vinme
-
Posts
384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by vinme
-
-
that is all.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Then make it slightly longer building time.
Ptol used to require a different play style that many people could not keep up with and resulted in players getting “housed” constantly. Ptol right now is just easy.
I don’t know what the answer is, but what we’ve had since a24 def isn’t right.
sure, if you make it longer, then its fair but unique, i still prefer my idea tho, since itll be hard to estimate proper rate, maybe test house making? like 10 men, cutting wood+making house vs 10 men making pto house for 3-5 min, compare, adjust, repeat?
-
11 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
Buildings might have not cost resources, but just for houses I needed more than twice as many builders to avoid getting housed; I always wondered if the balance was positive compared to regular build times / resource gathering.
its difficult for me, as someone not very good at math(which pains me every day) to estimate cost of build time vs cost of res highly accurately, but from what i recall, the buildtime cost added, was minute, in relation to already existing 30 sec buildtime of houses, was it 20 sec added? thats maybe very roughtly 20 res. so 105 vs 50, theyd have been half the cost.
main limiter was that with more you build, less efficient the building time but as it is rn, most players build small houses by 1 unit at a time anyway, or at least aim to do so as it is most efficient, considering res cost/low(30 sec) build cost.
generally higher the build cost, in relation to res cost, less units we use to build, and ofc higher the total cost, the more we use, to get the said building ready faster(capitalizing faster on investement, at a cost of more builders)
given small houses are cheap in both of those things, we already build 1 by 1, so theres no compromise for pto, and adding 1 more, 2 more, even 3 more reduces efficiency negligently, on those occasions of error, which never happened as youd spam 500 placemnts since they were free, and totally forget about them more or less throughout all of the game.
-
11 hours ago, Kampot said:
No need separate just 4-5 herous available but maximum to be used per game 3.. so we can keep these 2 totaly useless herous and maybe get some finally adequate. So naval will get untouched. Also other civs can get some "naval or similar useless bonuses for theri 4th heroes"...
naval balance is totally separate from regular balance, and it can never be mediated, so yes its better to have 4th naval hero for all civs or something equally useless like other athen hero with 50% caputre resistnace, 0 loot for enemy and tech cost reduction/resarch time reduction.
-
11 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
I would just revert to the way it was in a23. We know that worked and it was unique.
Or are you asking a different question?
pretty sure it was even more op then, becuase buildings were free.
-
12 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I have not seen very many battles where both players are sniping ranged units. In such a case I would predict that melee units rank and dmg would be more important. I agree that the two new Athens heroes bonuses are not very powerful and could use a buff. perhaps the xp bonus could also boost friendly units xp while denying enemy xp. XP does boost ranged units more than you think, an HP boost puts them from a 2 shot kill to a 3 shot kill from crossbows which almost doubles the time to kill. -15% tech cost could maybe be increased to 20%, it won't help that much for the blacksmith or eco upgrades since a lot of those would come before the hero, but it would help more for expensive things like will to fight if a player decides to get it. (I predict if the research buff was good enough, a player would make the hero, get upgrades, delete him and then get iphricates in time for the main fight).
To be honest, Iphricates is a very powerful hero, so I don't think the new Athens heroes should be equally powerful as him.
Dont get me wrong im not saying that "they are not AS powerful" which may imply they are at least half as good, im saying, they are not even 1/10th as good, jsut to get the perspective right.
Idkw hat sinping had to do with anything, or mele units rank/dmg.
again, 15% , 20% , 50% doesnt matter, still too weak, you go p3, you must get the techs, asap, not in 1.5 min it takes to make building+get hero to use.
So dont misunderstand me, im not saying "it wont help that much, with blacksmith/eco techs" im saying it wont help AT ALL, 0% help. ALL OF THEM come b4 hero, except maybe arseonal techs, but no1 uses those.
things like will to fight? what else is there like that? again, sparingly used, and only other thing is wonder, even less used.
and 800(15% of 6000 for will to fight), irrelevant amount of res for hero bonus.
even if it wasnt so, and hero was gotten at p2, 15% is still very small, you get maybe 1000 res in value total.
-
12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
@Fabius I Iike the general idea, but I think it requires new unit models. As for the building to train them, fortress could work, maybe barracks. I think a p2 fortress honestly wouldn't be all that bad, but others might want them trained from CC or barracks.
It would also be wise to avoid too much overlap with heroes because of additional stacking of bonuses. Movement speed is good, building, and some minor attack bonus sounds interesting
@chrstgtr what should be the % increase in house, storehouse, and farmstead building time? I think 40% would be too much. Maybe 33.3% more so 40 seconds build time?
maybe @vinme has an idea here too?
I think this should still be a net buff for ptol, just not quite as OP as it is currently.
i like my idea of making them easier to capture, as well as increasing cost. Eco bonus, miltiary weakness.
Thinking about it now, making lets say 15% cheaper, 15% less builditme, but 40% less hp 40% faster capture is fair.
-
On 11/10/2022 at 6:00 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Yes. My understanding is that the purpose of this mod is to fix things that are technically broken (rice upgrades) and make balance tweaks. Not change the game play of the alpha.
I think it is good that rams have slow turn rate and acceleration. In this alpha it is harder for melee units to attack fleeing units. They approach, slow down to attack, but sometimes do not attack because the fleeing unit maintains it's speed. I don't think unprotected rams should be able to escape the enemy. (Unless they are my rams of course).
These seem fine to me. Because they are never used anyways and the bonuses they would get are not top tier, I think it is okay to add to this mod.
I don't know... Maybe if coupled with a decrease in the rank up bonuses. They become incredibly strong at rank 3 with techs. I'd probably leave it as it is. I don't think this is needed to balance.
This seems beyond the mod's scope, if I've understood it correctly.
Iphicrates is very strong, however his bonus is a formation bonus. That means that if the enemy targets him and you try to run him away, the formation loses the bonus. Aura bonus heroes can flee or stand behind all the units, and the army retains their bonus as long as they are in range. Therefore if Iphicrates' bonus is reduced I think it should become an aura bonus. However, I kind of like the uniqueness of him having a strong formation bonus, as it is.
healers arent op at rank 3, they are not viable even at rank 3, thats the issue, and the challenge should be to rank them up, as you get stronger/more valuable units more you fight. Id like if in tgs for example, people who fight a lot, get stronger army, than those who dont.
yes the formation hero is fine as is, vulnerable and also formation can be difficult to manage, which is a cost of sorts.
-
On 11/10/2022 at 9:33 AM, chrstgtr said:
Pericles temple cost goes from a 25% discount to a 15% discount.
Themistocles goes from a 50% speed bonus to a 15% speed bonus.
I misread some other ones, so that's my fault.
But like @Darkcity said, a lot of the problems with one of the heroes results from the prevailing non-naval gameplay.
After a closer look, these may be fine. But I don't know.
what do you think about separating "naval" and non naval maps being separated by some class system, so that civs only get "naval" heroes, when played on naval maps, the naval heroes replacing regular ones.
its hard to balance, When making civs naval/non naval as then map defines advantage, and no1 plays naval maps rn, so naval civs just become weaker.
Maybe another parameter could be for naval hero unlock as "must make x number of docks"
and have no replacement system, just naval heroes being 4th ones that can be unlocked.
i think its a waste to have naval heroes taking up space when theyll never ever get used, on reuglar maps, and will always get used every single time on naval, just becuase of how op they are there.
-
On 11/10/2022 at 9:15 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
what is this logic lmao.
@Darkcity, @real_tabasco_sauce's solution to the naval hero was to add a bonus that works on land too, so that the hero can be used in either situation so that map generation won't make the hero totally useless.
Cheaper walls? no1 uses walls rn, altho could work, if naval map, and already gives value, otherwise no1 will use this hero.
it can work well with athen neutral walls to block off chokepoints(too expensive elsewhere) but ofc this is not justifying cost of hero, when you can get 3 armor one, which is 10x better, or more.
-
On 11/10/2022 at 5:11 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:
see above
based on the screenshots, both heroes will be totally useless so i dont see why you guys are working on that, except first one on naval ofc, but no1 plays naval rn. 15% tech cost and -50% resarch time is such a tiny advnatage, i doubt it even justifies building+hero cost.
Considering you must first go p3, make building, get hero, this takes so much time(by then you have p3 eco techs unlocked, if you are going for boom option, otherwise why p3 and idle that 1.5min or however long the building takes to build+hero takes to unlock) and all this cost, for nothing, compared to getting +3 armor hero.
by the time hero comes out there are no techs to get, even last p3 military techs, will be gotten or if you wait it out, youve just fallen behind, so the 50% less resarch time is irrelevant, if you waste 3X that long.
15% cheaper if you hope to use on castle, that is -675 res, again why waste hero for this, all that time unlocking and the cost of hero+building for nothing.
denying enemy the loot is also an irrelevant stat, considering, you have this useless hero, and enemy has a good hero.
loot only really matters if dead even exchange, but if enemy has better hero, hell get a far superior exchange.
The 50% capture improvement, again is a "utility" type of advantage not power/eco direct advantage, it will rarely matter, compared to 20% dmg hero for example.
I like comparing to standard 20% dmg boost of army hero, any hero bonuses, to think if they are op/weak.
this one is maybe like 3% dmg hero, id take a 4% dmg hero over this one, every single time.
XP also doesnt matter rn, in direct battle units die way b4 they can get xp(mele units), and ranged get small advantage over long period of battling/killing that gets negated by their inability to work as efficiently.
In raiding, it matters, a small bit, as over time you can retreat, heal, repeat and get maybe 10% of army on rank 2, again tiny small advantage, totally insiginifcant. If you can get so many kills, while your units dont die, that they get promoted and get a relevant power boost, youve won the game with 10/1 kd anyway so it doenst matter.
I wish XP requirements would get reduced by like 5X, would make the game somewhat more interesting.
-
1
-
-
On 11/10/2022 at 1:36 AM, Stan` said:
@vinmeany objections to that one?
no, stronger siege/ele seems fine to me.
-
13 hours ago, Stan` said:
yeah, idk how i missed that, albeit havent seen him around
-
Its very difficult to find fresh vs fresh 1v1s by high level players, as the players are so rare, and rarely come online, some stop playing alltogether.
Im making this forum post so ppl can arrange games/coming online times if they want to.
If ive missed any 1800+ players, ping them below please.
So if you wanna play at X time window in the future that you are free at, post here, and ppl can come here to check when next gathering or schedule(s) is/are, posted by som1, or post plans/intent themselves.
This way we wont miss eachother, and tire out playing less compettetive games, becuase we can never know when som1 challenging is coming online.
Hope this raises 1800+ 1v1 counts.
@ValihrAnt @Feldfeld @Stockfish @LetswaveaBook (ping weirdjokes, if know forum name pls) ..wow cant even recall any other currently active 1v1 player who is 1800+
Gif for visual representation:
maybe in the future we can all have own forum posts, that we update, that show our free time, and i could link them all here, but too far fetched rn.
-
3
-
-
difficulty of using rams/ele is part of their balance at this point, theyll get stronger if easier to use.
I cant understand what the pericles/themistocles changes are, only thing that link shows is "reduce bonus by 10%" or something, id what bonus, etc.
but id say fixing useless heroes would be the easiest and most effective way to improve civs.
healers, good idea, 100 food 25 metal still seems too expensive, try 75/25.
I think moving second blacksmith techs to p2 is a very bad idea, for exactly the reason novax explained, as justification for doing it.
It is good that people can gain balcksmith tech resarch initiative thru p3 ing, theres barely any incentive to p3 early, its too expensive otherwise, and the value of p3 eco techs comes very late, one can p3>make siege>atack and get way better value through it.
Dont nerf iphricates, horrible idea, it is only thing keeping athen somewhat viable as civ.
pto merc cost hero change to -35% train time will make it 100% useless.Considering its huge cost+ training from castle.
Even if its 70% less traintime, will not be that strong, maybe equivlanet to 7.5% dmg hero in value, after its made but you basically save lets say 1000-2000 res at 250-300 pop from traintime cost reduction as mercs already train fast(not many baracs needed), so you save some barac cost/colony cost. But castle cost+buildtime AND hero cost + maketime remove any value from it.
honestly i dont see it as very broken, if merc inf just get increased cost of 10-15 food, this gives the merc hero op ness by making already op mercs.
One sacrifices abiltiy to have stronger army by standard 20% hero, so even if units are cheaper, its ok as youll lose about as much, if not bit more advantage, by fighting 100 vs 100, while enemy has 20% more dmg, causing decisive loss for you, even tho your units cost less, and even tho you repop easier.
this is considering, castle sourced hero, slows hero arrival considerably, so theres not as much time rn, as from cc(fastest hero train source). It was broken b4 hand, you could early p3, get hero in 30-50 sec, and mass cheap af mercs starting rly early, compounding the advantage.
what does need nerf, i strongly believe, is 40% hp pike hero, very op i dont get why +3 armor hero should get nerfed for otherwise useless/very weak civ like athen with weak eco, weak versatility, weak/empty everything, while op pto gets to keep 40% hp pike hero.
reduce 40% by 10% at least, maybe 15%. so 25-30%.
-
no, halberds are too strong, you have to see the full picture when balancing, you are balancing a civ, not a unit, remember that.
For han they are a nice special unit, +40% dmg, -2armor(from original a25 pikes) pto is already packed to the brim and overflowing with all 3 parameters of op ness, Military Power, Eco and Versatility.
id say 7 pierce(-1 armor from current 8), 6.5 per 2 sec(vs 5 b4 , so 30% buff) is fair, keeps unit special, ie +2 armor, less dmg, 10% slower. Keep in mind, with this model, halberds would get 50-55% buff to dmg, not old 40, so would be just 20-25% more dmg, than pikes.
the thing is, with the way fights work, to keep things reasonably balanced, because in fights even slight advnatage will produce immense results in the end, we cant give crystal clear specialties/advantages to unit, so much so that any noob can tell that they are clearly winning, even outnumbered like 95 vs 100.
The advantages/specialties must be so tiny, that they only make a difference when things are really dead even, which makes them functionally irrelevant and invisible to anyone not high level.
so 20% more dmg, to a unit that has least relevant stat being dmg, ie pike, is fine.
I think having even more atack, for halberds, becoming like pike/spear hybrid, is fine also, but then what about range? what about movement speed? also inbetween?
Also, why no hack nerf?
-
Id advise, to remove 1 more armor from pikes, but add 30% dmg.
this was my original advice on pike fix, for a26 ie from 10 to -3 and +30% dmg.dmg part is very important, as it is rn, i can snipe ranged inf, with my mele AND ranged inf togehter, totally ignoring pikes, this gives slight advnatage, to me as spear/sword civ, i believe, if i get mele dmg techs, especially.
pikes can be ignored, and because of collision circles being small, they really dont blockade much space, to deny access to ranged for my mele, without unreasonable numbers.
-
1
-
-
Make ptol "cheaper buildings" have proportionally less caputre points, so 35% is the amount i think, the cheapness gives op broken eco boom, coupled with food trickle early on which is less relevant, at least this will give some logical/reasonable cost since hp is already affected.
so storehouses, farmsteads houses.
Id even strongly advise, to make this advantage smaller, to begin with, maybe halve it at least, to 10-15% cheaper.
It really is an overly unfair advantage.
Make mele dmg techs affect war elephants, since ele are soldiers, get affected by armor techs, so i dont see who not mele tehcs, also im 99.9% sure this is a bug to begin with.
-
1
-
-
manor lords looks really cool, ive only played a few games past years, im thinking of getting into it, even just for tetris worldbuilding aspect.Will it be expensive/demanding on the PC? @ValihrAnt wanna do gameplay video of manor lords, co-comentate with me? I can do your accent 9/10 if we do so.
-
On 03/10/2022 at 10:52 PM, LetswaveaBook said:
I tried to host a tournament (to be precise: I tried to host the biggest tournament of 2021) and it failed. I wanted to give players the responsibility and the ability to find their own schedule.
However after a while, I was busy with work and didn't visit the lobbies enough to encourage players to play their rounds and the later rounds didn't get scheduled.
So either you need to have strict laws about who to boot if a match isn't played, or dividing players into a (small) league would a solution (or possible multiple leagues). If there are irresponsible players in a league, it is easy to kick them. Also in a classic tournament, you are supposed to meet one single opponent and it delays you if (s)he doesn't show up. In a league format you can move to the next round and play against the missing opponent later.
yes this could likely happen again, i warned about this.Altho 8 is a small number and i know most wouldnt abandon and such.
there needs to be public thread for scheduling, so everyone must make a reasonable effort(defined by aprameters) to arrange their game, and if they dont even comment, they can be auto kicked, 0 tolerance policy, otherwise delays, confusion, etc will overwhelm and slow the tournament.
i doubt anything will slow 8 player (small) tournament enough to prevent it from ending, but maybe itll be 2-3x longer than intended, worst case.
also weekly with bo1 rounds seems odd to me.
so itll last total 3 weeks? and so each player gets to play 1.5 game on average, or something like that, in 3 weeks, very slow, tiny action.
either way GL, hope it works out, focus on the arranging games being strict, clear, and publicly visible so no issues.
-
som1 told me it only affects han farmtech, but i realized also it prevents cav from garrisoning in barac, for example.
-
On 05/10/2022 at 12:17 AM, LetswaveaBook said:
I never tried hard in live and it never got me anywhere.
I can either tell you to push your limits, or that if you tried hard you wouldve been worse off, all depends on context, on what exactly you define "trying hard" as.
So you what you said could mean 2 totally opposite, things.
-
On 05/10/2022 at 12:33 AM, Norse_Harold said:
Is it acceptable to try hard to explain why one should not try hard? Or, would that also be trying hard? Then if we can't try hard in explaining why we shouldn't try hard then does that mean that the tryhards have already won?
No, overexherting is harmfull, and will only give net loss, if you are too stupid to explain something trying to do the impossible will only cause you to waste time and effort.
We can either explain it, or we cant, trying hard has nothing to do with improving the results, only worseining them.Also this is more so about multiple itteration of events, so it may work 1/10 times, but the 9/10 times it doesnt causes more harm than that 1/10.
In thinking not succeeding per 1 try is fine, as you can generally get some value out of it so after starting over or re adressing the issue you are a bit closer to solving it.
Also another issue is knowing your limitations, which is sometimes impossible without trial and error, so there is occasionally value in pushing the limit and failing on purpose if you feel you are ignorant of your limitations.
Try hards never win, they merely sacrifice what they were given by luck or life just to feel like they are in controll/accomplished something/deserve what they have.
-
So dont try hard, but if you have to try hard to succeed you have already lost.
All that does not come fluidly without overextention, overexertion defines your limitations.
Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
yes, im also talking about the same thing, dont misunderstand i dont mean "they arent as op as 3 armor one so i am complaining" i meant they were unusable.
they have to be CLOSE to the 3 armor hero, in value, otherwise no scenario will justify their use.