LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
Jim and Tom seem not to be publishing a lot of youtube videos lately.
I posted a video with making a tier list in mind. This video was to compare Kushites and Ptolemies and whether the belong in the same 1v1 mainland tier. I have also found an excuse for my stuttering speech/pronunciation, since I wanted to turn watching in an active engagement.
-
3
-
-
On 16/07/2021 at 1:36 PM, vinme said:
diamond is for som1 who will surpass the gold players prob some pro coming form some top tier rts.
The Viper isn't playing Age of Empires2 these days ;P
For the record, there were players in AoE2 which I would be never able to beat in a best of 5, but those players would never be able to beat The Viper in a best of 5.
For the discord group, I am frequently in for a 1v1 so I could join. However if I would be online in discord, I could also visit the lobby so I don't know why to use the discord.
-
I think the problem arises from the fact that social systems were complex and differed between the factions as well. In the game we have for the citizen class:
-helots
-high ranking citizens such as the triarius or equites
-low class citizens such as the velites
-people who are not part of the core of the empire such as Nabetean camel riders and Parthian cavalry.
Probably there are more examples. However it shows that if we aim for true historic faithfulness, we have to introduce several new classes.
-
21 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
What do you guys think about the +40% hp to pikes hero for ptol?
I think Ptolemy IV is strong, but there are other strong heroes as well. I would prefer Cleopetra over Ptolemy IV. I think Ptolemy IV is not OP based on his stats, but Ptolemies as a whole do get stuffed with lots of goodies.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I ran some tests. 1 on 1 a basic swordsmen defeats an advanced pikemen and has 11 HP left and it promotes.
I also tried a test with 52 advanced pikemen vs 52 basic swordsmen in the scenario editor and fairly close formation. 9 swordsmen survived though some had low HP. Their total remaining HP was 853 and they were all elite having thus 60% HP left. From this test it feels like pikemen don't really benefit from increased numbers.
-
5 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
If so then look no further than the AOE II unit "kamayuk", lightly armoured but with a very pronounced ranged adantage.
One big difference between age of empires 2 and 0 ad concerning this topic is unit pathing. If you have a block of 7*7=49 kamayuks fighting against 7*7=49 champions, then you will see that a lot of the champions are looking to find a target and not actually fighting and contributing. This is an issue with age of empires 2 melee units. If you try the same with 0ad pikemen and swordsmen, you see that the swordsmen are fairly quick to all find a target.
Unless we make pathfinding worse, it will not be like AoE2
Instead of looking at AoE2, look at 0AD and spectate some fights. The longer pikes do not make to much of a difference in 0AD.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Ptolemies: either pikes or slingers. Very frustrating
Slingers are nice early on. You want to invest all your starting resources to pay dividends. The fact that a Ptolemaic player can build a barrack and train 6 slingers and save 180 wood is useful in the starting phase. Also you seem to be only thinking about men, but there are women too ;P (don't know if you heard that earlier)
If we compare melee units, we need to remember that they are sometimes shot upon while the melee units don't attack (such as capturing). In those cases the pikemen seems to have the advantage. I also made some post on how useful pikemen are:
The second title was just to troll a little and make a point of target dummies ;P. I called on purpose it "what if..." instead of "how do you think about if..." or "what would happen if..."
-
1
-
-
On 04/07/2021 at 4:19 PM, Yekaterina said:
how did corona-circus do against your dogs?
Circus did not play. I tried it a few times against others and it can be defended. However it is a more potent rush than normal cavalry.
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
We shall consult other balancing advisors whether these should be removed.
First of all, if it does not give major problems, there is no reason to remove it. These units are trained sometimes and I like to keep them as an option.
Also I think we should consider the nature of 0AD as a community project. These units are someone's contributions, so it feels unfair (and maybe a little unrespectful) to cut it without strong reason. Also (this argument is not popular by me) 0AD is still in alpha, which means there is no reason to cut now it if you can cut the unit from the game later.
-
2
-
-
I checked some of my replays. I had a game today where I played as Britons and at 6 minutes I had 8 dogs and 9 javelin cavalry at my opponents game. I checked some other replays and honestly few people have at 6 minutes enough troops to defend against those amounts.
So I guess the strategy is dangerous as an opening and it is not something to sniff at.
If my opponent is Britons, I would emphasis on an early cavalry rushing him/her with 3/4 cavalry, to see if a stable is being build early.
It is true that dogs get relatively weaker when players get upgrades, but that does not affect their rushing potential.
-
17 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
This isn't to say that Persians had necessarily bad; Greeks just happened to be major outliers in how they fought.
I think this has to be considered? Are there any record that compare the troops of brennus, sacker of rome, to the Achaemenid Persians? My guess would be that also the Gauls were armed inferior.
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:This source speaks of civilizations met earlier and I believe the Phoenicians were among them. These civilizations were armored no better than the Persians. So would it be fair to assume that the Persians were as well armored as the Carthaginians, who were Phoenicians?
On other main faction to compare them to would be the Iberians, but I don't know anything about their style. Is it fair to say that the Persians were inferior to all these factions?
-
@Yekaterina, I think it is nice that you provide arguments for both sides and list them. The point I adhere to most is
10 hours ago, Yekaterina said:The population bonus is an unique feature of Mauryans and should be kept to distinguish it from the others.
However it is true that Mauryas are strong. If we would nerf them I would prefer another suggestion: Worker elephant takes 3 population(& cost 200 food). This increases the opportunity cost since if you used to make 5 worker elephants, that soaks up +10 population. Also it means that at the start you have 13 population instead of 11, so you have less free space.
10 hours ago, Yekaterina said:Persians had weaker units
I think this is something game designers like to think. However I am not fully convinced it is actually firmly rooted in history. Against the Lydians for example, the persians had fewer cavalry and famously used their baggage train camels and winning the battle on foot. Persian infantry lost a fair share of battles, but there were victories as well and we need to remember that losses could easily have other reasons than just weak infantry.
-
2 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
At the beginning of A24 some players experimented with dog rushes but instead of trending it seems like dog rushes are a dying strategy. Why is that, if dogs are OP?
I think dog rushes can work out. I haven't tried it to much against people of 1700+ skill, but I think they are dangerous. Dangerous does not say that they are OP as the mounted archers are, but still they are on the stronger side.
-
5 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
model size?
This size discussion made me ran a test. I did a test where I let a slinger shoot at max range at a dog and a spearman. The spearman died first and the dog had 31 HP at this point. This is the reverse of what you might expect. So the sizes also mean that the dog is significantly harder to hit for ranged units. When I repeated the tests with slingers and A24 archers(both at max range), I noticed that there is some randomness, but against the skirmisher the dog came on top more often and against the archer it seems a small advantage for the dog.
-
1 hour ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
But these are but fantasies, only in the real of mods would we ever see such radical changes.
And that is were the creator of Delenda est comes in...
-
1
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, DerekO said:
What's your ingame name + rating i'll update it for u dw
1776
-
11 minutes ago, DerekO said:
To add the links have been fixed please try to register
I registered with an old account, TDSatAWBW. The origins of that name lie here: https://awbw.amarriner.com/profile.php?username=the-deadly-shadow
-
If we compare the dog to a spear cavalry we get that the war dog has +60% DPS and the spear cavalry has +75% durability(to pierce).
The war dog is cheaper, requires no pop space and does not have weakness to pole arms.
The spear cavalry has a bonus vs. opposing cavalry and can capture buildings and moves a little faster.
I think that the war dog has the obvious advantage, both from gameplay experience and from the stats considered here.
On top of that Britons start with a dog. The war dog can lure deer towards the CC/farmstead of the player allowing cavalry to collect food at a high rate, which enables rushes even more. I think dogs are dangerous, but archers civilizations can be as dangerous.
17 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:ban
You could adopt this as your new middle name, after all your banning attempts.
-
1
-
-
I wouldn't mind putting my skills to the test. I assume the tournament will be played on A25.
Also I think it should be defined whether map sizes are small or normal. If I were the weaker player I would prefer a normal sized map, meaning that attacks come a little later and supply lines of the enemy are longer, this would allow me to have a little more time before I need to be ready. If I were the stronger player, I would prefer a small map. So to avoid clashes on map sizes, I think there should be some rules about the map size.
Also could you give a description how people select the factions they play? Are they allowed to repeat factions?
-
7 minutes ago, alre said:
Ok, since this is coming up frequently these days, I want to address the matter head on, for once. Let's leave chicken aside for a moment, since that's the least part of the problem, and let's instead consider some map full of animals, like Sahel, Ngorngoro, and others. We have a question in front of us: what should we do about factions that historically made little use of cav? Should we allow them to count on cavalry for economic sustainment, as they can now, and as "steppe people" would, or should we make those civs clearly handicapped in comparison to the others?
I think both options are legit, but I like the fact that the game as it is now allows more variety by not forcing the hand of players towards cav civs in game-rich maps. Also I don't think that this is necessarely anti-historic.
Let's take Sparta for instance, as it is probably the most exemplar "footed" faction: first of all, Spartans always had horses, it's not like they didn't know how to mount them, it's just that they used to fight on feet, but we know that some spartans did have horses, and chariots sometimes, they took part of hellenic chariot races. It is true that Sparta always negletted cavalry warfare, but that is arguably because of high cost of horse breeding and relatively low value of horses in Greece peninsula; if Sparta had a colony in the savanna around elephants and giraffes, I bet they would have used horses a lot more, and in fact a famous spartan colony in Italy was Taras, which was indeed well known for its powerful cavalry.
On the other hand, if someone chooses Sparta, it's clear that they are not going to use a lot of cav, the units roster leaves you some liberty, but each civ nudges you in the direction of some particular gameplay choices, based on historical truth. This already effectively happens, even if it's arguable how 0ad civ specific tactics make actual historical sense, but that's another matter.
In conclusion, I think that not only giving phase 1 cav to all civ is not against historical truth, but also that there is no problem in the current approach of the game, as someone that wants to go heavy on cav will surely not choose Sparta for a civ.
I think this is mostly true. What we could do to further stress Spartas lack cavalry, is removing the 10% cavarly hp upgrade.
Also, if someone wants to go with cavalry and selects random civ, he could get Sparta. If I desire to use a lot of mounted archers(which I tend to desire), I go Ptolemies for the camel archers.
-
4 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
No hellenistic state should be deficient in the cavalry department
If a civilization has Nisean war horses, they should not be weak in the cavalry department. If they are weak, that is a problem with cataphracts or Nisean war horses. Fixing what is broken is better than just leaving it broken and solely rely on a work around ;P
7 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:Does anyone agree with me that seles could use some kind of CS melee cav? or does it sacrifice too much uniqueness to make one civ more flexible?
When you want to talk about Seleucid melee cavalry, there are other treads better suited for that. Or you could create a new tread, but this one is supposed to be about camel archers.
Short anwer on your question from my side: No.
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
it is just tiresome to mass archercav and simply use them as 111 hp archers.
I would argue that sele cav is substantially worse than ibers, romans, gauls, brits. If it is a no-archer game as they are more enjoyable in a24, then sele cav is the very worst in the game.
I think there is nothing wrong with using seleucid cavalry archers as 111 hp archers with extra speed. I think in 1v1s any elephant civilization is better than those without, except for Britons. I would prefer having an archer cavalry over having spear cavalry.
By the way, when we talk about camel archers it should be considered that archers are OP in A24. If mounted archers were not as dangerous, would the problem solve itself?
-
3 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
The problem is, many players have reflected that camels are OP.
I agree that camel archers are OP in 1v1s, not exclusively due to their rushing strength. Especially for rushes, if you can use that free 300 starting metal to empower a rush, there is trouble for the opponent. You can not afford eco upgrades is you spent the metal, but the same holds for the opponent in the sense that eco upgrades are virtually useless when trying to defend against the rush. In such a position the defender can not afford to spend 200 wood for an eco upgrade. Also Ptolemies start with some wood savings, which only adds to the problem.
6 out of 12 opposing factions, Seleucids, Spartans, Athenians, Gauls, Britons and Iberians are allmost helpless vs. Camel rush in A24. I don't know for A25 as it makes camel archers slower.
13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:I feel a 200 food 100 wood 100 metal 20 seconds upgrade from barracks in p1 is a perfect way to allow different merc rush strategies for all civs that have mercs.
I feel 500 food and 500 wood would be better if you know what I mean. Reducing the cost to 400 food and 400 wood might also be fine.
-
There is a more fundamental problem with the rankings.
The ladder is based on 1v1 rated games. A lot of players (also those in the top 100) don't play a lot of rated 1v1 games. This is the reason why the podium almost didn't change. You don't often see players rated in the top 100 host rated games to defend/risk their rank.
1 hour ago, cap'tain roc said:And finally, one last question is : How we should "reset" the points ? I have some ideas :
-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), and in each end of season/period, you reset to this stage (which is 1500).
-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), and in each end of season/period, you keep the half of all the points above 1500. Exemple, i have 1800 points, the season reset -> 1500 + 300/2= 1650
-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), after 1500 points, we set a step each 100 points, and when the season reset, you go to the step before you. Exemple: I have 1587 points -> 1500 points ; Other exemple: I have 1812 points -> 1800 points.
All these suggestions lower the rating of some very but inactive talented players. Which means that two players might have similar ratings but entirely different skill levels, after-all rating should be representative of skill level.
If you want to clean the leader-board while keeping ratings intact, I would suggest multiplying the ratings with -1. Once a player completes a rated game, the new ratings get computed according to the absolute value of their rating. If there is a player with rating -1800, you know that this is a good but inactive player which would be more faithful than giving a 1500 rating.
-
2
-
Crash on map selection and hotkey problem
in Bug reports
Posted
Maybe I might be a little late to the party and should have reported it earlier. I used to be on Linux mint 19 and now I am on Linux mint 20, famously based on Ubuntu.
On both systems I also experienced a similar bug. When I go to set up a game and try to select a map by clicking on the "browse maps" and go to the random maps. Then when I move the mouse over some maps, the game crashes.