Jump to content

BreakfastBurrito_007

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by BreakfastBurrito_007

  1. what in-game problem does this lead to? Is there any unit that is OP because it shares siege damage? is there any siege unit that is bad because it shares the damage type?
  2. Perhaps to achieve this we don't need new damage types, but can just reduce crush armor of units that have high hack and pierce armor like pikemen, and reduce crush armor a little less for units like sword and spear inf and cav. We would need to keep in mind the effect of this on the effectiveness of slingers, catapults, and elephants.
  3. I think rather than making them worse than standard in p3 it would be better to have a better than standard p2. If brits are worse in p3 then it forces gameplay too much.
  4. @DizakaThat is fair as a justification for a feature, and I think it would be good if the extra damage was not problematic. At this point I am now thinking that reducing the damage might cause a headache later if we solve the meatshield based gameplay of a25. Pikes will get -2 pierce armor next alpha so we will see how this situation changes then.
  5. @Philip the Swaggerless if the britons were a civilization that developed rapidly, then you could give them a -50% phase up time and cost team bonus. To make use of its value, you would need to maintain close communication for rushing different phases, perhaps one player rushes to p2 another tries to go fast p3 and the other 2 borders rush from the start (of course it could be applied in many ways). There is much complaining about iber and ptol bonuses and I think there need to be more creative and particular team bonuses that indirectly foster teamwork and challenge the throne of the existing good bonuses. Perhaps a team bonus where men could farm would be cool too, or perhaps one that increases cavalry carrying capacity.
  6. Perhaps when there is a situation that calls for a vote, the vote can be mandatory for "Balancing Advisors" (perhaps with a reminder sent by forum message) and optional for others. Most votes on balancing discussions I have seen have very low participation. An example of a vote could stem from something people broadly agree on, for example: CS archer inf need a buff, vote for one of the following: return accuracy values to a24 add 1 or more pierce damage give them 1 pierce armor
  7. KD ratio is for people who can't divide kills by deaths in the units category. LUL. No seriously, KD ratio can stay even if we add value ratio or something like it.
  8. I think this would be good tbh. It helps show more relevant statistics for who won the game. It might help players improve too.
  9. I agree that a bonus against infantry is not needed in this case as there is already the damage advantage that swords have. Perhaps it is because people want to have a game and not a historical military simulation. I would not denigrate the people who have worked on the game far longer than you and who made those decisions about units. You are also quick to assume anyone with a differing opinion holds that opinion because of some mental deficiency. You seem to be ok that soldiers are born out of the barracks, so I don't see why this makes you so upset. Gameplay can't be reduced to waves of spearmen poking each other to death just because it is more realistic. @wowgetoffyourcellphoneI look forward to testing these changes if I can.
  10. I don't think thats what swordsmen were defined as in this discussion. In a25, there are situations where swords are better and where spears are better. The shorter sword is more maneuverable and it makes sense that it has a higher attack rate. Before tactics and formations are considered, which varied from place to place and time to time, it makes sense that a swordsman has a higher damage output than spearman. In one era and place it may be that spears were the more elite weapon, but the game is not modeled after one era and one place.
  11. The thing is, javelineers usually never range the horse archers. Javelineer inf are already highly effective at beating horse archers without the counter if the horse archers don't run away. This is a good example of a situation where counters don't provide a benefit to gameplay. An example of where counters would be a fantastic change: catapult bonus versus fort. ram bonus versus walls. both still do good dmg versus houses, production buildings, ccs ect.
  12. Perhaps, this is the best way to do those "anti building" units. Since you gave swordsmen a speed boost in your run-down, perhaps clubs/axes would not get that speed and instead be the same speed as other melee inf. I like these ideas and would be happy to participate in testing for them if it were a mod. Although I am a bit concerned about the extensive use of counters. Counters are great for particular unit roles, but I am not sure about creating particular roles out of originally multipurpose units, few civs get all of those basic units, so the problems of not having a counter would be very frequent. I also like the idea of champions not being massively powerful but closer to the skiritai cost/power proportion. Not sure how I feel about the population amounts, if it were implemented we would probably want to adjust house occupancy size and start using a bigger pop size in games. I do think pop capacity is an under-utilized balancing tool though. I also think a 1 population size for women and traders compared to 2 for inf would cause them to dominate eco in all games, turning matches into raid-offs. kiting effect sounds OP and/or artificial. I think people cause enough frustration with manual control of those.
  13. Its a lot easier to understand why slingers have crush damage if you understood or had any appreciation for the gameplay role they play with their unique ability to take out light structures from a range. You can't just come in to a game and say everything is wrong because you have an idea about what is "common", as if that is some great merit. While I like the current damage system, I would not be opposed to counters for particular situations. For example: palisades can hardly be used to slow down melee cavalry to stop raids, therefore give 0.3x counter for melee cav vs palisades.
  14. @LetswaveaBook with full upgrades the difference grows to 4. So in late game and in meatshield scenario (where skirmcav are used as inf), the skirmcav would need very few replacements (theoretically 0) and the enemy would need more meatshield replacements (more resource costs). I think seleucids and kush have had the most success with this because they have both pikemen and skirmcav. These are the civs that I have seen use this unit combo in this way. Sorting the armor around was my best attempt to accomodate the -2 pierce damage versus ranged units (+1 pierce) for maintaining their overall power while also making it a bit more susceptible to spearcav and swordcav (-1 hack). Of course these stat changes are just me thinking out loud. But certainly something feels off with the unit when its used as infantry.
  15. This is something I have suggested before. 0.3x multiplier versus melee cavalry damage to palisade walls. I think it is currently too easy to raid with cavalry and the counter play is usually to make your own cavalry. Players often build palisade walls to restrict movement of raiding javelin cavalry, and this works fairly well. The issue is that sword cavalry can take down palisades so quickly that infantry can hardly catch up to deal any damage. Making palisades able to slow down all varieties of cavalry within the base would allow palisades to be genuinely useful. The counter would not make palisades OP of course and it would not make them frustrating in late game (a24+pathfinders). Melee infantry would be a better choice to break palisades in rushes and so it could give some value to infantry rushes (they have been bad in a25).
  16. I think these are great changes to be honest. The distance/gain relationship seemed really strong on the occasions where I have used trade, which becomes frustrating when territory restrictions come into play (like for market placement). I am not sure how strong the overall gather rates tend to be currently but I think it would be nice to see trade be a little more competitive with worker gather rates, but not faster. Being able to trade with ccs would mean you don't have a catastrophe if your ally won't build a market or dock.
  17. Units that have crush damage as part of their attack are quite weak due to their overall dps being reduced versus regular units. What if we reconsidered the crush armor values of some units rather than them all being 20?
  18. @LetswaveaBook @Stan` @wowgetoffyourcellphone @PyrrhicVictoryGuy @real_tabasco_sauce and I did some testing and thinking about the units. As numbers of melee increase between opposing armies of skirms and skirm cav there are more surviving melee on the side of skirm cav. I think this is a good representation of the in-game effect that extra pierce damage on skirmcav has. I think the main reason people are replacing skirmishers with skirmcavalry is because they provide higher damage per population. Because of meat shield role of melee, a player won't have to replace the ranged units in their army as long as they have melee units coming in. Since skirm cavalry kill faster than an equal size group of skirm infantry, they are the better option since the extra food cost is easily recouped in the form of extra melee units killed on the enemy side. Because of this, a player who has cavalry and melee inf actually spends less resources in the long term for an equal population army despite having the more expensive unit in upfront cost. Since javelin cav are not OP in some other scenarios, I would suggest removing the extra pierce damage and adding +1 pierce and -1 hack armor. This avoids nerfing the unit overall and makes them perform worse versus spearmen and melee cav (complaints of a25 mention melee cav struggling to beat javelin cav) without buffing those others. It also solves the situation where they are the best "meatshield killing" citizen ranged unit like I described above.
  19. Actually, this extra hack armor might be one thing that makes them way better against spearcav and swordcav than people expect. What do you think about reducing the damage plainly by 2 like I suggested earlier? I think this would solve the problem of them being used as infantry, since this would make them no better than skirmisher infantry when both sides have some melee infantry units to tank the damage (this is the situation when skirm cav are used as infantry). I also understand the case for increasing pierce armor like you said and bringing their hack armor to 2 or 1 while decreasing hp. I do think this is a more complicated set of tweaks and I would be concerned about getting it just right. It also does not address the damage of the unit and I think this is primarily what drives people to use them in place of infantry skirmishers.
  20. @wowgetoffyourcellphone the main thing is that they have the extra pierce damage. I can understand the extra hp for jav cav since they should be running around raiding or part of cavalry armies and this means they take more damage from defensive structures and enemy units than infantry skirmishers. I don’t think the attack types are a big issue, it’s just too much for skirmcav. And we need to nerf them in a way that encourages ideal cavalry usage, rather than letting the unit be universally better in every situation.
  21. AFAIK the only nerf for merc cavalry has been raising their cost to 90 metal. Is this enough of a nerf or do they need a nerf to their actual battle capabilities? (I think we could reduce mercenaries experience gain rate, maybe even just for cavalry) I also am now of the opinion that CS cavalry skirmishers are a bit OP for their cost. The main challenge is that they are OP in late game where economies are fully developed and food is highly abundant. Their advantages over skirmisher infantry are great enough that players simply make them as a superior skirmisher, ignoring their mobility advantage that is the main attraction to cavalry. they have 2.2x the health of infantry skirms (with hp upgrade)+2 pierce attack and 3 hack armor instead of 1. All this comes at the cost of only 50 food. In the late game, attack upgrades only increase the gap in capability. I argue that jav cav should be stripped of their +2 attack. This difference grows to about +4 when upgrades are considered. Other cavalry cases: spearman—> spearcav +.9 dps , -1 hack armor, -2 pierce armor. 1.76x hp I think removing the bonus damage of skirm cav would be appropriate. It would encourage players to make use of the extra 50 food they invested in their unit, and discourage them from being used simply as infantry skirmishers despite their speed advantage. I don’t think this would make them unfeasible as rush units since they are still easier to mass because of hunting. And there is still the huge amount of HP of course.
  22. What is your least favorite balance thing in Aoe2? I saw a video from Spirit of the Law where he talked about how attack-move might be a bit op. He said it gives so much extra speed to archers while they move and shoot that it makes it too hard for them to be targeted by melee pathfinding.
  23. Yea. I agree the similarities are definitely not enough to argue ripoff, especially considering these things have been discussed as concepts in probably a few games. Seeing a few of these things in the same expansion was pretty interesting though.
  24. Some interesting similarities to 0ad things. In the video there are: buildings to build along trade routes, which heal and speed up traders. Garrisoning livestock in mills to generate food at a slow rate. Rath Chariots (can switch weapons from archer to swordsmen) elephants that are used more as rams than general battle units. Hmmmm. Tell me what you think.
×
×
  • Create New...