LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
On 09/01/2022 at 12:06 AM, cl2488 said:
Can you update the bracket to follow the progress of the tournament?
I can. Valihr and Berhudar finished their games as well, which now gives 6 completed series.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Also, large CCs means you can squeeze more fields around it - another benefit.
But Britons can do this:
That looks cute and other factions would need more walls to surround there CCs.
-
2
-
1
-
-
My assumptions:
Attack group would reduce micro, and allow players to use their units more effective.
Attack ground will in general be as difficult to use properly as manual targeting and it will generally be less effective as manual targeting.
3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Attack group:
-
Pros
- A little less micro, more easily manageable
- More use cases
-
Cons
- Harder to implement (i think)
Cons: More OP than BuildingAI (assuming moving+walking is fixed), which would be a gamchanger allready. Building AI targets units randomly, but with Attack group you can specifically target ranged units
-
Pros
-
I was thinking about an feature to allow the corral to train animals for free at a slower rate. I thought some time about letting players start with a corral and see if players would use it. The answer probably is no. This is a pity, as I think having the building should give some advantage and I dislike buildings that lack a competitive use. If players could train cattle for free, it would surely be an advantage to have a corral.
To let the feature work, the number of corrals a player can have is limited to for example 15. So let me give the numbers for an example
regular training cows: If you have 15 corrals and the tech, then you can produce 20 cows per minute. Each cow gives a profit of 150 food and each cow can be collected by 1 cavalry unit in 1 minute. That means you get 20 cavalry units making a profit of 3000 food per minute. In this case you need the food investments to create the cows this way, but you would need about 60 women to gather the same amount if you used farming. This is the option currently in the game and it is not a good way of booming
slow train cows: With the increased base training time of 400 seconds per cow, you would produce only 3 cows if you had the tech and 15 corrals. The profit that you gain per minute is 900 and you need 3 cavalry for this. To get the remaining 2100 food income, you would need extra women on farms. So you would need about 40 extra women with maximum farm upgrades for this.
So if we put a limit on the corral numbers, then both seem to have their advantages, giving 2 competing approaches or 3 if we take farming into account.
These numbers might be complete, as I did not account for investments. I will assume the cattle breeding tech is researched. In the regular case, you need to queu a cow in each corral, spending 150 food. So that is an investment of 100wood+50 seconds build time+150 food (for a queued cow)per corral+ 1.33 cavalry (total of 288.3 food+166.7wood+50 seconds build time) giving a profit of 200 food per minute. For the second example you need 100 wood+50 seconds build time+0.25 cavalry(total of 25 food+112.5wood +50 second build time) giving a profit of 60food per minute. equating 1 food= 1.5 wood=1.5 second build time food then the investments compare to 649 wood and 200 wood.( I am ignoring the fact that you sometimes need up to have 2 "cows at the same time" for 1.33 cavalry to continuously gather, one at the moment being queued in the corral and the other being eaten at that moment)
For comparison, if you want 3k food per minute income with p3 farmers, you would need 58 women on farms. For 5 women a farm will be needed costing 100 wood and 50 seconds build time and I will include the cost half a big house equalling 75 wood and 25 seconds of build time. Then 6 farmers cost 300 food, 210 wood and 90 seconds build time (=750 wood equivalent) and have 300 food income per minute for which you would need about 1k wood equivalent investment if you used corrals.
I have also to set up an early regular corral economy myself. Due to the high costs of getting started, it is not easy at all (partly because of this 2 cows at the same time issue). Also to get the corralling started you need a lot of food, but how can you afford that before you get it running?
Any thought on this free to train cattle idea?
-
An addition to the idea: Let the provincial center have less territory but be cheaper. If you want to get extra territory on the provincial center, you could upgrade it much like you can do with the sentry tower. Upgrading does off course have its costs.
-
3 hours ago, the-x said:
Since CC Radiusses dont become ever the border except for building the one fortress AND very late in P3 - we need to have more interaction with land, with spaces, now maps are to big, ressources are save and one player has to leave completely his own base if he wants to attack the other base
This is map dependent. In A24 wood was scarce in 1v1s and then territory would be important for control of woods.
I think it is important to distinguish between map issues and structure tree issues. Some issues can be solved by creating a different map. I think people would have experienced A24 entirely different if there was more metal on the map.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
No one does that once you’re fighting with more than like 30 units. It’s just not worthwhile because you can’t click fast enough to do that and all your other tasks in mid-late game. If you want to spend all your time clicking on 10 out of my 120 units then that’s fine. You’ll kill those10 units but you won’t have reinforcements because you wasted all your focus trying to click on 10 of my units while i spent my time doing all the other necessary tasks to sustain a fight that large.
That is sometimes what I do, when the situation suits me. I also believe vinme sometimes does that as well. I don't believe vinme or me have problems with reinforcements.
Losing your army is a bigger problem.
-
I think that is indeed a right conclusion. It seems promising, but it needs work to be good enough to implement in the game.
Also, it makes archers viable in battle. An attack group option would be more dangerous to skirmisher than the building AI. That probably means we need to be careful with attack group.
-
@nani The mod is convenient. The worst that can happen is getting a message "autociv has hotkey changes". Is there a way to make autociv never reset hotkeys?
-
On 29/12/2021 at 7:01 PM, Yekaterina said:
otherwise 0AD graphics will turn into minecraft.
Do you know the age of cubes mod? We need cubes AD!
-
2
-
1
-
-
I think bolt shooters might benefit from targetting like towers do, such that after each shot they look for a new target. Also, it prevents 10 bolt shooters shooting at the same target.
-
3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
It seems we have unlocked the damage potential of archers. They are now able to range skirms over melee to a degree and because of this, the seem to be very powerful, easily beating 30 pike+ 30 skirm and 30 spear vs 30 skirm.
In this situation, archers are able to exploit the weakness of these units: namely their low durability. So in those tests your army consisted for 50% out of units with an exploitable vulnerability. I tested 20 archers+20spears vs. 28 spears and 6 skirms and the side with the few skirms won (which again gets beaten by 15 spears+15 skirms).
So they are not all powerful. If both sides use swordsmen, then the side with the 6 javs gets a bigger advantage. Finally, damage is distributed over units, so that means that if the archers deplete the HP of the opposing army by 95%, there is a good chance that over 50% of the units survive (with low HP). Also if you run away mid fight, then you will not lose many troops and the damage that is dealt is distributed nicely and can be healed.
In the end, it would make 0ad a more complex game than just fight and run away once your melee is dead.
By the way, chrstgtr wanted to discuss 4 options and we currently are discussing only one. Maybe ask stan to split the topic if it gets out of hand.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
100 archers vs 100 skirmishers. can you guys now see how strong they are with almost no overkill?
To be honest, if you use 100 skirmishers against a group of archers, then you are asking for a lot of overkill. A more practical situation would be 50 against 50. Secondly, from what I saw the skirmishers had path finding problems. I guess if the skirmishers used a wide formation, they would perform better.
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:Perhaps also allowing skirms and slingers to use this would allow them to spread their dmg more efficiently.
My idea was to give players control over the type of targeting they like to use for every situation. For the mod, I only gave it to archers (because it is easy and) since they often have the other ranged units in range. If you give it to a skirmisher, the archers would be out of range and won't be hit. Being able to hit opponents in the back is mainly useful if you have long range.
3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Maybe this is because of the archer distance away from the skirms. If the archers are not hitting a certain number of the skirms, they lose?
I think the randomness was indeed the missing aspect. This is caused by their 2.5 spread stat. This stat can in game be improved if you research the archer training technology or if you have higher rank ranged units (promotion multiplies spread by 0.8).
Champion archers have with 1.0 spread near perfect aim, so that might also be fun testing. A special case is the Maurya poison archer, which will distribute its poison. For the current mod, champion archers do have unchanged targetting. So you will need to edit the mod for testing champion archers with tower targeting.
-
1
-
-
I made a mod, where I gave archers buildingAI or tower targetting. In these settings, I set up 15 archers+pikes vs 15 skrimishers+pikes. The side with the archers won(13 archers survived, but there appears significant randomness and sometimes the side with the javelins wins). I also set up 5 archers+pikes vs 5 skrimishers+pikes and this time the side with the skirmishers won narrowly (4 pikemen won with a total HP of 103, but that is only because the archers did not run away after the javelins died).
So (1) will shift the balance and it does enough to counter pikemen. Archers+pikes won't be OP, it is just that pikes lose some of their usefulness if they no longer absorb all damage.
-
2
-
2
-
-
I saw that towers have a line of:
<GarrisonArrowClasses>Infantry</GarrisonArrowClasses>
Initially I was thinking about something like a <GarrisonRegenClasses>
The topic deserves some continuation and if the ideal solution can not be obtained, then the solution of @wowgetoffyourcellphone is good enough. (another solution would be to give cattle an aura that sets the GarrisonRegenRate to 0, as the GarrisonRegenRate of the corral also improves upon phasing up)
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Nullus said:
Pyrogenesis doesn't actually simulate the physical trajectories of projectiles, so it has trouble detecting if a projectile hits a unit if the unit wasn't specifically targeted. That would make most of the arrows miss harmlessly, even if they landed in the middle of a group.
From what I have seen, this is indeed observable. From my experience it is that if javelins are shot at a dense group, it does not mean something is hit (which might seem counterintuitive).
3 hours ago, Nullus said:The main area in which I can see this being useful is with ranged units with splash damage, such as bolt shooters.
Could this be the solution for the previous situation? If ranged units had a really tiny splash damage(that is so small it only hits the intended target), then they might have more realistic accuracy. Though I think this might become computationally heavy.
2 hours ago, Nullus said:However, I disagree about the cons of (1).
I also disagree about the cons of (1) and I think it might be a good solution if it was toggable (player can chose between "current" targeting or tower targeting). Tower targeting means pikemen get hit as often as the ranged units, so the ranged units die earlier.
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:Some things are just simple math
Some things are complex math. If a garrisoned fortress distributes 23 arrows over a group of units, they die all simultaneously with current tower targeting. If 23 towers shoot 1 arrow and distribute the next volleys, then that is not the same. Also tower targeting only targets the units in range as far as I am aware.
41 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:the undeveloped option is (always) better than the option that is currently developed.
Again, a merit of (1). @wowgetoffyourcellphone and @real_tabasco_sauce said something needs to be tested. I guess (1) is very testable.
-
When there are to many boomer around, you can in a TG go for a fast siege tower build. Ptolemies are the fastest for that and I managed to produce a siege tower before some of my opponents reached p2. The lobby would be a better place if more earlier siege tower strategies were there.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
They’re roughly equal (while still being better) to sword and are several times quicker and able to easily rip through range units isn’t equal.
We have different opinions about their ability against ranged units and personally I would agree to disagree.
37 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:This all also ignores that spear cav rushes are very effective against all civs in the early game before men are produced.
That is not spear cav specific, javelin cavalry does in my opinion the same, if not better.
-
33 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
spear cav already does decently well against all infantry that isn’t spear
I disagree with this statement. Without upgrades, they are roughly equal to a swordsman when fighting head on, while being more expensive. Also, they can barely take cost efficient fights against pure slingers (and they have serious trouble against skirmishers). They indeed are weak to spears/pikes as they should be, but these units are fairly common and thus they fail to be efficient in most real scenarios.
The problem of faring poorly against slingers, is something that is also fairly common of melee infantry. My preferred solution would be to give all +0.5 damage per hit for melee infantry and +1 damage to spear cavalry.
However changing the multiplier to 2x, has the merit of being a modest change.
-
From what I have seen, we have a mandate to buff the spear cavalry. I would first like to gather ideas of what tools we have and what the pros and cons are of each approach.
Tool 1: increase the multiplier against cavalry. Pro: This way makes the cavalry the most distinct. Cons: The spear cavalry would be a one trick pony that does have little place if the opponent does not use cavalry.
Tool 2: Improve the armor of spear cavalry. Extra armor is most beneficial if you use a combination of javelin cavalry and spear cavalry. Pro: It makes the sword and spear cavalry distinct. Cons: Extra armor turns the spear cavalry somewhat in the direction of the pikemen, a unit that can't function on its own.
Tool 3: Improve the offensive capabilities of the spear cavalry. Pros: It allows the spear cavalry to function better in all situation. This can help the unit to function on its own. The spear cavalry won't be as distinct as in the other cases, but a 1.75 multiplier still makes it distinct enough (IMO). Cons: Not a solution that makes the unit special.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Make it so that giving tribute to another player is taxed. 15-20% or whatever number we agree upon. This means that when you donate 100 res to a teammate, only 80-85 of it ends up in the recipient's stockpile. I think this will improve team gameplay. Sometimes you rush a player but end up behind because you slow your own eco and their teammates just give them resources. Also, I've seen a devastating strategy where players boosted their carth teammate to phase 2 and then fed him metal for mercs, lol.) This will mitigate these effects. There can be a tech in the market that discounts or removes tribute fees.
I am a big fan of this, but I must say that I am biased. I used to play AoE2 and they had that concept there as well.
Furthermore I have a personal dislike for the free tribute system as it creates bad allies: You ask for help, you want real help and your allies just send you resources. I would be much better if those allies in the first place did something that really did hurt the opponents such that they weren't even in the position to hurt you (or get punished if they hurt you).
15 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:Related Ptol Nerf:
Get rid of the food trickle team bonus, and instead give them an innate farming civ bonus. Somewhere between 10% - 20% faster farming rate, or whatever number is agreed upon. Then, give Ptol another civ bonus - No tribute fee for donating food. They can still be the breadbasket but the bonus will not be OP from 0:00 game time.
Related Persian Buff:
Give Persians a civ bonus where they immediately receive into their stockpile all or a percentage of the tribute fees assessed to their team. (Maybe exclude what the Persian player donates to others so they don't effectively have free tribute?)
Seems a fine proposal, but lets take one step at a time. First there needs to be an agreement on the first part.
-
Gelukkig nieuwjaar iedereen, ook voor @Grapjas!
-
3
-
-
39 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
My suggestion had always been that a player should be able to drag and select an area where units will focus their fighting on until they are given a different command or no more units exist in that area.
That is exactly what I thought attack group meant.
@BreakfastBurrito_007, I am not saying the current situation is optimal, but if your units would be able to focus their attacks on vulnerable targets, the pikemen could become entirely useless. I am not against changes, but there is always the risk that you might only solve one problem with another.
The base problem for me seems more like the big difference in attack values of ranged compared to melee.
-
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Agreed. It should be "Target Group" or something like this.
I think attack-group would be better.
Though adding functionalities like attack ground doesn't hurt the game, but I won't expect it to be the holy grail for solving balance issues..
-
2
-
easy balance/gameplay changes that should be added to the next alpha
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
Ptol and Iber have the strongest team bonusses by far IMHO. If someone has one of these bonusses, then they will clearly outboom you. Not much you can do about that. So your performance is highly impacted by whether you have these team bonusses. I think player skill should be more important than whether you have a certain team bonus on your side. By that logic the Ptol and Iber team bonus are stronger than they should be.
What I would consider a fine team bonus for balance sake is the one of the Mauryans. If you had taken a fight and want to recover your units, then building an easy temple is very useful. Also the temple is useful for its aura to help with defending. Finally if you would want to do a fanatic rush, then they team bonus gives you a nice edge to be able to get fanatics 30 seconds earlier.
I like bonusses to be visible instead of just a stat change. For Carthage the bonus could be: Markets 40% less cost&build time and first merchant is free.