LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
I played a game against Dakeyras who played as Mauryas and he showed some good cavalry play. He showed that Mauryas have potential to deal some blows to the opponent. In the end, I defended well and he had probably to many archers (it might have been better to recruit spearman instead), which I think was what cost him the game. With the Briton hero, the Mauryan archers suffer from a serious speed disadvantage, so that makes them extra bad in this situation.
I played as Britons, who are in my view probably one of the best factions to resist Mauryas. Against Sparta I think the strategy has a better chance. I think that for the Maurya player playing in this style is the best you can do as Mauryas in 1v1s and it probably can give better results on another day.
-
51 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
I'm doing it this way because it seems people prefer to say "but what about 1v1, let's be cautious" when this is alpha and mistakes should be made (e.g., as much as I DISLIKED a24 it was necessary to make archers viable).
There's no reason why in an alpha certain drastic changes can't be made to test them out to feel out the overall sentiment and to have more user feedback on the experience (e.g., p2 rams, p2 siege towers, etc). Mods don't permit the extensive testing that an alpha permits. Additionally, if it is a good change but negatively impacts 1-2 civs then those 1-2 civs can be buffed up separately where they lack
Currently, as it stands, 1v1 is what prevents uniqueness from happening. It neutered Rome, Macedonians, completely neutered the unique dynamic Ptolemies had, and made worker elephant the shadow it is now (almost got totally neutered with archer issue in a24).
It seems like you blame 1v1s for a lot of development issues. I think it is incorrect to blame these issues on people trying to get a balanced 1v1 environment.
-
9 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
If people want to 1v1 do mirror civs
I think you ignore 1v1s and I think factions should be balanced such that they also give interesting matches in 1v1s. Ignoring 1v1 by just saying play mirror factions does not feel like the right approach to me.
-
54 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Ram-only civs should have rams in p2:
- Gauls/Brits/Spartans/Iberians
Siege-oriented civs should have rams in p2 (Macedonians should have siege towers in p2 too):
- Romans/Macedonians
For each of the above, the siege workshop should count towards p3.
I wouldn't be a fan of that. If go early p2 and have rams in p2, then how does the Macedonian player counter that? Then the Macedonian player almost needs to have their own rams. Ptolemies also have no decent way to deal with rams in p1 and after reaching p2 they first need their colonies to be build, but Ptolemies almost deserve to have a weakness somewhere.
Since I think Macedon should not be attacked by rams in p2, I think no faction but Macedon should have rams in p2. Macedonian mirror matches will be interesting though.
About the siege towers I would say that only factions with sword cav have a good chance of defending against siege towers in p2.
-
12 minutes ago, alre said:
agree, also I'd add that I never understood why women and inf have such a bad rate of gathering meat compared to cav. ok cav moves faster, but does it also have to butcher faster? 5/10 times so? why?
Undoubtedly if the women and infantry would gather hunt faster that could open a lot of new strategies, which some people might even consider dirty(cavalry) strategies. However it is a valid question none the less.
20 minutes ago, alre said:Scouting could help giving you a clue of what the other player is gonna do, but at the beginning of the game scouting comes at a high cost, so, all in all, a player can be rewarded for essentially being lucky about some risky choice. This is just my opinion, and I can see why others may disagree. I hope that some player better than me, or more used to play 1v1, shares his/her opinion about this.
There are 3 options and scouting would come at high cost. Rushing and naked booming are the risky ones. You could chose the safest of the 3 options, playing defensive or decide to bear the high costs of scouting. Also in serious games, I like to do something that is in between all of those options, making a few cavalry to enjoy nearby hunt and recruiting some infantry before the first barracks. If you have nearby hunt, that is a very convenient way to make a few (mounted) soldiers without letting your development suffer.
52 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:Cav is fast at gathering from livestock and they automatically look for more in the vicinity.
If you run out of livestock, the cavalry go idle. Even if livestock arrives later, then the cavalry stay idle until you command them to.
53 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:That you don't want to put your fighting cav in a control group or don't want to select them with an area selection doesn't convince me that we need a butcher unit.
sometimes its get messy when the opponent enters your base with a minor cavalry force. Even though it takes only a few seconds to sort things out with the current tools at our disposal, my minutes have only 60 seconds and every moment there are at least two and sometimes more things I want to do at the same moment. When playing a competitive game, I am a busy man and don't like to see any precious seconds being wasted.
-
On 19/11/2021 at 12:22 PM, hyperion said:
There are plenty of possibilities to add new unit types, so question to answer are:
- Are more and more unit types a good thing for gameplay
The answer of that question depends on whether the units allow different strategies. If there are different types of units that function very similar, there is no need to have them.
For example, I suggested a butcher unit, which can be useful for using corrals. The butcher unit would be a little cheaper and possible automatically search for nearby livestock. If you want to use camel archers as ptolemies and want to use corrals. Then the current situation is that with double clicking the camels, you select both the camels for militairy and the ones for gathering, which is annoying.
-
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:
The blacksmith can give you the edge over the opponent for a p2 rush.
If you go for an earlier p2, then your opponent will have superior numbers if you arrive when he still is in p1. The superior numbers are more important than the extra attack. From my experience, it is more advantageous to go for the larger numbers.
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:P2 gives market
Does having the market earlier give you a significant advantage to beat the opponent who delays p2, other than buying metal for mercenaries? I don't think so, unless you have the Macedonian team bonus. I view the main advantage of the market to be allowing you to get out of phase 2, instead of being powerful in p2. Can you tell me how you use the market to be more powerful in p2, other than buying metal for mercenaries?
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:Also P2 gives some factions the mighty sword cavalry.
Unless the enemy makes major mistakes, the sword cavalry won't help that much if it is not a mercenary.
Anyway, that are my views based on my experience. If different experiences (against players of equal skill off course), I like to hear about them.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, leopard said:
This helped me to do some live streams with weirdjokes and NoobDude
If you are planning to do a livestream, please announce them on the forum.
-
2
-
-
Any game with technologies has strategies that revolve around staying low tech for longer to be able to get high tech faster.
However I think in 0ad the balance is such that for most factions it is the only feasible strategy to stay long in p1 and view p2 just as the phase that you need to get once you want to get to p3. For many mercenary factions, there is a usage of getting p2 earlier, but for most others there barely isn't. Unless there are mercenaries, the midgame lacks action. So I was wondering if there is agreement on this and if we should do something to change that.
For around half of all the factions I would advice people to skip p2 in favour of infantry production. I think those factions need some extra love to0. P2 needs to be such that any faction can make some waves in p2.
-
1
-
-
Ships have a damage of 35 pierce per arrow, which is insane and soldiers are very easily slaughtered by ships. I understand that the ships have so much power because that is what they need to sink other ships. It would be an easy change to turn that into 12 attack with a 3x multiplier against other ships.
Would this a solution we can settle on for A26. Undoubtedly there are better solutions, but who is going to program that?
-
3
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, UltraMan said:
Also tested with all techs researched and I get same results
You did a test with a spearman, not with a pikeman. It is true that the spearman wins.
Without all upgrades, the pikeman(the one with 10 armor) also wins, but if the Mauryan player has the +10% HP upgrade and the final attack upgrade the sword cavalry should win.
Even if both the spear cav and the mauryan sword cav have all upgrades, the spear cavalry loses. However it is unlikely that in a 1v1 someone researches all upgrades and without the final hack armor, the sword cavalry has the advantage.
Anyway, I accept that it is a though to beat spartans with Mauryans after 10 minutes.
-
50 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
I think HP aura can stay. Limit pikemen globally. Globally pikemen are an issue. If globally the issue is solved and ptol are still OP consider addressing the aura.
I think the aura can be weakened and put back in to its original form once the issue is solved. Also, there are a lot of other heroes that only give a similar bonus to a small group of units. Ptolemy IV, will still be decent.
51 minutes ago, Dizaka said:Gauls don't need a boost as they are on the Ptol level.
In 1v1s they are nowhere close. If undisturbed on 200 pop games, Ptolemies can comfortably get their hero(yah, an elephant!) before minute 11. Can Gaul compare to that?
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
do you think a range reduction makes sense for ibercav? I think it is a bit too easy to take down cc's. If in the next alpha, cavalry have slower acceleration to put some risk back into cavalry, then ibercav would be more impacted by this if their range was reduced.
I would dislike to make them super uncomfortable to use to use. If you want them to have short range, why not let it be a melee unit.
In 1v1s, you will feel the costs of the cavalry which shows its limitations. I conjecture that in a team game, when the pocket player requires more time to build his cavalry army because of the extra expenses, the players at the flank will feel that. So that might give the false impression that the expenses are bearable and the cavalry player is doing well, because his absense is not directly felt by himself. I still think most cavalry is fairly balanced by its cost. Iberian and Roman cavalry is obviously not well balanced, though Roman cavalry is not a top treat in 1v1s.
-
16 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Well, if anyone plays well on any civ most strategies, if not all, won't work on them too.
That is untrue according to me. There are really strategies which some faction struggle to deal with. So you could still play to the best of your abilities and be defeated by a similar skilled player. I think for Macedonians it is difficult to deal with a Briton player that opens with a stable (or two). Also mysticjim casted a game where I used a mercenary strategy in a Macedonian mirror against dakeyras and he could not win, despite not playing bad.
-
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:
There's absolutely no reason why civs strong in early levels should be weak in late levels.
If a faction is strong on the early stages of the game and it does not have a relative weakness later, that does in my opinion mean that it is unbalanced.
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:Additionally, camels don't work vs archer civs.
I disagree on that. I think with camel archers you can still cause a lot of damage on Persians and kushites.
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:he only issue I see is pikemen maybe being overpowering when paired with slingers or skrimishers even in P1 and P2 WITHOUT heroes.
If the number of ranged units are low (both in relative or absolute number), then pikemen are close to horrible. In this game you can still individually target units. Also without siege any infantry army has problems getting something accomplished on the offensive side.
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:That's a Pikeman issue not a civ issue.
That is true, but unless there is someone solving the pikeman issue, I think it is fair to limit the HP aura.
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:How about instead of debuffing Ptol other civs are put on their level if they are lacking?
Okay, that seems fair in theory but I think that a every faction needs a very substantial boost to be able to match the Ptolemies. So that means the majority of the factions need a big buff, any ideas on how to do that?
-
51 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Early phase ibers are vulnerable to Rome, Macedonia, Carthage, and Ptolemies. They can also lose to Mauryas, Gauls, Britons, in the first 8 minutes. You can even capture an Iberian CC with 8-9 minutes gametime with Kushites.
Rome/Macedonia can mass rush with spear cav (yes, even if spear cav is weak vs skrimishers they are strong enough in mass). To prevent this you will have to go mass skrimishers and play a roll of the dice. Either you get rushed and you counter the rush or if you boom with women, you risk losing access to all tree lines.
Carthage has merc swordcav. RIP to any Iberian/Rome player. Period, it's not a competition in the first 8 mins of gametime.
If the Iberian player plays well, I think all of these strategies do not work in a 1v1, except the one with Ptolemies. If you have any evidence to show the contrary, I would be happy to see it.
-
25 minutes ago, Fabius said:
Any specific reasons Iberians why considered OP?
Booming=turtling. Lets assume that you play a 1v1 and are not the Ptolemies, which are even more OP than Iberians. So if you have cheaper javelineers at the start(which are the strongest CS ranged infantry), then it is very difficult for the opponent to outboom you. Neither does aggressive play help, since there are to much javelineers. So basically many factions are left without any way of preventing Iberians from taking an advantage (That is 1).
In p3, they can deal a quick and hard blow with javelineers due to their strong boom and javelineers being the best CS ranged unit. That is the 2nd reason why it is difficult to take them on.
So how about dragging out the game, does that work? With Indibil they can really fast recruit new soldiers after you lose them, so the Iberian player can very easily send a new wave of units towards you. They also have stronger swordsmen (both CS and champion), which are also cheaper with Indibil. With Indibil garrisoned in the CC, he can't be taken out.. So that is 3 reasons.
Do sneaky strategies work against them? Because of the walls you can't really kill all their farmers easily neither is it easy to take out the starting CC with a sneaky attack. Seleucids, Persians and Mauryas can try to wear them out with horse archers or chariot archers, but only seluecids have decent chance of surviving against the push that the Iberian player after reaching p3. So that would be my 4th reason.
Barely any strategy seems really possible against Iberians, assuming equal skill of course. That is my take on it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I did not want to take away the identity of the Ptolemies or cut their options. However I think everything is very smooth for the Ptolemies and to add insult to injury 1 minute after reaching p3 you normally have a very useful hero.
Normally in RTS games, when a faction starts of strong, they tend to be weaker later in the game. I therefore think it is fair to weaken their heroes, for which I made a differential.
-
4 hours ago, Dakara said:
First i think this unit need to be balanced with the chariot britons. Because it the same unit but iberians champion have more dammage cuz they have fire attack.
So nerf attack of ibere champ a little for they have the same attack of chariot britons.
Then we need see if orther champ of other civ have a chance against this unit.
I was thinking about giving the unit the similar potential as the Briton chariot against most units, with the fire cav retaining a specialty against siege and buildings.
I also ran tests with the chariot, which gets beaten by cataphract(8hp remaining) and the roman consular body gaurd also defeats it(22 HP remaining). Also if we compare the chariot and other cavalry, we see that the main oddity is a DPS of 28.8, which is far higher than most other units.
I also think that Iberians are OP without their champion cavalry.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, artoo said:
As a 20 years software developer, this pains me to read.
I am not sure about this, but I feel that once you get 21 years of experience you will realize that these numbers are just in-game numbers and they aren't related to reality. The numbers probably have been chosen such that they make the game feel nice, such as addressing the complaints on the forums about the game being too slow.
-
I agree with many points that mysticjim made, except the assumption that you are 14 or 15. There is no reason why I would assume that you couldn't be 16 years old. Lets put that aside.
Also, I always thought about tournaments as investments. T90 has hosted several high prizepool Age of Empires 2 tournaments. He is a professional streamer and gains popularity for hosting the tournament and also his audience indirectly pays for whatever prize money he puts into it. Also Microsoft, the publisher of Age of Empires 2 and other companies put prize money into it. Currently if you would host a tournament with a prizepool, that would just mean donating money to Vali (without further return) and he might appreciate that.
If you want to make 0ad more popular, I think it is more fruitful to create an environment where excellent 0ad youtube (or other media) content can be created.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, UltraMan said:
It is very easily killed by pikemen/spearmen and spear cavs.
Mauryan sword cav are so strong, they can win against the pikemen/spear cav that are supposed to counter them.
3 hours ago, UltraMan said:Also they can't collect wood, stone and metal unlike skiritai comandos who are basically champions.
Skiritai are far from being champions and they can only gather at half the speed. The skiritai are stronger than the mauryan sword cavalry in a 1v1 though.
3 hours ago, UltraMan said:made bunch of champion chariots. They so useless. They die very quickly to normal infantry javs
If chariots die to short ranged infantry, that is not their fault. That can only be caused by neglecting micro.
8 hours ago, UltraMan said:Champion elephants are somewhat good but they are too expensive and they die very quickly by mass javs and slingers
This is neither true. An Indian elephant can take on up to 10 skirmishers on its own and is as resistant as 10 spearman. The point is that the elephants can't take on 40 skirmishers.
However I have to admit that defending against an early p3 push can be difficult as Mauryans against Spartans.
-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, UltraMan said:
I've been playing some 1v1 matches and it seems that my chances to win are high when I pick spartans and zero when I pick Maurays.
First of all, I would say that I view Sparta as far from being a top tier faction on 1v1s. Sparta is strong when they get their maximum population with a good number of skiritai and upgrades, but if they aren't given that much time they don't seem very good to me.
I don't think archers are weak, I think skirmishers are overpowered. So Mauryas suffer from that disadvantage. People seems to be happy that skirmishers are overpowered and I think that has to do with the fact that they are the most common unit. If there were only 4 factions getting CS skirmishers I think there would be as much outrage about skirmishers as there was about archers in A24.
If you play as Mauryas, your CS infantry mainly consists of archers and spearman, which is not a good combination. That suggest that it possibly might be better to use other units.
What Mauryas can do is make good use of their cavalry and maybe an early cavalry build by the mauryas might be uncounterable by factions such as Seleucids, Romans, Macedonians or Spartans. I played against Lorenz11 several times and he picked Mauryas and I have a youtube video about that strategy.
-
3
-
-
I had the idea of a butcher unit for a while. So essentially that would be a unit that is good at collecting food from livestock bred at the corral. Maybe an architect for faster construction, cattle breeder to garrison in corrals for better production or an drill master to garrison in barracks for faster training could also be nice.
The biggest issue would be that there would be extra art needed.
0 A.D. on YouTube
in General Discussion
Posted
Uhm, Uhm...
Uhm, Uhm, I uploaded another youtube video highlighting a different build with Carthaginian mercenary strategies than my previous videos. In the previous videos I showed a build that has significant limitations.
I should really stop using the word "uhm". uhm, lets upload it anyway and try to work on that in another video. If I were too picky, I would never get to upload anything.