Jump to content


Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Yekaterina

  1. I didn't go into the lobby or check the forum for 3 months, then today I misclicked on a browser link and came onto the forum I wonder what people's reaction will be when I return... if anyone still remembers who I am....
  2. What are you working on now? Only Britain is my home.
  3. I was bored and sick and tired of arguing and playing imba games and OP unit abuse in the lobby. And all those smurf arguments. So I decided to quit this game and enjoy my life while I still can. But what's more boring is spending a summer holiday in Luxembourg locked up in a small flat. I can use this as an excuse to go deeper into France for some entertainment.
  4. @Stan` do you know the exact address? It's not too far from me so I can go there and take a look (the timing is also summer holiday for me, parfait). But of course, if I am allowed to go there.
  5. Race to the centre eae Seleucids are OP on this map: spam colony and cav
  6. Don't touch archers for now, play A26 for a few months then give your opinions. @Sevda stop dancing
  7. @Sevda Stop wasting time on 0ad and revise The full translation of AIEND's file is here I didn't read what's inside the document and I don't have any idea what you guys are talking about. I will check out A26 when it releases, otherwise I'm gone, and I don't care how you guys balance it because perfect balance is simply not possible with real humans behind the keyboard and 13 different civs. []=========================================================================================================================[] The core problem of 0AD is that some basic settings are in a half-assed state, which affects the overall improvement of various aspects, such as citizen soldiers, frontiers, stages, and heroes. I. Citizen Soldiers The original purpose of adding citizen soldiers was to merge most of the labor units and combat units in RTS into one category, simplifying the player's operation. However, it was not successful in the actual setup, and eventually gave birth to three types of laborers, namely women, citizen infantry, and citizen cavalry, plus builders like hired infantry, and even hired cavalry and champions and heroes who could not labor, which in turn made the original simple and easy to understand labor/combat unit dichotomy replaced by a more complicated and troublesome distinction system. At the same time, since 0AD is a game based on historical facts, and the citizen-soldier setting has a reliance on the premise that the basic soldier tree is common and consistent across factions, but this is not possible in the game. For example, some factions have archers and some don't, and the game is forced to make archers and javelin throwers equal in cost and weaken archer stats in order to maintain faction balance, resulting in subsequent games that add countries that have historically had higher military technology and only have bow-like archers will tend to be weaker in faction balance (e.g. Han and Xiongnu, Serbian species), whereas in a labor/combat dichotomy game, you only need to give archers higher skill requirements and higher costs to balance. In addition, in order to keep the types of resources needed to develop the economy less complex, citizen soldiers cost mostly food and wood, which not only makes it unfeasible to distinguish different classes of units of the same level by relatively scarce metal resources in other RTS (units such as javelinmen and gunners in Age of Empires that consume only wood and food are distinguished from swordsmen, archers and knights that consume metal with food or wood) This even leads to idle metal resources, as citizen soldiers do not conflict with mercenaries, and mercenaries that only need metal even become "cheaper" and become a balance breaker. The high demand for wood also leads to interruptions in town building and citizen soldier training, and the scarcity of wood has been particularly troubling for players in the past on maps that were poorly designed and scattered with trees. The current state of citizen soldiers, which affects the historical adjustment of soldier data and makes labor units complicated and resources spent singularly, is very costly, so with reference to games like Age of Empires and Age of Mythology, I think the following adjustments should be made. 1. add only the cost of food male and female civilians, can be the most efficient to complete the collection of various materials and engineering construction, with civilians to replace the opening given soldiers. 2. Adjust all infantry (except heroes) to "frontline builders", which can cut wood and build military facilities and even siege machines, and the labor efficiency will not be negatively correlated with combat experience. 3. Adjust all infantry and cavalry (except heroes) to "amateur hunters", who can hunt but can collect meat no more efficiently than civilians, and whose labor efficiency is not negatively correlated with combat experience. 4. Change the cost of citizen gunners, sword and shield players, lancers, archers and cavalrymen to food and metal, each with a different ratio of high to low. II. Frontiers The rise of countries with the same frontier concept, whose resources are non-consumable, requires players to control more resource points to achieve by limiting efficiency, so players need to keep expanding new towns to control more ground to improve collection efficiency and also increase depth, in the process, the cost of building new towns is also relatively low. The cost of building a new town in 0AD is unusually high, requiring 500 wood & metal & stone, a total of 1500, far more than the Office of the Age of Empires, Age of Mythology and Rise of Nations, resulting in a rare player building a second Office in multiplayer games. As a result, it is difficult for players to expand their towns to spread out their economic and military facilities and also to spread out their risks, and to build deep lines of defense to hinder enemy attacks, and they can only build the opening town and the only town as a "super city-state" and rely entirely on the army to protect it. Once the town is destroyed or lost, the player will never be able to return, as it will be difficult to rebuild the economy elsewhere, nor to rebuild the military and defense facilities quickly. Therefore, to solve the problems caused by frontiers, a decentralized idea is needed to improve them. 1. lower the cost of the Office and the colony, limit it to 600 and 400 resources (400 wood + 200 stone and 250 wood + 150 stone are recommended), not train soldiers, as a building that simply trains civilians and recycles supplies, reduce HP, attack and frontier influence, and no longer consider it as a fortress-type defense facility. 2. Granary and depot buildings for gathering natural resources such as beasts, berries, wood and metals, and stones should be able to be built in neutral areas as well as docks. This will first effectively use the rich food sources on the map, without having to bother to start farming in the opening game, and will also facilitate a more decentralized placement of mineral resources on the map, avoiding the collection of one or two rich mines to become close to a de facto "infinite". 3. Arrow towers, forts and walls for security and defense should be built in neutral areas, with forts maintaining a certain frontier area of influence. This way, players can block the passages between mountains and forests with few stones through the walls, avoiding the embarrassment of "surrounding one's town with a large circle of walls", and also weakening the role of carts and cavalry and increasing the role of stone throwers. It is also possible to build a "fortress zone" with well-defended and military training facilities, which can be attacked and defended, to improve the role of the fortress, so that the situation does not fluctuate greatly with the army fighting downwind & upwind. 4. Military facilities and temples, which are theoretically occupied, will not get out of control due to the loss of offices and forts, avoiding speculative tactics caused by "office decapitation". 5. Significantly weaken the occupation efficiency of soldiers, especially the cavalry should be less efficient than the infantry. III. Phase Due to the presence of citizen-soldiers, 0AD combines labor and soldier training together with the economic start-up-reconnaissance phase and the economic maturity-readiness phase. This results in a situation where 0AD does not have P1 in the usual sense (instead of P4 as some people think), but rather advances the next three phases, putting the content of P2 in other games at the beginning, where players start with melee infantry, archers and cavalry and most of the military training facilities, and compete from the beginning to develop the economy to maturity and readiness for war. Due to the aforementioned problems with civic soldiers, players' post-opening work is very complicated, and it is even more difficult for new players to master the skills of operation, so many players complain that they have been left far behind by veteran players in the process of P1 to P2 (actually P2 to P3), and therefore have to choose to start the war in P1 (actually P2) to have some possibility of victory (and also the only game experience). And as a rule, the work that players should do after the opening is relatively simple, there should not be too heavy work, should not allow players with different experience to be able to pull too big a gap between them through the operation, the game should be a process that gradually makes players tense up with the stage, not very tense at the beginning. It is because of the lack of P1 in the usual sense that the pace of the game is not only overwhelming for new players who are new to this type of RTS game, but also tricky for those who are used to other RTS such as Age of Empires - they can't touch 0AD, which hinders us from promoting 0AD and thus expanding the player base, so in this regard, we have to adjust the stage in terms of game pacing. 1. Set P1 as the economic start - scouting stage, this stage can only train civilians and scouting cavalry (to replace the original melee or long-range cavalry given in the opening), no longer able to build barracks, stables, arrows and soldiers, players can collect food from beasts and berries faster, and the resources needed to train civilians will not conflict with building construction, upgrading from this stage to P2 only requires food Cost, 600~800 food is recommended. 2. P2 is the stage of economic maturity and expansion, during this period you can build military facilities and train soldiers, and also build primary siege machines, such as punching cars and prowlers and both can be cheaper (prowlers can only attack buildings and machines with rockets), players will start attacking and defending at this stage and completely defeat other players, upgrading from this stage to P3 requires food and metal costs, suggesting 1200 food + 800 metal. 800 metal. 3. P3 is the stage where the battle is white hot, when players can use all their offensive and defensive means to fight fiercely against each other on a map that is already close to being divided up. 4. P4? After P1 has been properly set up, P4 will be worthy of serious consideration as a valuable late stage. This stage should not be set up just for the sake of being set up, and should not just move some of the original P3 content here, or extend some of the already long enough tech lines by another level (e.g. economy and shield tech). Instead, it should provide, for example, population cap increase, upgrade and direct training of advanced citizen soldiers, faster training of stronger champions, strengthening of siege machinery and defense facilities and navy, increase of trade efficiency, and other technologies (some of which should be gains that come with P4), with a suggested upgrade cost of 1500 food + 1000 metal. IV. Heroes The game's view of heroes is more akin to an RPG perspective, these people themselves become "super soldiers" who provide some limited range of aura, even though most of the heroes are actually the historical kings of the various factions, but in the game is reflected more of a warrior and front-line generals, rather than generally give them and leader status macro-global gains that match their leadership status. Ironically, however, this type of global gain is given to the same monarchs of all nations as if the king had no policy accomplishments while he was alive and only had some kind of spiritual power to bless the player when he died. The design of the hero itself is far from being tapped for its design potential than adding an unexplained hearse, or deciding the faction gain by choosing the leader at the beginning of the game (if these appear in the game, there should not be a hero that can directly come on the field), at least the following changes can be made. 1. the heroes including cost attack and defense and other basic data to keep the same as similar champions, so that they return to ordinary people, can be trained in the Office, and the player can repeatedly train them (after death or rather wounded retirement, you can train the same hero again and can not train other heroes). 2. Each hero has at least one global gain, now used on the hearse gain can be referred to (DE module in the opening selection of the leader gain can also be referred to), but also should distinguish the heroes into front-line heroes that favor a small aura to improve the combat effectiveness of soldiers, in the policy heroes that favor global gain, and even a comprehensive hero that has both. Different factions can favor having more of a certain type of hero according to faction characteristics, and choosing a hero also means choosing a fixed tactical route. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  8. Why not use my trees? The trees of 0ad can certainly be improved.
  9. We also need g=9.8 +-0.1 ms^-2 (to 2s.f) and not some javlins experiencing g=42 right next to some archers with g=17 nonsense
  10. I am for removing stables and putting cav back into barracks. Problems with stables: 1. Wastes space and nerfs cav strategies. If the enemy sees that you have stables then they know for sure you are doing cav, ruining the element of surprise. Also it makes switching between inf and cav and back too difficult. 2. Stables themselves are a liability. They not only cost more resources and time to build but also are easy to capture. Furthermore you don't always have enough space to build them especially when the host picks a pizza map
  11. So now I play a lot of Super Mecha Champions instead of 0AD, and I play(ed) both in multiplayer mode. SMC is a battle royale first person shooter with mecha battles, driving and anime characters. Now, I am a FPS pro so I get used to it very easily, but for someone who has never played either games: Both types of games require high actions per minute and fast reaction times 0AD forces you to consider more about strategy, placement of units, managing. You are the dictator and you tell your people what to do. SMC is more about cleverly positioning yourself on the map, picking the correct weapon and choosing which fight to get involved in. Players are the units. Both games require skills in fighting; SMC requires aiming skills, prioritising weapons / targets, whereas 0ad is about microing your army (commanding skills). 0AD requires eco skills whereas supplies in SMC are gathered easily in dropsites. Both games need time to gather resources / do eco. AI is stupid in both games (or maybe I am too OP at both ) Both games are in active development and both dev teams are good. Why someone would pick SMC over 0AD: 1. Larger player base - you can automatically join battle royale games 24/7, the waiting time is very short and if there is a lack of human players, a few AI bots can join to fill the gap and you won't notice them too much. In 0ad lobby there is much more waiting and in European mornings there are few players. 2. Insensitive to balance - good players win and bad players loose, obviously. Each match of 100 players is only automatically matched between players within a certain range of levels so there isn't too big a difference between you (e.g. level20-30 in 1 game, 40-60 in 1 game). This makes the game inclusive and there is no drama about imbalanced games or 'I don't know you'. 3. Less personal involvement. Solo mode (1 against 99 ffa) is very prevalent and there is no need to communicate in that. For squad mode, you can use set phrases, e.g. 'Enemies ahead!'. When you send out this message, it will automatically be translated to whatever language your teammate uses. Since everyone uses this type of set messages all the time, there is no such thing as profanity. You can add people as friends of course. You rarely see the same player twice so you will never 'know' anyone and hence you can't just guess people's playstyle based on the dude behind the keyboard - no smurf speculation drama. In 0AD knowing your enemy's playstyle is too important to your victory (whether they are rusher or boomer or turtle) so people always try to make sure they know who is behind the keyboard. 4. Hackers, smurfs, DDOS is less of an issue. If someone hacks and make themselves OP, then they will likely shoot anyone they see -> exposes their position -> all people target the hacker -> hacker dies quickly or gets weakened. Smurfs... using a smurf account means you have to start from scratch, from the very basic equipments and no upgrades -> smurfs can't play to the best of their skills -> not so much better than other noobs -> harmless. Therefore smurf speculation doesn't exist. DDOS is almost impossible because the server is in US and they have good defence (NetEase OP) so don't even think about it. But smurfs in 0ad can ruin games too easily; hackers and DDOSers as well. Why 0AD might be more enjoyable than SMC: 1. A lot of different strategies, maps and contents to explore. 2. Completely free and open source. SMC has a lot of paying involved if you want the prettiest skin or unlock the most OP mechas before you reach the requried levels. 3. Uses more brains and micro skills. 4. Opportunity to engage in long conversations with 'real' people and not some chatbot. (ignoring the few toxic dudes in the lobby) 5. Some people might have motion sickness or 3D thickness and feel dizzy after running around in circles for 10 minutes.
  12. Super Mecha Champions is an amazing game for free, available on Windows, Android and iOS Battle royale but with mechas, anime girls and transforming vehicles!
  13. That means an empty production queue, i.e. the building doesn't produce anything. If you want to train units, then: <ProductionQueue> <Entities data='tokens'> unit_a </Entities> </ProductionQueue> In A26 it will be replaced with <Trainer> tag
  14. Even Ptolemies look weak compared to these But I like the idea
  15. we can do a Newton II analysis of the situation: If the 2 white conditions can be satisfied then the witch can fly safely without falling off.
  16. ? New unit? Not sure if witches existed in 0ad
  17. Wei Qing hero is hyper OP. Must nerf him a bit. -10 health per second... put him with a few champ cavs and charge into enemy army , then all die in 10 seconds...
  18. That will be difficult. You can just disable the mod if you don't like the trees
  19. Today I experienced something like a DDOS when hosting a large TG. I managed to capture this screenshot wwhen exititng the lobby: What is XML parse error? Is this a DDOS? Note: my home network was disabled for 2 minutes after the game crashed, then it magically restored itself to full speed when I opened instagram
  20. The issue is, metal was scarce in A24 and the eco was slow -> mass champions was unaffordable -> few fire cav made. 5 fire cavs is not OP, it only becomes OP with numbers, 40 fire cav is enough to beat a full Ptol army, 120 is enough for 1v4. It's pointless to talk about A24 because the mechanics were completely differerent, not just stats. Indeed. Another thing you need to consider is: Britons have weaker defences - more vulnerable to rush -> less easy to get to P3 and gather enough resources for champion spam. In terms of attack, there are 2 differences between chariots and fire cav: 1. Lack of fire damages means they are only effective against units but not structures 2. The chariots are bigger -> steric hindurance -> less stacking efficiency -> more time wasted on pathfinding, getting stuck etc and less time fighting. The Briton chariots are very OP if the player does decide to use them, however, most Britons players don't or never get to a point where they can afford many of it. About the walls, they are just an annoyance to both the Iber player and any enemies especially in late game. Allied units often get stuck in the walls as well! In one game, my Iberian teammate died because his walls trapped my huge Ptolemies army inside and he refused to delete the walls. Berries and deers often spawn inside walls or gates and that will confuse the hell out of your units. Furthermore, Iberian structures look like slums... already favela without losing connection
  21. A winning game was lost because the iberian gates sucked my Spartan army into it then closed and my whole army was stuck in the cc fire zone. I couldn't move them out to help my allies and eventually they were weakened by cc fire and were cleaned up by a small contingent of Roman javs. This clearly isn't the intended mechanic. All of the units from the iberian side died and his eco was destroyed, and realistically, you won't let an entire enemy army of 140 units through your wall gate. So a fix must be applied or this civ has to be banned from TGs. Suggestion: 1. If you really insist on giving them walls, then make a new passability class of 'iber wall' and only give iberian units passability over the wall gates; all other units are banned from crossing. That should fix the issue. The we can add an Iberian team bonus of allowing ally units to pass through wall gates 2. Make the gates close instantly so that no enemy unit can follow through by accident. Currently, the Spartan army can follow 1 iberian woman into the gate and hold the gate open for the rest of the Spartans. If the gate closes in 0.0001 second then there is no chance any Spartans can get in. Otherwise, remove the walls and give them some other unique bonus (NOT FIRECAV NEITHER)!
  22. No idea what you are talking about. Wollolow is a 1500~ player who doesn't play on his main account anymore.
  23. I really like this. not sure if others will agree though
  24. My thoughts: Cataphract: slower speed, better armour, good against infantry, especially ranged infantry. Also good against other cav in close quarter combat but is not fast enough to beat spear cav. Chariots: mini siege towers that can shoot while moving, unlike regular cavalry archers that have to stand still before shooting. However, to nerf them, they don't target one unit but all enemies entities when fighting.
  • Create New...