LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
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
-
-
I played a 1v1 game against vinme and I would like to share it with those who might not play 1v1s frequently. It was a very fun game to play, but I can't guarantee it also leads to a good commentary. Mercenary cavalry gets a lot of hate on the balance side of things, but it also has a chance to make games more interesting. I hope that when you see this game you would wish A26 not to be just a boom game. #horsesneedlove
Btw, after viewing the video of @mysticjim, I was in the mood for making a tumbnail for youtube.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Now I agree they are too weak after being taught some lessons by jav cavs. Maybe 3x is appropriate. Or, we can boost their base damage.
Rather than closing to an agreement, I am happy that you are willing to reconsider your views. If someone want to change his/her view, that is perfectly fine and it shows that more experience about A25 has been gained. So if you have contributed and learned something, then let it be known.
To be honest and give my opinion, I think most melee units could see their attack being boosted ("Damage values of ranged compared to melee" item). Also when a single skirmisher fights against a single spearman, the skirmisher perform surprisingly well. Whereas I think that the current way javelin cavalry perform against infantry javelineers/slingers is nice, so probably melee units could use a boost. However that would be another topic.
BTW: When I say Spear Cavalry in general are weak, then I also mean that the spear cavalry champion is weak compared to other cavalry champions.
-
3 hours ago, alre said:
why wouldn't you want persians to spam merc hoplites?
I would like the hoplite to be an unit associated with the Greeks. It would feel weird to me if a Persian player would mainly use hoplites as melee units.
-
There has been talk about giving the Persians mercenary hoplites and many Greek mercenary hoplites did serve the Achaemenid Persians.
adding the unit would be easy, but what would be the best place to train them? One of the things I did not want is Persians to spam mercenary hoplites. I have thought of a solution: The Provincial center.
The provincial center is just a copy of the civic center, which remains the same with the addition that the provincial center can also recruit mercenary hoplites. In essence, every "civic center" that you build is a provincial center, but you start with a civic center. So your starting CC is just normal, but any "CC" that you construct is a provincial center that can train mercenary hoplites.
I think many factions could enjoy a similar approach, where for example Roman provincial centers could recruit auxiliary cavalry or Athenian provincial centers could recruit Cretan archers.
So what are you thoughts about giving any secondary "CC"s the ability to train some extra unit types?
-
2
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Does it actually matter? I can’t recall a single instance when someone purposely captured a corral.
Right now, people generally won't purposely capture corrals.
However when the opponent relies on garrisoned corrals for their economy, the corresponding counterplay could be to capture the corrals. So that option needs to be there.
-
4 hours ago, Freagarach said:
I was thinking more about letting the units be responsible for how much they contribute to the GarrisonRegenRate.
That seems to be the better option to me. If someone would find the time for creating the patch, it would be great.
Since I am not the person to add that to the game, I am neither the person to judge how it should be done and other solutions are also welcome.
-
15 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
If volunteer developers enjoy building new civs instead of doing other things, more power to them!
All the power.
1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Mauryas ended who?
They fought against Seleucus the first and they are an important reason elephants entered the battlefield of the era. Honestly, the story of Seleucus the first is the best story of any greek general of the time and possible all time. Mauryas definitely deserve to be in for that alone.
9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Kushites what? Spartans are largely a backwater, insular city state, but they're included because they are famous and fun and add diversity.
Mauryas included because they are awesome and add diversity, but had zero contact with Rome. Kushites had a few minor border wars with Rome, but are included to add fun and diversity to the civ roster.
Maybe we then need a fation that actually did matter? Or settle on that we can't agree on this one.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, soloooy0 said:
I've been complaining for a long time that it takes 1sec per shot, it's absurd
As far as I could see, it takes 1.25 second per shot. I watched it perform in the scenario editor against a Briton chariot and the units were in sinc. I watched also the situation with a chariot archer and the chariot archer fired faster than the fire cav.
-
56 minutes ago, Stan` said:
You can restrict what buildings cattle can go in. But yeah ideally you could define on the building what bonus it gets and on the unit whether it gives the bonus. But that's not implemented.
Then I think it is acceptable to go for code that isn't clean code. But maybe there will be someone that bothers enough to create the tools to do it with some clean code.
Btw: The reason that people need to be able to marry cattle is such that you can train minotaurs and such.
-
1
-
-
I made a mod, where I added this to the corral template
<GarrisonHolder>
<Max>8</Max>
<EjectHealth>0.5</EjectHealth>
<EjectClassesOnDestroy datatype="tokens">Animal</EjectClassesOnDestroy>
<List datatype="tokens">Animal</List>
<BuffHeal>1</BuffHeal>
<LoadingRange>4</LoadingRange>
</GarrisonHolder>So I launced the mod, build some corrals and recruited goats for my army. Out of dedication, I deleted my CC and looked if garrisoned corrals lost loyalty, which they didn't do.
1 hour ago, Stan` said:You can change that value only for corrals, by specifying a new value in the template.
I am not a dev, but isn't that bad code? In A27, people can marry cattle and take them into their houses (or I am aiming for that). Then the cattle can still guard the house. I think the better solution would be to specify which objects grant GarrisonRegenRate when garrisoned.
KateGUI: adapted autociv mod
in Game Modification
Posted
Do you know the age of cubes mod? We need cubes AD!
http://www.vooblycn.com/gamemods/mod/500/Age-of-Cube