Jump to content

LetswaveaBook

Balancing Advisors
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

113 Excellent

1 Follower

About LetswaveaBook

  • Rank
    Sesquiplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That´s very true, but we don´t see that in any aspect of the game.
  2. I am a fan of youtube channels as scola gladiatoria and metatron and they say that armor or weapons don´t slow you down considerably. I think the main reason why light/heavy infantry is understood to be more/less mobile is their role. A javelineer could run freely and does not require to keep an exact formation. For heavy infantry it is the other way around and I think it is especially this coordination that make the unit seemingly immobile as these soldiers can not act on their own. Armor slows you down, but the tactical part about coordinating a formation should not be ignored.
  3. When I made the title of this tread, I purposely made it bi-ambiguous. It could mean ¨What would happen if pikemen had their attack rate halved?¨ and then the video would be the answer: They would still be excellent target dummies and that is the problem with the meta. It was not meant to be a serious question of ¨What do you think about if pikemen had their attack rate halved?¨. I just wanted to say that their current gameplay role seems ludicrous to me. I think the art team makes the models based on history. As a community I think we could all help out by shaping the balance
  4. I think the problem is with the elephants. An Indian elephants can defeat 5 champion swordsmen. This means elephants are incredibly cost effective. I think it would be historically inaccurate to do this.
  5. In the game it is in reverse and it is easier to kill someone with a bow at 60m range.
  6. The actual point I was trying to make is that ranged units do the most damage and that melee units function more or less as target dummies. The problem is not with the pikeman, but with the ranged units. I think that reducing the attack of range units, you would also limit the power of a range+pike combination.
  7. In most RTS game, ranged units deal less DPS than melee units. In 0ad this is the reverse and by considerable amount, which is not historically accurate. If we watch in-game fights, we often see that the melee units are not in striking position. All of this means that most damage is done by ranged units, which is problematic for balance. This mod aims to reduce the DPS of ranged units such to encourage more use of melee units. In addition this mod aims reduce the effectiveness of turtling and to enhance the unique roles of each melee unit. Since ValihrAnts Train-Rotation-times mod was well rec
  8. I think it might be cool if we coupled this with making expertise in war a trade of tech,where expertise in war is 300m but gives you original training times. So now you have to chose between either lightning fast reinforcements or advanced rank mercenaries. I think both could have their charm. And once a game you could of course first train the lightning fast and then upgrade those you already have. I think this would be cool. If you have a super rich ally he could help you out at a hefty price, since they aren´t cheap.
  9. I think it was meant that ranged units are more likely to miss at large range.
  10. We were discussing on a similar matter on another thread called ´Balancing Citizen Soliders (long shot)´ I made this comment a then thought a little deeper. Currently the focus is to much on making citizen infantry. They cost proportionally most wood. The other options cost proportionally more food. So if we want to encourage the other options, I would suggest reduce wood gathering by a little (-10% or so) and increase food gathering(faster farming/cheaper farms/ cavalry carry capacity). Any thoughts on this?
  11. I don´t think it needs to be severely. In age of empires the devs gave the Franks civs a bonus that helped their eco by a little and gave them +20% HP to a unit they used only to rush in early game. Such a small change turned a bottom tier civ in the top tier civ. Balance is a super frail thing and even the smallest of changes can make a huge impact on which strategy is preferred.
  12. As I see things, we allready have the tools for creating booming/rushing/turtling gameplay Booming: the unit that does this are women. Turtling: This can be done by building towers and citizen soldiers. Rushing: This could be done by cavalry or p2 champions. The thing is that though we have the tools for it, it does not work out like this. That does not mean the citizen soldier concept is flawed, but rather that our citizen soldier concept is ill-balanced.
  13. The problem in RTS is that a better economy is always useful. So you can use the better economy for all of these strategies. That does not make it impossible to get good game design, but it needs to be considered. I wouldn´t like it if the choice you made in p2 would put you at an irrecoverable disadvantage. It could work this way to prevent so: In p2 you get the choice between 3 techs, one for rushing(more loot, more cav speed, better capturing rate), one for turtling(cheaper/free tower upgrades) and one for booming(eco upgrades cost 50% less metal). Once you reach p3 you get all of them.
×
×
  • Create New...