and continually barter wood to keep metal super expensive, and then earn a ludicrous amount of metal from only 10-15 traders which they could use to buy a lot of mercenaries.
@chrstgtr thanks for the feedback.
-
2
-
-
A couple other considerations:
Maybe the relationship should be a more simple LINEAR relationship: if wood is maxed out in the barter-market, wood trades for 5x as much value as the default amount and the other resources are all 1/5 of their original rates. This sounds extreme, but its intended purpose is to make people weigh the benefits/problems of: floating resources, bartering excessively, and what units they should make from their trade revenue. It will also make it harder to manage a full-trade economy. This will also introduce a risk/saftey spectrum to trading, do you want to spread out your trade income across 2-3 resources or go all-in for a particular resource because it is valuable at the moment.
Another cool feature that would limit/complicate this mechanic could be if traders can only react to a change in the trade resource choices once they reach the next market, because they can't just drop their current stock. If a player changed their resources based upon a sudden change in barter values, then it is possible it could change by the time the trader is able to pick up the next round of stock at destination/origin market. If a trader is in transit, then the values of what they carry still apply, so the traders could lose some value of what they carry even if the value was high when they picked up their stock at the last market.
The goal of these changes would be to revolutionize the way trading is done in 0ad, going from a boring extreme-late-game mechanic to a a variable economic strategy with risk and reward beyond the cost of traders unit training costs. I could even see trade being chosen at earlier times in some games if players anticipate extreme barter rates that can happen as people gear up for the big P3 fights.
@Dizaka@Player of 0AD@Palaiogos @chrstgtr@ValihrAnt
What do you think of the idea?
To me it seems possible and potentially a really fun gameplay mechanic. Also this is a good way to make trading less of a guaranteed way of getting metal since otherwise it would be too easy to spam mercenaries from trade (in a24 mercenaries are the cheapest unit to get from trade).
-
2
-
-
I think increasing metal availability and adding more uses for stone will help the barter system be a a little less frustrating in a25. In particular in 4v4s.
A while ago I had an idea for a system that would make the most bartered-for resource at the market also be the most profitable resource to trade for with traders. The idea is to make trading a less hands-off process and reward players who are looking out for resource values, potentially adjusting their unit composition based upon what resource is most profitable for their traders.
Since currently traders get all resources at the same rate, mercenaries are the cheapest unit if ur whole eco is traders. If this is implemented, and resources are brought within reason in terms of availability and relative value, then traders would bring a much less predictable income stream. I think this would also prevent the market barter rates from stagnating and it would tie trade income to real-time player actions.
I think it is also nice for the people who take interest in historical accuracy and realism. Traders have/had a limited capacity to carry stuff, so to carry the most value with them, they would take whatever resource was most scarce. Also traders don't and didn't always have the same profits each time they traded.
If you are more interested in this mechanic you can come to that thread and make a comment :D. I would welcome some feedback on my idea.
-
1
-
-
yea I think this is a bigger problem in a24 given how important it is to get metal quickly at the beginning of p2. It is rare to see barter rates more reasonable than 100 metal---> 500 wood.
I had an idea where barter rates could be reflected in traders productivity of trading a particular resource. There is a thread for it.
-
I am a bit confused by this, can't you gain resources by bartering anyway. Like bartering 100 metal for 800 wood?
-
1
-
-
I am not sure how prevalent the ddos is anymore, but I know that sometimes having a password seemed to help. I am wondering if there could be a feature where you could write the password on a parentheses portion of the hosted game name, example [ breakfastburrito's game(archies) ]. When the game starts, the parentheses section is no longer visible. If ddos were to get worse perhaps this is a feature multiplayer hosters could use for a little extra protection depending on how the ddoser is attacking. I don't know much about ddos, but a while ago @Dizaka told me he thought it was a good idea.
-
4 hours ago, Grapjas said:
Not sure about what rating bracket you are talking about. But at 1400+ in A23 games also had a peak around the 15 minute mark, because they will be phase 3 and have a fort + siege and a good sized army. If every player survives the initial siege attempt the game is likely balanced (and the teams played well together) and then comes down to further tactics.
My experience in A24 is limited though, been mostly modding and taking a break. A23 i know like the back of my hand.
yea in those 1400+ games, or what used to be worth 1400, there could be balanced teams as well. We loved balanced games because it seemed like either side could lose at a moments notice. In a24, balanced games often become endless, and at all times it seems like neither team can win. Usually these ones go for 45-50 minutes and then someone goes AFK.
-
1
-
-
Hey guys!
I saw some thoughts about balance and I thought I would put in my 2 cents. From what I have observed, team balance has meant different things in a23 and in a24. In a23, a balanced game would usually involve each player getting super sweaty and the game would get super intense. In a24, the intensity peaks at 15-16 minutes and then the game stagnates, a variety of things influence this like ranged units, metal availability, stone excess, structures power. The end result is that a balanced game does not feel competitive and exciting, but competitive and tiresome.
I hope you guys can agree with these observations of 4v4s and 3v3s.
-
1
-
-
Ok my apologies for taking so long to do this. Here is the error after doing: extract all to mods folder within 0.A.D folder. All of this is installed on an SSD since bootcamp takes up much space on the computer.
-
29 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
1. historical accuracy.
2. To give them equal value as economic units.
3. making them slower might lead to more defensive play, which might only stabilizes the game more.
4. I don´t think it solves the real issue, namely that they are too good at defending a fortified spot.
1: I can't argue with this except with: not everything that was historically accurate will make the game more fun to play. Example: WW1 fps games.
2: All ranged units could have the same resource gathering speed that is no faster than any of their walk speeds. I don't know about the programming situation, @Freagarach did not elaborate about it being impossible to program into 0ad.
3: making them slower would lead to them being unable to defend a huge area, meaning that archers would need to be closer to the place they want to defend, reducing the total area that is impenetrable in a turtled base, and therefore decreasing the extent to which players territory boundaries form blocks to general movement across the map. Buffing building arrows and archer move speed meant that once the archers arrive under their local defenses you must either retreat or die.
4: this is one reason why catapults should be given splash damage as it existed in a23, and why forts should lose their territory root given in a24. Archers should be defeatable at a fort and flankable for faster armies (which should not be limited to cavalry as it is in a24). However, the main issue is not their power in defending one spot as you said, it is their ability to defend in any point in the territory area as if they had been waiting there the whole time.
- I agree with your logic about reversing the roles of ranged infantry and melee infantry (ranged should support melee rather than the other way around). Keep in mind that we are closer to this than any point in the last 5 years (if my memory is right).
I don't think I have any more points to make to try to convince you that archers should not be most maneuverable. Only that this is the reason why archer cav were made slower in a24. I should also say that there is a group of people trying to balance britons and gauls as mobility/guerilla oriented civs, they won't be this way if archers are more maneuverable than skirms and slings.
-
@PyrrhicVictoryGuy Thanks for the info, I think I ought to change my cav selections.
@LetswaveaBook I say it is ideal because most of the time armies fail without at least some melee, preferably with enough to pressure other armies archers. I have also been seeing armies of 1/3 ranged to 2/3 ranged infantry where in alpha 23 it was more like 80% to 100% ranged.
17 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:This is no logic reasoning. This only holds if there are no other changes that impact the meta, which seems unlikely.
What are some other ways to balance ranged infantry?
I observe:
- add armor to skirms and slings (most people dislike this one)
- decrease accuracy of archers
- establish minimum range for archers
I think something must be done to allow the non-archer ranged units to use their damage advantage against archers in more situations (other than de-garrisoning from building or ram). I think the best way to do this is to differentiate ranged infantry speeds based upon range.
What are your main gameplay concerns about re-differentiating ranged infantry walk speed?
Do you think archers should be the most maneuverable unit?
-
Just now, Freagarach said:
It means you _have_ to micro your units to keep up with a high APM player (if they walk slower when gathering, just task them to walk next to a tree and then gather, task them back to the storehouse and then drop off).
It is also hard to sell to players. Why are archers slower when gathering, but other (ranged) infantry not?
This micro is only possible in early game and with 2-5 units. Players would probably wind up slowing down eco because of misclicks and neglect of other micromanaged eco opportunities like hunting.
I am not suggesting to discriminate ranged inf in eco walk speed, I think I may not have been clear earlier. If all the ranged inf were the same walk speed as archer when gathering, then this would negate any eco advantage that skirms and slings would have over archers, and mean that no ranged unit is faster when gathering res than when walking to battle.
-
31 minutes ago, alre said:
but javeliners will lose to them because that's realistic and because they will have other strong points.
If you like the way ranged infantry are balanced in a24, then what are the the strong points of skirmishers currently in a24?
I can only think of one: de-garrison quickly from fort or temple to kill an ele.
-
21 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Even if we could, players could instead of sending out archers to the fortress send them to a nearby resource, such that they would move faster. So that would be a nice ¨feature¨.
Please don't mock me mate. :I
I think I mentioned in my post that the gathering movement speed for all ranged units would never be faster than their normal movement speed, so this would not be abused to make any unit move faster.
22 minutes ago, Freagarach said:We cannot.
Why not? is it a programming constraint?
21 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:Do you have any non-hand-waving arguments those support this idea?
My main point is that ranged/ melee balance is fairly close to ideal, and that further adjustments to that balance should be careful and slight.
If ranged infantry are to all have the same speed, then something must be done to limit archers' mobility in some other way, otherwise skirmishers will never be a viable option, and the wide-area turtling will be just as prevalent in a25 as it is in a24 right now.
-
18 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
1. historical accuracy.
2. To give them equal value as economic units.
My arguments:
Historical accuracy should never make the gameplay worse.
We could just make all ranged units the same speed as archers when on "eco gather" order.
18 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:I think you are wrong on the fact that it would result in a nice balance. It does not solve the problem that archer cavalry create, which are from my experience as OP as infantry archers. At best only means that players soon learn to be a little more careful with their infantry archers and defensive.
The only thing is... it has existed before, and everyone I have talked to who played a23 has argued that making archers the same speed has made them OP, and I have mostly agreement with the argument about them contributing to wide-area turtling. It is true that archer cavalry are op in a24, in a23 they were op as well, but there were more economic/strategic (early p3 attack with rams) risks to this as well. I think that archer cav should not be affected by archery tradition as a start. In general a23 was a game that was much faster paced and exciting.
For future releases, I think it would be awesome to have a cavalry momentum/acceleration system so that cavalry are not simply used the same way as powerful infantry.
18 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:reducing combat effectiveness of ranged citizen soldiers and these units still have a very good role
If you are unhappy with the prevalence of ranged units, you would have hated a23 XD. I think a24 has struck a good balance with melee units, the only times it is frustrating is being unable to catch up to archers. I have seen (in 4v4s) armies are between 1/3 ranged units and 2/3 ranged units, archers being op makes their ratio increase. I think a speed adjustment for ranged units is good enough for melee/ranged balance as well as ranged/ranged.
-
On 17/05/2021 at 6:21 AM, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
sword cav everytime since these outperform spear cav
Excuse me for being off topic, but don't spearcav have better HP and armor?
-
If I am getting it right you are saying that the main problem with ranged infantry having different speeds is the resulting gather rate differences.
I think we could just have all the ranged units go the same speed of the archer while on a "gather res" order. This way, the mechanic can't be abused to speed any ranged unit up, and there is only a tiny eco advantage to making skirms (they run slightly faster to go to gathering place= negligible).
-
I think everyone agrees that archers must see some kind of nerf in a25. I think they should be the least agile least maneuverable ranged unit in 0ad simply because they have the biggest range, (no complex discussion of historical accuracy, damage counters, or physics based mechanics). This just makes sense from a gameplay perspective, since it gives advantages for different units in different situations. (remember how frustrating camels were in a23?)
Some of the ideas for changes are:
- don't change it I love pacing back and forth along forts and towers for 45 minutes with 100+ archers.
- re-differentiate ranged unit run speeds ( I like this one because it kills multiple birds with one stone: turtleing, op archers, gameplay over-stabilization
- add some inaccuracy to archers (This is a nerf, but it does not address the concerns of wide-area turtleing and gameplay over-stabilization)
- damage drop off with range
- add a little armor to slingers and a bit more to skirms. (this will just make them die slower while chasing after archers, but they will not see an increase in chances of getting within range)
- Crazy new burrito idea:
- Add 3 meter minimum range for archers
- Archers move slower than slingers and even slower than skirms
- Archers start firing with low accuracy (maybe the same as skirmisher), but over 4 shots linearly increase to their maximum accuracy value and keep it until they either move or are told to shoot something else.
- After testing the above changes, adjust archer attack damage until balanced.
- archery tradition could adjust these values as part of a tradeoff for the tech.
These changes would make archers more powerful in pitched battles and building defense and would make protecting them important, because the changes make them more vulnerable to melee units, skirmishers, and cavalry out in the open. However, those same units would suffer if the archers are well positioned.
To be honest, the problems with a23 ranged infantry balance were simple: slingers a bit op... please reduce damage slightly. Now we have a very complex balancing conundrum. The surest way to proceed would be to revert all ranged unit stats to a23 and then proceed from there, I think all you would need to do would be a slight buff to archers and a slightly bigger nerf to slingers.
cart embassy
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Also having separate embassies means each one is easier to target for coercion and attack, like the suspected microwaves on U.S. embassies.
+ specific to 0ad it is nicer to pay for individual embassies since usually it is because you are after a specific two mercs from those. There is redundancy between some of the available mercs and people would not want to pay more for something they don't intend on training.