badosu
-
Posts
859 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Posts posted by badosu
-
-
Balearic slinger should be champs tho :-)
-
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? -
@naniI wasn't able to reproduce the error, though could be an issue with packaging (testing without the packaged version)
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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 example is beneficial.-
1
-
-
@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.-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
Alternatively, something like a eco techs with the same cost and a 15%, 20%, and 25% collection rate improvement could make sense.
I like this idea, except cost should not be constant imo but also not high enough to not be cost-effective.
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, borg- said:
Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.
Generally buffs are more desired imo for balance changes. In this case buffing skirmishers in general. Balance against melee comp seems good.
-
5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Just like devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say feedback is procedurally wrong and doesn't count because it isn't written in the right place.
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. -
> 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. -
15 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
These complaints I have been repeated many times over on the forum but never seem to be addressed beyond being dismissed.
Forum is not the proper place except for informal discussion, you're basically waiting for a dev to read your comment and decide to work on it?
Feel free to suggest a fix on https://code.wildfiregames.com/ . E.g. "Decrease build times dues to ...", attach a replay and gg -
I don't think you understand we're on the same side here, we know civ differentiation needs to be improved, that bug was reported and should produce a ticket to be fixed, etc etc..
How are we going to test this? After 6 months?
I will state for the last time: have some way to provide frequent fixes/balance changes weekly. If this is an alpha that should not be an issue. This should address most complaints.-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, BoredRusher said:
We all want the same thing : a great game.
We all have the same goal here. I just think we have deficient processes to provide successful releases, either an overarching informed design committee or a feedback-cycle powered development process. Neither of both are present.
And yes, if there are bugs surely they need to be fixed.
What I mean are things like general sentiments about gameplay without an established meta, while valuable themselves in some way they don't provide actionable information. -
To be fair, no suggestions for improvement or a qualified argument was presented. The closest one being stalemate on team games.
One can for example provide a suggestion to have units deal more damage or champions being more powerful on late game as finishers, there are many ways to address the issue (if there's such an issue), none were presented. -
Weekly lobby would address these issues imo, accompanied by a better way to discuss with devs (discord channel with slow-mode on perhaps?).
And yes, generally I agree balance changes are something that takes a while to settle before any conclusion can be reached while at the same time I also agree that we'd require some better communication. -
That's the idea
Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.
There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.
Making a weekly update that includes the new changes would be awesome, or at least in an alternate lobby/installation.-
1
-
-
I guess there's some confusion with terminology.
I'll make it simple: if you can test the gameplay/balance changes for the next version you can provide feedback that it's less fun and avoid issues with the new release. Does that make sense?-
2
-
-
That is an incredibly puzzling post. But ok
-
Maybe having infrastructure to test balance changes in next alpha more frequently would help?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
they were not very strong historically as they were often recruited from the poorest citizens due to low cost.
True
7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:Therefore we should lower the cost of training each slinger to compensate for low attack and armour. A sensible cost would be something like 5 stone and 20 food and 10 wood each.
Slingers were really not that great, it takes a lot of training and skill to be able to use a sling effectively over a certain range. I had this idea where you could spam slingers well but they'd be incredibly inaccurate and squishy. They would be ineffective for the population cost but great at early game harass. Perhaps a nice way to differentiate britons and gauls further, tying to their current early game strong late game weak idea? (cc @borg- @Nescio)
That said I reserve the right of balearic slinger champs to be OP7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:This would highlight their superiority over archers in shorter range combat while keeping them inferior to spearmen in melee combat.
I agree with skirmishers being able to handle close combat better, which stat can best balance that I'm not sure.
-
A saying as old as the internet itself: don't feed the troll.
As for banning, I don't feel strongly either way, I certainly like the lackadaisical approach that we have currently but I've been on the receiving end of the trolling itself.
I feel the bigger issue is more about the extremely low quality content and signal-to-noise ratio. Especially considering we have to read that crap, and that only people involved in development effort itself can truly appreciate what has been done (tks @borg-@Nescio the whole 0ad dev team and reviewers @Feldfeld @ValihrAnt).
Even not polished feedback from players is welcome, and even with a certain level of salt, it's at least legitimate.
Just a soft-ban on certain subforums (that require some level of intelligibility) would be enough in my understanding, they can still trash talk anywhere else.
(PS: I don't want this to takeover the discussion, just my 2 cents)-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Archers Overpowered?
It seems to me we should have more well-defined roles for javelins and slingers given the results? At closer range I'd expect for javelins to be way more effective, basically as skirmishers they should be more suitable for close combat (perhaps more effective at supporting infantry?). As for slingers, what role they could even have?
-
1
-
-
Copy-pasting A24 Invitational rules (RIP) if you find any use for it:
The tournament will consist of a Ro8 (Bo3), Ro4 (Bo5), Finals (Bo7). Both Ro8 and Ro4 will be done on a Saturday and the finals on a Sunday. So the tournament will last a weekend. If both finalists agree the finals can be scheduled to a better date.
Rules are simple:- First game on Balanced Mainland
- Each player prepicks a civilization before game, civs used in previous games can't be picked again
- Loser picks next map
Map Pool:
- Balanced Mainland (small)
- Balanced Hyrcanian Shores (medium)
- Wrench (medium)
- Cross (medium)
- Slopes (small)
- 2 last maps to be defined2 minutes ago, maroder said:Option 3: 1 game. All vs all. Last man standing.
OP! That would be certainly most entertaining.
Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
Not true at all, depends on mapgen and build