BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.395 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
6 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Noob wall (It's not invisible, it's the noob wall):
Cost: 0 wood but frustrated allies
The "I built a wall, no idea what went wrong" wall:
Cost: 300-400 wood (allies go "meh, he built a wall")
Normal game wall (Rams delayed maybe 15-25 secs):
Cost: ~1K wood, happier allies
Pro wall (Note how walls are in parallel. This delays ram movement substantially only for 500-800 more wood. Rams going to be delayed for 2-3 mins minimum):
~1.5-1.8k wood, (each line of 3 turrets 2 wall units is about 58-60 wood)
The "I hate you, have fun" wall (The "meh, I don't want to deal with this, let me find another entry point"):
~1.8-2.1k wood, pros have too much wood. Garrison sword units in tower preferably.
When the whole map is like this, you may as well close host. But often, even just a string of towers can defended by archers that are far away, since they can run to the defenses before the attackers reach them and do much damage.
-
Well.. I can start I guess.
I liked that different attack strategies were used depending on the ranged unit types. Ranged units were much more dynamic and variable in a23.
- The damage increases for slingers and skirmishers did not come close to compensating for their inability to reach archers.
- Archers have neigh unlimited flexibility and they can not be over-extended easily like in a23
- archery accuracy and archery tradition were enough to make archers a bit op, let alone the effective buff to their speed.
I think a good idea would be to revert speeds for them all to a23 levels and start changes for a25 from there. Slingers could remain the same speed as in a24, with skirmishers a bit faster and archers a bit slower.
-
2
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Anti-Ranged as their general role.
Anti-Elephant and Chariot as their niche role.
I liked the way skirmishers worked in a23, a unit that did lots of damage, but died fast, moved fast and was good for surprise attacks and accompanying heavy infantry. They would not win vs heavy infantry in a fight, but would help one group of heavy infantry beat another, more so than archers. In a23 archers were slightly underpowered but were great for putting concentrated pressure and for defense. Players like me learned not to make whole armies out of skirmishers and we acknowledged that slingers were op.
-
2
-
-
Please put some reasons why you disliked or liked the alpha 23 ranged infantry speeds in comparison to alpha 24's ranged infantry speeds, and what should have been the course of action to equalize the overall power of different ranged infantry types, slingers being more op than the other two in alpha 23.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Two obvious solutions:
1. Increase cost of palisade. Actually palisade spamming is a bad habit carried fo6 from A23, because in that alpha wood is plentiful but stone is much needed. In A24 however, stone is not demanded as much so it makes sense to build stone walls. I have seen a few pro players using stone walls and they did have a much better effect compared to spamming palisades. There is already no motivation to spam palisades, but old habits always haunt us.
2. Increase the length of palisades to decrease the frequency of towers. The gaps between towers will be massive so no unit would be trapped.
The reason to spam palisades is to ruin pathfinders and limit movement of the enemy and make rams spend eternity taking them down. The power in palisades is not health of the barrier, that much I can say for sure. In a23 people had no extra time to sit and build defenses anyway, the game was much more dynamic. Usually only a few strings of walls. Only exception being the roman siege spam, which was a rare tactic and even rarer to succeed.
@Dizaka surely you can explain this
you are an expert in palisades
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, ChronA said:
artillery engines
These no longer can counter archers because 1 archers can kill them quite quickly and 2 no more splash damage :I.
The best siege against archers right now is siege towers. So in a24 Rome has worse siege overall than ptol.
-
2
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, alre said:
Slowing down archers won't prevent them from pivoting a defensive position, just gives them less effective range around it. This large range archers have to make hit and run strikes is the one unique thing that makes archer so fun to play. I'm against taking it from them. I'd rather lower their damage (against melee, not skirms).
Archers have always been (and should be) quite good at defending buildings like fortresses. However, the main change in a24 is that archers are the fastest infantry, so they can pull a turtle-like defense of a huge area. In a24 you can not be over-extended with archers, because archers are effectively faster than every other infantry.
To be honest, ranged infantry balance only needed a nerf to slingers from a23, and archers needed a slight buff.
-
Thank you for finding and showing me that patch, it is great to see the discussion behind the change. I think most players agree that the ranged/melee balance is much improved this alpha, but that ranged/ranged balance is much worse.
I also don't think the turtleing issue can totally solved without reducing archer walk speed, but many more people will agree with me on the other argument for speeds: skirmisher>slinger>archer. That being the inability of every kind of infantry to outmaneuver archers.
-
1
-
-
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/23895/
Idk but it might be this one... it took me a long time to find it.
It does not give any justification, but maybe I am looking at the wrong thing. Archers being the longest range unit makes them the fastest infantry because they dont have to travel as far to "reach" the enemy. I care less about why it was introduced/implemented and more about why there is hesitancy to revert these ranged infantry walk-speed values to a23.
-
Why are people hesitant to re-introduce ranged unit speed differences? when all ranged units were given the same speed, this made archers the most maneuverable unit in the game besides cavalry. If they need to go somewhere, and do damage, archers will have the shortest timespan to do that out of any infantry unit. This is a problem because it enables them to turtle with spread-out defenses over a wide area and effectively lock down the map, making it hard to move anywhere but back and forth along your defenses.
-
19 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Can this be done so that "connected" units get damaged/destroyed and not those within a "radius?"
For example, if you have a palisades like this o--o--o--o--o--o--o and the actual damage is this o--o--o--x--o--o--o then what gets destroyed is this o--o--x--x--x--o--o.
In another example, if you have a palisades like this o--o--o--o--o--o--o and the actual damage is this o--o--o--x--o--o--o then what gets destroyed is this o--o--d--x--x--d--o (x=destroyed, d=damaged, o=still standing).
This is what I am talking about for longitudinal spread damage, I am wondering wether this could also apply to next layer immediately behind the palisades (ones within a certain distance). One other thing that might serve to limit the effectiveness of palisade spam is reduced archer move speed, since in a24 archers can run to defend every corner of a huge area of turtled territory faster than an attacking army can flank to undefended spots. Reducing archer run speed will mean that palisades and walls will be less effective over ludicrous lengths.
-
I think some form of damage spread from layer to layer and along the length of a section of wall is a good way to address both of these things: wall spam and small fragments
With damage spread, multiple layers would be more effective, but each additional layer effectively gives you less total hitpoints. This means that rams and elephants will accelerate across and along wall segments, meaning that quantity of wall placement does not equal quality (such as shorter segments, using chokepoints, and existing defenses).
small scattered remnants of palisades do not have any positive effect on gameplay, they do not reward skill, action, or risk taking. They only cause frustration, and are another reason why palisades contribute to turtling and hesitancy to attack.
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Even I as a competitive player wonder why all of the palisades need to collapse. This did not happen in real life for decently build palisades. We can make them brittle against P3 units and I think that is enough.
Looking at images of such palisade walls, I get the impression that it would not take many strikes from a ram to take them down. Also, wood has leasst strength in shear with respect to the grain. This is the situation of 0ad palisades. If there are no horizontal stabilizers to keep the vertical logs in position then 2 things happen:
- the absence of one log allows surrounding logs to move more, creating more instability
- the impact of a ram is not distributed, meaning only one or two pieces of wood takes the whole load of the ram strike.
This is enough to justify halving the crush armor of palisades, A ram should probably be able to breach it in 2 strikes. This discussion of historical accuracy and engineering limitations is pretty pointless for these palisades as they are just art-pieces for a game mechanism.
We should free ourselves from this thinking, and let us make the palisade walls perform a logical, fun, and varied function in 0ad based off of a gameplay point of view. lets ask these questions:
- How much do we want small fragments of un-destroyed palisades to just sit and clutter the map and cause bad pathfinding?
- How effective should spamming multiple layers of palisades be in multiplying the strength of the overall barricade?
- How does it affect gameplay movement, fluidity, and decisions?
I think the answers to these questions can be found in area damage, cost, and build time.
-
2
-
I have played some cavalry games in a24. I noticed that they work very well against archers with some spears, provided your numbers are more like 30 cav 50 archers. Spearcav are great versus archers, but their main issue is that only the front bunch of spearcav can fight at the same time, for this it is helpful to have at least some javelin cav to bring the damage. I think spears and pikes are good counters vs cav in a24, and dont need buffing or nerfing with respect to cav. Spears and pikes are not a "prevent all" to cav, but require considerable effort to work around.
I think implementing cavalry acceleration like I have described in that topic would be a good way to make cavalry more than just high health high speed versions of infantry, and trickier and more risky to use.
As for archers, I think "archery tradition" should not apply to cavalry-archers and should make archers more susceptible to smaller groups of cavalry.
-
+ Area damage to walls (and maybe light structures: house walls)
+ a little build time
+ a little cost
This sounds good to me. I am thinking palisades will be good to help thwart p2 aggression and p3 nuisance raiding. But will not do much to prevent a full scale attack.
-
I think the main things making rushing challenging are the slower men training times, cc extra range, and unit rotation being a bit too slow. I don’t think nerfing sentry towers is a good idea, although making them less valuable for P3 means that they still have an opportunity cost. As for palisades, they are almost never built in p1 as wood goes to: houses, upgrades, men in normal games.
Many of these things are being addressed already and I think the overall effect will be fine without extra nerfs to defenses.
(Think being border next to rauls)
-
Hmm. This is a much more complicated debate than the other balancing topics. It is important to point out that these changes will/can contribute to civ and strategy differentiation.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
A couple thoughts come to mind for how this could be addressed. Spartan hoplites could be a bit weaker in the Village Phase. Better yet there could be paired technologies available with each phase to personalise them. Yet another approach could be to make their training time a lot slower in the Village Phase to prevent them from being massed (which would be undesirable). Even another option could be to have the Spartan hoplite available at the Town Phase instead, but I like this the least.
This is actually a super brain idea. Sparta could have a flexible champion available in all ages, This can probably help Sparta with its unit diversity problem. And make it have a potential advantage at any phase. We would need to be careful to balance the unit accurately at each phase and with each personalisation/upgrade.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, nani said:
The newest patch is now https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2667 (fully working) and is being refactored (?) by @wraitii so that it fits with the grid class interface some other data structures already use.
Well the I put some random colors more but not much.
Also xd:
New gamemode: Hyper pizza.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Explanation: Military was the main part of Spartan life no matter what phase they were in, so they deserve early access to this in light of their training of boys from young age. Having access to champions in phase 1 is a strength, but it certainly is not overpowered because they are expensive. No phase 1 player can afford to spam them and always staying in Phase 1 is quite risky because you cannot back yourself up with siege, heroes and necessary technologies.
My main qualm with this would be pocket usage in 4v4. imagine ur a border player and ur facing equal army plus 2 rams, then suddenly 20 spartan hoplites hop out of the rams and cap ur cc. I would be very worried about how this might work in 4v4s.
-
3 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
extremely economic role of barracks, which is one of the key reasons why turtling=booming.
I disagree about the source of turtling in a24. During the "boom or rush" part of the game: beginning to ~15 minutes, the primary reason not to attack would be the extended range and increased effective damage of towers and ccs, and the absolute lack of means to get more bang for your buck (p2 champs, p2 siege could be the source of this). All of this is considering the game to be balanced.
Turtling is worst after 20 minutes in a24. At this stage, everyone is out of metal, no one can successfully flank or maneuver, and the map is totally built up with fortresses, towers, temples and walls.
After all, barracks was just as much if not more economic in a 23, because of training times being closer to women (the other eco unit; which is only from the cc usually). In a23 rushes and booming tradeoffs were nicely balanced.
-
1
-
-
@Dakara This reminds me of AOE 3 with shipments.
I think that if mercenaries are to be expensive and only cost metal + small food, then there needs to be some options to get more metal than is logical to have mineable on the map at the start of the game. I think a combination of tax tech like @wowgetoffyourcellphone mentioned where each unit gives a trickle of metal, but works more slowly for every resource, and a storehouse tech, where double the metal can be extracted from 1 source like @Dakara said. The bonus of these upgrades is that they have drawbacks, Dakara one would be very expensive, wow idea would force a decision to dedicate to mercs (high risk). The nice thing about these upgrades is that they allow you to choose the amount you expect to be making mercs: a few for antiram, a bunch for small battles and raids, or a closer to full composition.
It will be very hard to balance these upgrades and mercenaries themselves right.
-
This is a good consideration, perhaps some kind of color change on the market icon is good. It should not be too easy to adjust, but then again, the most scarce resource may not be the one the player wants.
The main thing I want to know is if people think this is a good gameplay mechanic that should be implemented or tested in a mod.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
When it comes to elite rank soldiers, I would like to remind you of how strong they can be.
Even without micro, elite javelin cavalry can beat spear cavalry. Elite sword cavalry has a base of 6 pierce armor and 250 HP and good DPS, making it a very good units against ranged units and siege. When the Elite sword cavalry is compared to the champion spear cavalry, the Elite sword cavalry is surprisingly good considering its costs. Furthermore elite swordsmen are comparable to skiritai commandos while the mercenary probably will be cheaper.
I think that is something people should keep in mind.
This is true, and because of this now I am thinking it is better to keep expertise in war at rank 2 so that skill is needed to keep them alive to see veteran rank. I think reducing metal cost by 20 and adding 40 wood, 40 food or 30 stone to the existing costs is a great way to fix the usability/power problem for now. The mercenaries would still cost plenty of metal but would be worth the buy. I also think that 2 metal mines should be available to a player, one maybe a bit further out.
what do we do with the defenses of phase 1?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
@Dizaka I apologize, I was talking beyond the topic of conversation. I tend to focus on p3 turtling issues since this is where turtleing is the worst. In p3 those towers in the string are usually garrisoned. I liked in a23 when archers were the easiest thing to flank (besides ranged siege),that was their main disadvantage.
@Lion.Kanzen like that but no one has metal to afford 1-2 rams XD.