Jump to content

LetswaveaBook

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    382
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

LetswaveaBook last won the day on July 14

LetswaveaBook had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About LetswaveaBook

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

LetswaveaBook's Achievements

Duplicarius

Duplicarius (4/14)

300

Reputation

  1. These maps with unbalanced food resources are a choice. For competitive 1v1s I think this mod is fair. However if you want just a fun game, the normal mainland is fine.
  2. I like the idea of having Spartans in p1 and I think it is not problematic for balance. However what I consider a undesirable consequence, is that the Spartans then would only have a single type of champion and it is available in p1 Any ideas for additional champion units for Sparta or will it just be their current Spartiates?
  3. If I did not miss a step, this is what I did: Downloaded the code. Found the kushite architecture tech and changed its cost. inserted in the command line $ cd ./0ad $ svn diff --diff-cmd diff -x "-U 99999" > changes.patch That created a document changes.patch in the 0ad folder, which I uploaded to https://code.wildfiregames.com/differential/diff/create/ and now we have https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4310
  4. A new feature might make it easier for the AI to build walls. Whenever you try to build a wall, you can not build it if a building/obstruction is in between. If it would be such that if a building/obstruction is in between the endpoints, it would create two wall pieces: One from the starting point to the building/obstruction and one from the building/obstruction to the endpoint. For multiple buildings/obstruction it would work idem dito. That would also make it easier to avoid gaps. For the AI we then could just order it to build square walls around the CC and any buildings/obstruction in between should not be a problem.
  5. That seems like a mistake, especially if the fortress is garrisoned. That is a good ammount of champion cavalry. The issue probably is that you did not use them very well. They might lose to elephants one-on-one, but they have several other advantages. They can run around the opposing base and try to kill all vulnerable units that you see or capture building. 70 champion cavalry could fairly quickly be able to capture fully garrisoned towers even. What you need to avoid is to attack the elephants head on. If the opponent attacks with the elephants, you should use the cavalry to take out the supporting units. If the elephants are alone, you could defeat them. Could you share the replay on the forum?
  6. In 0ad cavalry is not significantly more effective against towers. Cavalry only has the advantage of being better at avoiding and running away from them.
  7. The asian elephants cost around 550 resources and are 6.5 times as durable against pierce damage as a CS pikeman. I don't think that they are hugely problematic. 40 Elephants is no small force. I assume it is more the size of the army that trouble you rather than the units. There are other strong options available and probably your friend would be as difficult to beat if he used different (champion) units.
  8. I would not blame you for accusing me of trolling, but I was serious about the 1 m^3. You found a source and the my numbers were a little off. In the linked article, we find infographic (part II - in dutch). The Netherlands produces 1100 m^3 LMRA (laag middel radioactief afval- low or medium radiactive waste), which is something that is created for medical isotopes, smoke detectors and other things. The production by the nuclear plant is 4.5 m^2 in the HRA (hoog radioactief afval-highly radiactive waste). So that means that it is 4.5 m^3 instead of 1 m^3. However the main bulk of radioactive waste is not highly radioactive and is not produced by nuclear plants. It has to be said that the Netherlands only has a single fairly small nuclear plant. There have been some hypothetical suggestions to store nuclear waste in some underground locations called zoutholtes in the Dutch language(In Dutch we have a few words that can both have its plural being written differently, so the plural of zoutholte can be both zoutholtes and zoutholten). I don't know the proper translation for that, but I think salt caverns could be accurate. I am referring to underground cavities that are the result of mining operations. Anyway, these underground locations are deep underground and also big enough to store a lot of stuff. So I don't think storing the radioactive waste should be a problem and this world would also be rich with other places where it can be dumped. The only problem is the Not-in-my-backyard issue. Even if location is safe, local residents could still be protesting against it.
  9. In the Netherlands we have a nuclear plant as well. It is awful that it produces about 1 m^3 highly radioactive waste per year! Every year radioactive waste will be produced. If it would operate 1000 years, we would need to find a cube with sides of 10 meters to store it. For the global population, it was super smart to rely on fossils (and aid to irreversible climate change) rather than producing nuclear waste. The @#$%ushima problem was also caused by cutting corners on safety. If you build a nuclear reactor in Japan, you need to be prepared for tsunamies and earthquakes. I believe this is what will happen whenever this debate starts. People like to do cherry picking.
  10. Is there all ready a bracket for the tournament? Can we play the games and send a recording or are the games planned to be live viewable? I could play some games on the 9th, but won't be online all day. Prizepool is not relevant to me.
  11. That seems like booming is not a lot of fun.
  12. I used to play almost solely 1v1s as I felt they are more competitive. Personally I don't enjoy games were 8 players boom, one is behind and his team loses because they are practically 3v4. I would not mind uploading the losses of my team, but as a bad team member I mostly feel that when my team loses it is because someone else let us down heavily (The game in which I wanted to delete 2 women and deleted 80 military units instead is one that I conveniently ignore). I also cast some interesting games on my youtube channel, but I don't envy casting long team games there. Neither do I want to overload @mysticjim e-mail. Recently I had some fun team games and I would like to upload some special strategies. I like to try some unconventional strategies, as just standard booming is just boring. A25 gives more room for full on cavalry aggression and that is a good thing. Game descriptions below if you are not afraid of spoilers: game2.zip game 3.zip Game 1.zip
  13. The problem with it being hard to tell how much rank units have gained would be easy to solve. If you select the barracks, you see the different unit types. By making it such that a rank 3 unit would be regarded as a different unit, this problem would be (partially) solved. It is indeed a slow mechanic. A nice experiment is the reduced xp for hoplites currently granted by the hoplite tradition tech. That means hoplites promote twice as fast. So by garrisoning your hoplites for 100 seconds, you get it from 0 xp to rank3. However I think it is most often better to have your hoplites work for 100 seconds. However for hoplites, it is not the worst thing you could do and players could experiment with this. Also when I rushed a bit and at the moment I considered that my cavalry would no longer be able to cause casualties, I tried during some game to garrison them. The cavalry gain about 25% in value after 150 seconds of garrisoning, which seems as efficient as hunting in the middle of the map. Though garrisoning for xp seems reasonable, in many cases in hindsight it would have been better to have them patrol (or hunt) in the neutral territory to spot any attacks or expansions.
  14. This is a very valid point. Howeverwhat storehouses and such represent in a historical sense is not really clear for me, so I would find it odd to base a bonus on that. Also a bonus that is not directed at any particular strategy feels bland to me. Especially the good justification is something I find problematic for the population on storehouse bonus. I agree with the statement, but our conclusions probably differ. Training Citizen soldiers 10% faster is a major boost. Not only could you produce more, but even when producing the same amount of infantry it has advantages. If you produce a batch of 6 soldiers, then the romans get the batch 4 seconds earlier meaning that they get to work 4 seconds earlier. That allows them to collect some resources (about 6*3) in the saved time and makes them about 3% "cheaper". So it is a very impactful bonus both for the extra units trained and the extra gathering. If I think of Roman advantages, I think of this bonus. So I feel if it was a civilization bonus, it would be fine. However since all their allies also get it, it makes it feel less unique. So in my eyes the bonus is not bad, but it should be a civilization bonus (and there should be a new fitting team bonus). That is true, but if we think about Rome, we do not think about a city that got sacked very often. 7 years of trouble for a period from 500 BC to 0AD is not that substantial and Athens seems to be a better candidate for being sacked/sieged (Who were sacked/sieged by the persia, sparta, Macedon and the Romans in the 0ad time frame).
  15. To be honest, the concept of buildings that solely function as houses, storehouses, granaries, corrals, forges or markets seem like a gamification to me. I tend to believe that many cultures grew some vegetables and had some cattle around the house. For houses we can say that people did not commute much and tended to live and work in the same building. The storehouse/forge also possibly overlap historically. Furthermore it seems plausible that cultures would not transport raw iron ore, but rather transport purified versions as they were considerably easier/cheaper to transport. It seems awkward to me to give a bonus on something that is a gamification to begin with. Neither do I think a market would really count as a building, rather it would be something that develops itself in an urban centre. I might have it wrong on the gamification element. If it is a gamification element, it seems weird to give a bonus on something which is a gamification element to begin with. Also I am not a fan of food related bonuses, as having food was important for all cultures. Romans do get the team bonus where they can raise armies faster. Judging numbers by battle records is tricky, but the Romans did not always have the superior numbers in battle. What characterizes the Romans more is that for every lost army they were able to raise another.
×
×
  • Create New...