LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
951 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
1 hour ago, Adeimantos said:
Basically, this change makes infantry more similar to infantry in the age of empires series.
without the hindering pathfinding of Age of Empires 1&2, melee infantry won't be like in Age of Empires 1&2. You need 'bad' pathfinding for that.
1 hour ago, Adeimantos said:I got the impression that you wanted to halve armor and double attack.
5 ->3 armor means that units receive around 23% more damage, which is not entirely the same as 100%
-
The swordsmen only need 0.75 seconds between attack, which might make them OP. If melee damage becomes the deciding factor, then maybe a smaller increase in attack rate (from 0.75 to 0.8) would be sufficient to make swordsmen viable.
This suggestion might be nice to try in the weekend of the 1st and 2nd of April.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, alre said:
I'm curious to know why is that. Personally I didn't experience A26 much, but it seemed to me it was an enhancement compared to A25.
The most common and basic strategy for 0AD is booming with infantry.
I an A25 you could rush with mercenary cavalry to play in a way that allowed you to interact more with your enemy. That added some variety to the game. In A26, prices of mercenary cavalry were increased and this rush was pushed to the sidelines of existance.
Also, I dislike acceleration. Cavalry rushing and (extended) early cavalry play in 1v1s in A25 was all ready a strategy that required the attacker to play at his very best. In A26, cavalry rushing became less effecting. In A26 the boomer had probably also the easier strategy and A26 only enhanced that. This is probably my main concern. Booming in A26 and then defeating an (often lesser skilled) opponent in a big battle did not feel as rewarding as constant action. Booming and then losing an lesser skilled opponent did not feel nice either.
Also, the pikemen change did feel bad for me. The pike men felt like a clown unit: its low attack makes it a bad and laughable fighter. Its only purpose is to soak damage, which in respect it does fairly well. In A26 it even more laughable in single combat and therefore it is forced even more in its clown role of soaking damage.
Pikemen were an asset in their A25's clown role. However for Seleucids, Macedonians and Kushites this benefit was offset by weaker hero's, so it felt reasonable. In A26, only their weaker clown role did not feel like a nice trade off. I want pikemen (specialized to 4 factions) to be something cool, instead of being relied on their clown role of damage soaking.
By the way: please don't bother me with any team game logic. A game that is only optimized for team games might not be good for 1v1s. I think if the game wants to be good, it should also be good for 1v1s. Conversely, I believe that a game that is good for 1v1s is most likely also good for team games. I actually never really took team games that seriously, though I enjoyed them when was looking for a less serious game (and when they didn't disconnect).
In A25 it was worth to spend some time waiting to play a higher rated 1v1 game. In A26 I often felt disappointed after waiting for a while and then playing a disappointing game.
Anyway, that is how I feel and that could just be personal.
-
3
-
-
On 06/03/2023 at 7:15 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The most wanted feature is a new phase tech icon. ok
And we all know who has the skill to create such an Icon. Unfortunately, it is @wowgetoffyourcellphone and he is someone with his own opinions.
Totally disgraceful!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, borg- said:
As I said at the time, a24 was necessary for us to have better later alphas, and that's what happened, today we have a much better version than a23, and improving fast.
I didn't play alpha 23 much, but I think A26 is worse for me than A24 and A25.
By the way: I know some people have strong feelings about A24, but that doesn't affect my opinion.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
JC is no match in comparison to this pair.
Blasphemy!
-
2
-
-
On 27/02/2023 at 6:19 PM, Helicity said:
2. There are random hills on Mainland; they can lock a player inside at times.
This can also be fairly easily be modded out. Making hills (or anything) appear is actually more difficult than removing them.
-
On 01/03/2023 at 6:18 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Idk about "disaster" but it can be annoying. But, how to address it?
I agree on the annoying part. and it can be addressed by editing the map script. I don't have the code rightly available, but I once did change the starting resource placement and made a screenshot back then.
On 11/06/2022 at 2:46 PM, LetswaveaBook said:I have been modding a little today and I managed to create a variation of mainland where players start with walls.
-
-
Another tip is to use batch training. Do this by selecting the CC or any other training building and press on "shift". Then you can use the mousewheel to change the batch size. Training multiple units in a batch is faster than one-by-one training.
-
On 11/01/2023 at 6:14 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:
In your opinion, do any of the urban civilized civs of this game feel adequately civilized to you?
On 11/01/2023 at 9:33 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I think the issue here lies in the pace of the game. A player rarely has time to set up a nice city and match it up against the enemy's city, before the action really makes that a moot strategy. The people don't use walls much also drives this home. It feels like you're just building a military base with the optimal layout to maximize military production. There's not a lot of cultural exploration there.
Answering to @Philip the Swaggerless, I would welcome a little more diversity between some factions.
For example, I think Rome could get some credit to their flexible military system by giving them a team bonus "manipules" giving infantry swordsmen +10% speed. Also, they probably could use a few more unique buildings.
-
1
-
-
What concerns me most about the game is that Romans develop almost the same as the barbarians. I can't really say that Romans in the game feel like an urban and more "civilized" faction.
-
1
-
-
On 22/12/2022 at 2:15 PM, Player of 0AD said:
Congrats to the epic tournament win, @Feldfeld , and thanks for organizing.
@seeh and @chocapoca you still have a match against each other, as well as @LetswaveaBook and @rm -rfI haven't been able to play a lot. I was online on the evening of December 13th and 14th to meet my opponent, however I was not able to meet my opponent.
My latest 0ad game felt to troublesome and disappointing. Therefore I would like to forfeit the game and the rest of the tournament.
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
On 08/12/2022 at 5:34 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Just curious: what are some reasons to vote against number 3, unit specific upgrades? I would have expected more popularity due to the amount of content included.
I dont know all the reasons, but I suspect that most people read badly.
Nobody pointed out that the tooltip for the Infantry archer said that it increases damage by 10%, while the code multiplies it by 1.15. Also the sword2.json file is missing a %-sign in the tooltip.
There is also the curious case that mercenaries are excluded from the upgrades, without showing that in the tooltip.
Apart from that, I dont have any noteworthy opinions about the patch.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Wait a minute? You can build CCs in enemy territory? Within their borders?
If you capture a barracks or so in enemy territory, then you gain some territory control. Then in the small patch of newly controlled territory you can place a CC (if it is a small CC).
-
37 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
On acceleration, I could give melee infantry a bonus in acceleration, from 35 m/s^2 to 42 m/s^2.
how does this sound?
Well, as a 0.2 meter advantage for a unit with a 6 meter pole arm.
This value of 0.2 meter is not an opinion, it is math.
-
I think both "exploits" are fine.
Building a CC in enemy territory comes with risks, costs and missed opportunities. Building an CC takes time that could be spent for other purposes.
Building wooden towers and upgrading them isnt problematic either IMHO.
-
5
-
-
17 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
This is @borg-'s patch made into a git branch
I think the tech that reduces champion cost while increasing their population cost is especially nice.
A major factor why people complain about (cavalry) champions being OP is that you can fill your population cap with units that are (over) twice as strong as citizen soldiers. Doubling their population cost could solve the issue. I am curious to see how it works out for Sparta.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
They deal a lot of damage and are fast. They are quite fun to use but are not always a fantastic meatshield.
I would say it is entirely the opposite.
With 9 m/s they are slow as any melee infantry unit (though pikes are even slower).Their attack is multiplied by 1.2^2=1,44. With 10.5 damage per second their attack damage is still lower than that of skirmishers. Their durability is multiplied by 1.25^2/0.9^2=1.92 and that makes them fairly durable.
6 hours ago, LienRag said:May I ask what is unique (in the sense of useful) about them ?
Skiritai are rank 3 CS soldiers which make them unique. There isn't much more creativity about them. @wowgetoffyourcellphone did in my view a better job in delenda est. If I were more competent in github and spend more time, I would (encourage to) use a variation of how skiritai are in delenda est
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
no chicken rush is 11 cav at 1:30 or so
To create 3 batches of 3 cavalry units, you need 108 seconds and then the final cavalry leave your CC instead of being at your opponents base.
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:no, its not actually false for the following reasons:
- all cavalry do more damage than infantry (ex. 16 pierce vs 18 pierce for jav cav),
- javelin cavalry have double the health of javelin infantry, (not double for melee, but almost),
- javelin cav have +2 armor compared to infantry javelins (other cav has more armor too)
It is actually correct that infantry can manage against cavalry. Your points are partially invalid. I will write why I think they are partially invalid for jav cavalry.
-The jav cav deals more damage, but that is less impactful than it seems. A jav cav need 4 javelins to kill a ranged infantry, so the 18 damage would in that situation not be better than 14. Against melee infantry it might be helpful.
- cavalry has more HP for sure, but they are also bigger units. Bigger means being a bigger target and being easier to hit by ranged units. That means cavalry might take more damage than you would expect.
-Most of the damage received is pierce damage, so the hack damage only is a very minor part.
There are also some things you completely ignore, like cavalry being more expensive and slower to train. Also, for rushes players get only melee or ranged cavalry, whereas both types are available for infantry. On top of that, spear and pike infantry have a 3x multiplier against cavalry.
There might be a cavalry problem for late game in TGs. However I fail to believe that there is a cavalry rush problem.
-
On 29/10/2022 at 10:45 AM, Feldfeld said:
It will still have a weekly format. However, if we have 8 players registered in the tournament then we will do a bracket format (like in the first edition), with matches being BO3. If we have more than 8 players however, then we will do a swiss format! (BO1)
Simply write a message in the thread in order to register!
I would like to participate as good 1-1s are the best way to enjoy 0ad.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
This entire thread has been thrown askew because one person, who said they barely play the game, said they didn’t like the use of one word in one portion of one proposal.
I praise your ultimate wishdom. There is no need to discuss subtleties overly much. Once different viewpoints have been exchanged, it is best to respect the viewpoint from both sides and agree to disagree.
-
19 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Personally I think it is modern bias to assume that "democracy" is something that made Athens a more advanced society. So I would favour some other suggestions.
Instead of praising that Athens reached democracy, we should focus on what they achieved (under democracy). So practical examples on how democracy benefited Athens would be welcome.
-
1
-
[Community mod] Melee rebalance
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by LetswaveaBook
The conversation is so long with one person repeating the same logic all the time, that I have to admit that I didn't completely read everything, but I will react to some things.
@chrstgtr Welcome to RTG games! Unless the winning unit is faster, the losing unit can flee. That is not a problem, but a given fact. To chase and kill a fleeing unit, the chasing unit needs to be faster and only one of two units can be faster than the other. One unit being able to escape due to its speed is not a solvable problem, rather it should be considered as a given fact. There can not be a greater delusion than asking for an "issue" to be solved if it is clearly unsolvable by nature.
Furthermore, you forget that a combined arms approach is possible. If the melee units win the battle and the losing javeleers flee, then they might escape. However if the winning player has just 10% cavalry units, then the losing javelineers cant escape the cavalry and if they stay to fight, then the chasing infantry might catch up.
Okay, I will give an example that differs from what you mentioned. Consider two armies.
Army A (Kushites/mauryas) consists of 20% archers, 40% spearmen, 40% swordsmen. Average DPS: 10.4
Army B (Guals) consists of 50% javelineers and 50% spearmen. Average DPS 10.9
Army A has the unit with most range and has more HP, whereas army B has the fastest unit (javelineers) and a little more DPS. Whereas army B can be agrued not to deviate to much from meatshield meta, army A does. Melee infantry in army A isn't the meatshield, but the core of the army.
This example shows that the proposal is a fundamental change: You no longer need javelineers to have a competitive DPS.
That is very much correct. It needs to be understood that ranged units might run away, but you wont win the game if you run away instead of defending your base. I hope everybody understands that.