BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.519 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
I think the unlock techs from barracks/stable are be ok since those are buildings you want anyway. It could also be a case by case situation. Definitely champions coming from unique buildings (Han academy)(gym) should get a train speed buff according to the building cost. Han academy is 300 stone 300 metal.
-
@Atrik your explanation makes sense, thanks for sharing it. I still think that if the resulting smaller army size was worth it, we would see players do this much more frequently.
-
1 hour ago, Atrik said:
85 females booms aren't uncommon afaik
well I guess I should say its uncommon (around 1/10 games you see one player do this) because its not a significantly better boom. Even over the time I've observed your gameplay you've gone from making up to 120 at the peak of your reliance on progui, and then down to 65-70 recently as you've gained actual game knowledge and skill.
-
2 hours ago, Atrik said:
The fastest population grow where literally made by Stockfish with 170 females. And more females very likely make you faster even without fertility festival. Maybe you just base your analysis on ad-hoc games or just look at population count as metric for booming. Even to gather minerals females would be better if you just consider unit cost and efficiency.
I based it off of the current meta. You have to delete women after a while. Also stockfish isn't exemplary for 0ad gameplay since he plays with different tools compared to the vast majority. If going 85+ women was significantly better then many more players would try it other than those with special advantages.
To be honest I think a male economic unit available in p2 would also be very interesting for choosing when to go p2.
-
On 24/07/2024 at 3:30 PM, Atrik said:
What I regret about "booming=turtling" is more about civs that force you to build a fort to unlock your hero for example
forts don't really help you turtle on their own since you still need the whole army. If you read through the discussion on that thread the issue boils down to the protective power of infantry CS from p1 through the rest of the game. CS infantry are also marginally faster in wood production and significantly faster for mining, and can also be trained from multiple barracks. One way to put it is that there is no "naked" boom in 0ad, in fact booms with as many as 80-90 women aren't much faster than a safer boom with 45-55 women. Of course a male economic unit could help with this, meaning a "naked" boom would be composed of women and male eco unit, freeing up infantry citizen soldiers to primarily serve as fighters early on.
As for civs that need a fort to make the heros, I think it makes sense for some civs like ptol and ibers which have fast booms and strong heros. Others like seleucids have niche uses for their heros and its nice that they can come out of the cc. I think we should use a range of hero origins (cc, special building, temple, fort) as needed by civ design. Carth or Kush could definitely benefit from getting heros from something faster than the fort.
-
On 28/04/2024 at 6:42 AM, Gurken Khan said:
well ya got to put in industrial agriculture and oil too, but otherwise pretty accurate.
I give you mainland unbalanced:
-
1
-
-
I think there are two main reasons why we usually see only fights with maximum size armies (aside from rushing and raiding). One of them is the citizen soldier implementation and the lack of a male economic unit. See "booming=turtling" below. Adding a male economic unit would mean that the barracks would no longer be the principal economic building and there would be more variations between booming and turtling. Additionally, forge techs in 0ad are very general and apply to many units at once. Adding unit specific upgrades could allow smaller, more specialized armies to exploit the timing value of unit specific upgrades.
-
1
-
-
So basically people have just been name-dropping vali and others to piggyback off of their credibility because they know they don't have any of their own. Interesting.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, ChronA said:
In the competitive scene for Zero-K, I believe that the consensus rules say that everything about how you control the game is fair game for modification. You can use you own custom GUI and endlessly elaborate control bindings, with all sorts of automation to facilitate optimal macro and micro. I think they even let players customize the AI scripts used by units and buildings for things like target prioritization and fight moving. The philosophy is that if you have the coding skill to automate any task that other players do manually and remain competitive, you deserve to reap the benefits.
Thats an interesting concept, as long as everyone buys into the scripts arms race and agree on what can be modified. In Aoe2 they host a little tournament where players design AIs that play against each other, which is kind of the next step beyond what you mention. I would say that this philosophy does not apply to 0ad as its supposed to be a videogame, so just because a player can make a script for automatically managing production buildings doesn't mean he deserves to wield that advantage over his non computer-savvy opponents.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Atrik said:
I wonder who started to mention progui in a off topic AGAIN. The same guy who come spec games, (but rarely plays any), yet every f*** time in the chat, start talking about progui.
No idea why he did make it a so important mission for himself to make sure that anybody who haven't heard about this mod is exposed to his comments on it first. As he even admitted it to me.Just on the forum I can't count threads where he comes in a totally unrelated threads like this one and start making a comment containing always the two words : progui and cheat. Even if nobody takes the bait, he'll try again a few comments later.... O.P.
Who are you talking about here? I'm a bit confused.
-
its funny how geriatrix and some others seem to think everyone gets into trouble with @Norse_Harold so that must have caused vali/berhudar/felfeld to leave. This demonstrates a strong lack of self-awareness. No the common denominator among all of this is the same toxic players.
-
1
-
-
We should definitely play some water maps so we are forced to make ships to help inform the ship on ship balance. It probably won't be fun, but it would be good navy is balanced upon a27 release.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I'd like to be able to make scout ship in p1. I think given how long p1 usually lasts, having an opportunity to "rush" on water would be nice. I think the details of which ships are too op/ up in navy fights aren't clear yet, but definitely ships need to be be killing fishing ships faster.
Currently the best way to kill fishing ships seems to be making multiple ram ships and one arrow ship. Since ram ships take all but 2 hp from fishing ships, you can task ram ships on different fishing ships and use the arrow ship to finish them off. As for the techs I think its nice to have potent techs that make an effect on a particular ship type, that way you actually choose which techs to get according to the naval strategy you are going for instead of just clicking almost everything like eco or land military techs.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
On overkill issue, I’ve already said how I think Tabasco’s idea will really only work for fights where armies are highly congested, so helpful but partial. Also, any effect will be shared across all range unit types, so skims/slings will get better at same time as archers. The magnitude might be different but I’m skeptical it will make a trash unit as good as skirms/slings.
Two variables are important for how the range precision affects overkill and unit performance. The ratio of range to target and target spacing (largest for archers), and firing period (biggest for xbows). These are not constant for ranged units so we can be sure that the change will affect some units more than others. I do agree that it will mainly be noticeable when battles are large and congested, but this is by no means a rare thing in 0ad. "on par" was in reference to the overall unit performance and not specifically the damage/walk speed values needed to achieve that parity, my apologies for not being clear.
-
14 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
But making archer dmg equal to sling or jav dmg is certainly wrong. Same goes for walk speed
I didn't suggest that either value has to be greater than or equal to corresponding slinger or skirm values. damage and walk speed are continuous variables here of course. Its good you bring up the crossbows because those are even more challenging to balance. I think real tabasco's thing with range precision could help them reduce overkill a lot.
-
@chrstgtrare you saying that archers are viable right now? Since sniping has been nerfed archers are now worse than they were before the melee rebalance. Its not a usage issue, people don't snipe because its simply not as effective. This is especially the case when you consider that melee units now do so much more damage and are worth killing. I understand being concerned with increasing walk speed of archers because that was one issue in a24, but there's been plenty of changes with turn times and acceleration since then so there's probably some walk speed increase that can work.
@ChronA as for the walk speed, the eco buff it gives can only be as big as the speed buff that we give them. For example gauls already have skirms which walk the fastest, so the eco won't be this drastic change that you suggest.
-
There is widespread agreement that archers play poorly since the melee rebalance mod. Prior to the melee rebalance, archers were bad unless players sniped with them. The melee rebalance effectively nerfed the extreme combat value of killing ranged units first, and this affected archers disproportionately since sniping was necessary to make them useful. We can always simply add some damage to make the unit on par with slingers and javelins, but there are more creative options that could lead to a better gameplay result.
- reduce slinger/skirm projetile velocities (this is different to speeding up archer velocities)
- increase move speed for archers
- + whatever people can think of
-
It would be interesting to show cumulative idle time of barracks, stables, and maybe civic centers in the structures tab of the results statistics. It would help inform players on how they can improve in some areas, especially when deciding between 1 by 1 autoqueue or manual batch training. What do you think?
-
21 hours ago, Atrik said:
Kindly reconsider. Crossbow champs are already an option for players that don't want to bother with pack time, no need make the bolts too similar to them.
Thats not a valid comparison because crossbow units don't deal pass through damage.
to be honest -50% would still be pretty long lol
-
1 hour ago, ShadowOfHassen said:
We need a better tutorial, to teach all these tricks. People really shouldn't need to go elsewhere to figure out the game's strategies.
I think a tutorial covering the basics is all that is needed. Sharing tips and tricks and helping each other learn is part of building a community
-
lmao welcome back!
-
4 hours ago, MarcusAureliu#s said:
A small but helpfull improvement could be to display hotkeys in the building menues, like it is done in aoe 2 for example. I am aware that building placement hotkeys are currently done by a mod, autociv which hopefully can be integrated in the game, but this could already be implemented for unit production.
This would make it so much easier to build or adjust muscle memory for using hotkeys. If you forget the hotkey or simply forget to use it you'll see the little "h" on the icon and be reminded of it.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, SKAcz said:
Thanks for mods, we will try it, i hope it will be easy somehow
Some people actually try to master challenging skills instead of just making the game easier. There's a lot of fun and re-playability in games where you can build skills to beat other players.
I'm not against automated features, I just think that ANY automated feature should remain un-optimized so that direct management and application of skill can outperform the automated features. For example, people laugh at how inefficient autoscout is in aoe2. The devs would have an easy time making autoscout highly effective. The reason they don't is so that players can build multitasking and prioritization skills that come with manual scouting.
-
1
-
-
On 19/04/2024 at 6:32 PM, Gurken Khan said:
but people have done the numbers and I believe the time/work ratio is only beneficial when the batch size is >17 or something.
If I remember correctly this is true with some caveats. His conclusion was that 1 by 1 is most efficient by resources spent and earned by the units trained. However he didn't factor in that accumulating unspent resources is another cost of 1 by 1, at some point in real games (as opposed to a math scenario) it becomes considerably better to make batches of 2-10 so that you can spend resources faster. If you do this your bigger population will cause your eco score curve to be faster than someone doing 1 by 1 even if the 1 by 1 player is getting a better return on investment for each unit he makes.
This is what makes progui so op because it makes sure all your resources are spent on the maximum AND most efficient production method (aside from the fact that you can completely avoid having idle time on your production buildings, which even the best players of 0ad can't eliminate).
-
1
-
Suggestions for 0 A.D.
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
If walls were more effective in slowing/stopping melee cav and more easily sealed, then it would justify an increase in the per wall cost (especially for palisades). This way you could have less wall spam in favor of careful base design and cost effective partial walling. At the same time I think having reduced build time for palisades and/or walls is a good option.