Jump to content

badosu

Balancing Advisors
  • Content Count

    822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by badosu

  1. Definitely feasible, though I'd not personally use it.
  2. I don't understand this argument, do we have a weekly release or a way to get a recent-ish release in an easy manner? Otherwise I think this is mostly noop
  3. To be frank, all civs should have log-ram on phase 2. The fact we have to wait for phase 3 to have siege is a big issue imo in terms of pace. We should be able to have quick games without requiring a resign Then celts could have some op bonus for log-rams
  4. The preview must be an image crafted by yourself, it is also very buggy if you don't provide an exact format that the game expects (otherwise might crash the browser or bug the preview itself). On the map json you need to include: ` "Preview" : "<yourmapname>.png", ` and then provide the png on ├── art │ └── textures │ └── ui │ └── session │ └── icons │ └── mappreview -> <yourmapname>.png
  5. Some feedback there: > The biggest problem in this game is the networking. It seems to have the same sort of networking issues Age of Empires did before the HD revamp, except worse. Once you hit a 100+ units for each player, the gameplay slows down dramatically. If the multiplayer desyncs, the game is over and there's no way to continue. The unit pathfinding is pretty janky as well. > I've played it, we liked it, but the multiplayer issues made it a non-starter for us. And while other changes have been made, it doesn't seem like any real networking optimizations have been made in
  6. Also, biome features looks incredibly awesome in this release btw
  7. None of the issues I pointed out present on the replay are related to the terrains for that matter, in my opinion the bottleneck is somewhere else. Not saying there's anything we can do at the moment to address it immediately with the manpower we have, just pointing things out.
  8. My answer would be no until we have at least specs asynced, ideally with perf optimizations and network rework. Look at this post that is on first page on hacker news atm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26558180 My first idea of sharing gameplay was to post this video for reference: After inspecting it for a bit notice how much attention is brought to lag and having to kick specs, the trees inside walls, lack of hotkeys, having to use low graphic settings, etc etc... It was just embarassing, eventually I had to edit the post.
  9. More importantly it would tie in with how logistics were a great advantage for Rome, imagine making a forward cc and being able to deploy units faster, seems like a great idea to me. Keep in mind a side effect might be op traders and eco due to walk speed, so perhaps we should disallow the bonus for traders, women or citizen soldiers not in formation.
  10. look whos talking xD Yeah, I find the muting on certain words kinda silly but understandable, especially considering the most toxic behavior is able to work around that, just live with it I guess.
  11. Reinstala a bagaça com a versão estável, com certeza um bug na versão de desenvolvimento.
  12. - Go to your mods path (see here) - Remove any file or folder with balanced_maps or balanced-maps in the name - Download the latest development version: - Create a folder named balanced-maps and place the file there - ???? - Profit By the way, this is the development version, so if you're having trouble with this procedure (which I don't recommend if you want your 0ad clean of buggy code) I don't recommend proceeding. There are 2 fixes that still require being completed, a crash on map browser due to map icon loading doing huehue brbr stuff and the game stanza message
  13. Você está apertando ctrl+click?
  14. Not true at all, depends on mapgen and build
  15. Ok, I was able to reproduce, happens on Page 7. I can't identify why an asset might be causing the issue (slopes probably?), Cross loads without issues. Did the icon format change between releases?
  16. @naniI wasn't able to reproduce the error, though could be an issue with packaging (testing without the packaged version)
  17. Another interesting discussion is that we automatically predict a units position during targeting. On aoe2 for example this is a technology 'ballistics'. Not sure how much sense there is in having that as a technology but it is a good thing in terms of gameplay diversity.
  18. It is a contentious topic as the majority of players won't tolerate even the slightest micro to dodge projectiles (OMG U DANCING!!!!111onze!). At the same time reducing turn rate to a state where dancing is not extremely overpowered like before but allows players to get some limited benefit seems beneficial, at least in my opinion. The obnoxious issue was one single unit dancing (with patrol or not) targeted by all of the opponent's ranged units, that is what we want to avoid. In my opinion a limited version of dancing where that is not possible but allows for micro when raiding for exam
  19. @ValihrAnt@borg-We need to think less of stats balance in themselves and more on unit roles. In this case the melee role as meat shield or archer counter is preserved, it's still effective. The problem is that skirmishers now can't fulfill theirs (infantry support). So thereby I think buffing skirmishers in general in such a way that they can actually handle archers is better than nerfing archers, otherwise we just get back to that state where an army of 20 archers take ages to kill a single spearman.
  20. I like this idea, except cost should not be constant imo but also not high enough to not be cost-effective.
  21. One idea is that late game should have finishers or units that are way more cost-efficient than earlier phase units. Champs should fulfill that role in which a few champs should still be overpowered by citizen-soldier spam until a certain critical mass.
  22. Generally buffs are more desired imo for balance changes. In this case buffing skirmishers in general. Balance against melee comp seems good.
  23. Can't you see many issues pointed out are viewed as actual issues by the dev team as well? The thing is players will never know any work is being done, won't enjoy any of those fixes until the new release and will keep being disgruntled meanwhile. Having a more up-to-date installation channel addresses that issue. Frankly, after experiencing this development model somewhere else I can't understand how a collaborative development model can be sustainable without it.
  24. > but why would we if we just get told we're wrong by every dev that is on the forum? A big part of the balance work was done by Nescio, he has a lot of knowledge in this matter and might actually agree with you. With so many threads discussing the same thing with a lot of noise distributed along them I find it hard for all devs to have read all the suggestions and dismissed them. There's a place where visibility to dev team is more preeminent and a civil focused discourse can be reached.
×
×
  • Create New...