LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
1 hour ago, raynor said:
As I see things, the more randomness, the less competitive the game is.
While individual arrows have random hit chances, it does not impact a game with many arrows. The law of large numbers says that if many arrows/slingshots are shot, the amount of hits is extremely likely to be close to the average.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Grapjas said:
Making friendly fire (against own units, not ally) a toggleable game option could be interesting as a balance to units though. But thats a different subject i guess.
I like this suggestion for sake of realism. However I wouldn't like if your ranged units target an enemy automatically and then automatically decide to inflict more damage to your own troops than to the opposing troops.
-
On the topic of bow range, if you shoot an arrow for a very long distance, I guess it will lose a considerable amount of its energy to air resistance. So that means its effective range might not be that high.
I like the spread feature as a gameplay balance. Spread means that archers can shoot far, but at large distance melee troops are fairly safe from them because archers are more likely to miss. I think it hurts gameplay if substantial damage can be done at long range and therefore I like inaccuracy at long range to be in the game.
-
I would like to show this post once more:
Even though archers beat them, it is not like skirmishers are underpowered...
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
how easy is it to rush in phase 1?
In 1v1s if your opponent focuses eco upgrades and on building barracks early and does not spend wood for citizen soldiers, that opens very realistically a possibility to rush with infantry.
I agree with @alre, sentry towers in P1 are not the main problem, except that they are build to fast for my liking. With most civilizations, a player needs to decide if they prefer 2 sentries or a barracks (assuming you have the stone to start with). I think the main problem is that they can be upgraded conveniently in p2. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25133 removes them being part of the phase up requirement. Also I think that sentries should not be able to fire arrows while the upgrade is in process.
Oh, there is an enemy? Let me upgrade the tower right under their noses!
Oh, there is an enemy and I have no tower? Let me quickly build a sentry with 40 seconds of build time and upgrade the tower right under their noses!
-
2
-
-
When it comes to elite rank soldiers, I would like to remind you of how strong they can be.
Even without micro, elite javelin cavalry can beat spear cavalry. Elite sword cavalry has a base of 6 pierce armor and 250 HP and good DPS, making it a very good units against ranged units and siege. When the Elite sword cavalry is compared to the champion spear cavalry, the Elite sword cavalry is surprisingly good considering its costs. Furthermore elite swordsmen are comparable to skiritai commandos while the mercenary probably will be cheaper.
I think that is something people should keep in mind.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Dizaka said:
The suggestion: For example, what if projectiles behaved like in a23 for P1. However, in P2 and P3 they behave like they do in a24 to prevent a "hero" from luring all the arrows?
I am not a big fan of doing spooky things. If we implement this, it would not really be obvious to all the players what the difference is. Also I hope it does not lead to weird gameplay.
I did some tests and I believe 3.0 to be a better spread value than 2.5. Also as chrstgtr said, rotation times do affect the performance. I think the rotation speed should be low enough to prevent dancing, but fast enough to allow javelin cav rushes.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Balancing advisors, do you think these are appropriate for improving the weak civs?
The most important question is what makes a civ weak in A24? I think the answer seems to be: Lacking all of these features 1. no good heroes 2. no good siege 3. no elephants 4. not having archery tradition, horse archers or pikemen.
I think there is a core element in the meta that is causing them to be considered weak. In the current meta, there is a real benefit of good siege or elephants. I think we should implement changes that affect the meta, instead of considering these civilizations flawed. Personally I feel like these civilizations have something going for them, but I can understand that they are considered weak in the current meta.
Also there is: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25338
-
On 07/05/2021 at 5:42 PM, maroder said:
Not sure how much this would change. As the CC is still the most defended area, I believe people will just build like this:
I didn´t mean to do it literally that way, but I would rather say it was in the same spirit. We could for example say that fields generated by a granary are a different type of crops, which is gathered 10% faster and where only 2 citizens can gather per field. In that case it would seriously impact city layout as you cannot place 40 citizens around your CC with this method.
If you combine it with giving CCs positive auras for buildings, you would give players reasons to do things differently. Ideas for that would be markets near CCs get 5% barter price and blacksmiths near CCs give citizen soldiers produced from the CC a small bonus. That way every player probably wants to build the market and blacksmith near the CC and scarify some farming space.
I think we need an entire arsenal of tools to supply a change of city layout if we want to do it an a soft way, since placing farms around CCs makes a lot of gameplay sense.
Recap: I am in favor of adding a second way so players get to chose whether they want to use the granaries or the original fields.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
What about decreasing territory influence of second CCs? Perhaps their territory effect is a bit too OP?
I doubt if it is OP. CCs are expensive but useful can be useful. More territory also means more territory to defend and in that view a second CC also makes you vulnerable.
-
1
-
-
What do people think of the Empire Earth way to do it? In that game you build a granary and 8 fields spawn around it. That would be different from placing it around the CC. We could have a feature were you could place fields individually or for a reduced price with a granary.
The transparent grey building in the middle of the fields is the granary.
-
1
-
-
I think Yekaterina has said some helpful things, but I suppose execution is your problem.
When you start the game, be as quick as you can to select your Civic center and train some units. U can use the hotkey z for training women.
Then put all your units to work.
When you have done so, select your Civic center and press ctrl+1, now you can access your CC by pressing 1 on your keyboard. It is important to play with one hand on the keyboard and pressing 1 often to see if your CC is idle.
Also, as mentioned use batch training. In order to do so, select a building and press the shift button. Now you can train units in groups, which is faster. By using the mouse wheel you can vary the batch sizes.
Pro tip: Don't be a girl who forgets eco upgrades. Don't know where I heard that before.
-
That is a good question. I always thought you had to order them manually to get fighting en masse. If you don't order them to fight, I suppose they are just collecting resources unless the unit itself is attacked. I don't know that for sure to be honest.
-
The big difference between most games is the citizen soldier concept. As ValirhAnt said, booming equals turtling.
What 0ad in my view lacks is units that specialize in either booming, rushing or turtling. Currently citizen soldier infantry fit all of these roles. They are best used for booming, so that is more or less what everyone does.
And then there is citizen cavalry. They are fast but lack the strength to go toe-to-toe with a good infantry force. If you commit to a cavalry rush and it doesn't work out, you need to pump resources in something that does not work out or give up on all the resources that you invested in your cavalry rush. If you do not want to be confronted with such a dilemma, it is wise not to spend too much resources on your cavalry rush. I think that explains why cavalry rushes are most often limited in number.
-
How do you think about the Galatians? Then the Guals can also be an enemy of Macedon and Seleucids.
-
56 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
I believe that each unit should be oriented to have a role.
I think this is very true. Right now the bulk of damage is done by ranged units and all melee units are just equal as target dummies/damage sponges, except pikemen who are the superior damage sponges. Ranged units are so dominant that people compare mostly how ranged units fare against each other, whereas they do not consider that skirmishers are far better if there is a meat shield.
Most units have similar pierce and hack armor. Why have two different types if the armor is mostly the same for most units? I think we should think a little about that and give spearmen/pikemen -2 hack armor to make them vulnerable to sword infantry.
-
2
-
-
On 02/05/2021 at 11:10 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:
Seems like a really ambitious project. It would be cool to see how it looks on release.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Moreover, the current alpha still allows spamming—just make more barracks—so it doesn’t to even address the problem you wanted to solve
This is the reason why I feel small changes in train rates are no big deal. If the train rates are change a little, people will adjust the amount of barracks they make.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I have the feeling that turtley gameplay and endless 4v4s are caused by (see earlier post) unit speeds, stone availability and defenses power.
In my logic, if units move faster then the time spent traveling to your opponent is less and that would reduce to economic cost of being away from work for some time. I think the main issue is not the speed, rather it is that the unit with most range(=area it can control) is also the most useful. Reducing archer speed to 9.0 will not make a big difference in my view.
I do think the strength of defenses is an issue. Without p3 there is no realistic way to take a garrisoned opposing tower.
-
1
-
-
On 13/03/2021 at 2:08 PM, Yekaterina said:
If you want to proof that the gamma function for factorials actually works, you will not only get an integral by parts after doing partial integration, but you will even apply a proof by induction on it.
So those who were think ¨Ah, @#$%¨ actually are a bunch of pussies.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, ValihrAnt said:
The problem stems from citizen soldiers and the fact that they are the best economic and military unit available at the same time.
I think that this touches the key to the problem. More specifically, ranged infantry is the best military unit and they are good for your boom. If two players are evenly matched, the defender would have the same production and type of units as the attacker, which leaves the defender with an advantage. Going for a major infantry attack is costly on the economy and that´s why in a citizen soldier concept it has no place. I think the solution is not boosting gathering rate of women, but rather there needs to be a better rock-paper-scissor system. Generally speaking, I think the strength of ranged units is a problem in all phases and it results in simplified strategy: which unit should you make early on? Ranged infantry. I believe this offers no options to outstrategize your opponent, as the counters to ranged units all have their limitations. If melee cavalry could defeat ranged infantry, I think the problem would be solved for the civilizations that get melee cavalry in p1 (which is the reason for:)
Because of some recent events, I have to admit that cavalry rushes can be executed effectively if the rushing playing is the better player. But in 1v1s I feel that cavalry rushes only work out if there is a skill difference between the players.
Women cost only 50 food and can be produced from houses with fertility festival and collect wood at almost the same rate, which makes women better for booming in my view.
-
1
-
-
This is me trying out if spear-men cavalry can perform as a good counter against skirmishers and can deal with superior numbers of cheaper infantry.
-
2
-
-
I ran some tests to learn something about the effect of the spread statistic. I measured the performance of 8 units. I was able to determine the distance better than in my previous post, so the numbers differ slightly. The camel archer has spread of 2.0 and the spread for the archers is given in the top row of the table. I also listed the distance of which the units fired, either 30 meters or 60 meter. Finally I looked at some units firing at a single target or firing at 4 targets close to each other.
So I modded the spread value of the archers and then used these to fill a column in the table. Not every run had the same duration as the others. The time related to a run is correlated to the damage dealt by the camels. Some runs are shorter than other, but in my analysis I will account for that. I made the following table where the numbers in it represent the experience which is correlated to the damage dealt and shots landed. In the brackets, I mentioned the % of damage it dealt compared to the long range variant (so the 51% in the bottom right corner means that archer at long range vs multiple targets did 51% as much damage as the archer at short range vs multiple targets(which did 89)). For the camel (firing at a group of enemies) this value is always around 0.7 as the spread of camels was left constant. These are my test results.
-The first observation is that camels(spread 2.0) at 30m range are fairly close to near perfect spread archers. We also see that firing on a group does not give the camels an advantage at short range.
-The second observation I would like to make as that a camel is fairly close to an unmodded archer except for having 7.0 pierce damage instead of 6.7.
-The third observation If the archer is firing at a group, its increase in spread will have less effect than when it is firing at a single target.
-The fourth observation If the spread is increased from 2 to 2.5, the decrease of 30m range damage at a group is proportional to the decrease of 60m range at a group(We both get around 0.7). For a spread increased to values higher than 3.0 the ratio decreases from 0.7 to 0.6. Though the ratio stays the same from 3.0 onwards to 4.5, the absolute values decrease.
-The fifth observation starting at a spread value of 3, archers are no longer effective at targeting single units, but can still do decently against groups.
An increase of spread from 2 to 2.5 results in a 5.4% nerf at 30m range against an opposing group while it is a 4.1% nerf on long range against an opposing group.
An increase of spread from 2 to 2.8 results in a 10% nerf at 30m range against an opposing group while it is a 13% nerf on long range against an opposing group.
An increase of spread from 2 to 3.0 results in a 14% nerf at 30m range against an opposing group while it is a 25% nerf on long range against an opposing group.
An increase of spread from 2 to 3.5 results in a 21% nerf at 30m range against an opposing group while it is a 33% nerf on long range against an opposing group.
Historically, at long range archers were not effective at targeting single units and were more effective at fire at opposing formations. Also archers at long range did not cause a lot of casualties. Also I think it is lame to have a game where units deal significant damage from long range, while I think that on the 30 meter range their damage can be maintained. If archers deal less damage at long range, I think it would benefit play with early cavalry aggression.
I think an increase of spread to 3.0 would serve these purposes best. Because I consider the results of that to be quite hefty, I would suggest giving the archer a 10% attack boost, resulting in a 30m nerf of 5% against groups and a 18% nerf at 60m range against groups. It also means that archers become now only feasible in large groups and would thus struggle early on.
If you read all of this, what do you think is the perfect spread value for archers?
-
4
-
1
-
-
I ran some tests to learn something about the effect of the spread statistic. I measured the performance of 6 units.
The first one is a camel archer at short range.
The second one is a archer at short range.
The third one is a archer at short range firing at multiple opponents.
The fourth one is a camel archer at long range.
The fifth one is a archer at long range.
The sixth one is a archer at long range firing at multiple opponents.
The camel archer is the control group with static stats. For the archers I tweaked the spread statistic. I made the following table where the numbers in it represent the experience which is correlated to the damage dealt and shots landed. In the brackets, I mentioned the % of damage it dealt compared to the long range variant (so the 38% in the bottom right corner means that archer at long range vs multiple targets did 38% as much damage as the archer at short range vs multiple targets). For the camel this value is always around 0.6 as the spread of camels was left constant.
spread
0.1
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Camel short
126
133
140
155
133
144
archer short
125
108
102
96
67
66
archer short, multiple targets
125
125
125
125
100
100
Camel long
78
80
84
94
80
84
archer long
123(98.4%)
49(45.4%)
42(42.2%)
38(38.6%)
24(35.8%)
20(30.3%)
archer long, multiple targets
123(98.4%)
75(60%)
62(49.6%)
57(45.6%)
43(43%)
38(38%)
The first observation is that camels(2.0 spread) at short range are fairly close to near 0.1 spread archers. In reality they are archers with 2.0 spread and +5% damage, so the shift in spread of 2.0 to 0.1 is equivalent to about 4% damage for the short range.
The second observation is that archers at long range seem to drop of more compared to the short version if the spread increases.
The third observation is that if the spread increases, the relative advantage of the archer with multiple targets also increased compared to the archer shooting on only 1.
I hope that some players will be able to make some other insightful observations, but I will leave it at that. Now I will explain what I think should be good for the game. I think at long range, ranged units should be mainly a nuisance and bad at targeting individual units. So for the option of 4.5 spread, this means that it drops in 30% in terms of effective DPS on short range. To counter such, the Archer could be given 20% more pierce damage. This would mean that if archers now deal 100*1.2 damage in the same period as the camel (similar to the archer with 0.1 spread ) deals 144. So at short range it is a 15% nerf (provided that the archers are shooting at multiple targets.). On long range it would seem like a nerf of 47% (compared to the long camel shooting at multiple targets, this statistic is not in the table).
If we chose a spread of 2.5 and no additional attack increase, we would get a short range nerf of about 5% provided the archer shoots at multiple opponents. For the long range the nerf will be 6.5% (compared to the camel shooting at multiple targets, this statistic is not in the table)
To be honest. I messed up my test results by having the short archer firing at multiple opponents was advanced rank and had better accuracy than the others. I will need to update the table, but I will do so tomorrow.
88121138_speadtestforspread4_0.63801cc4ff25c1802139df3e418b4344
-
1
-
what do we do with the defenses of phase 1?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Would it be easy to make it 1 crush damage and give a 600 multiplier to palisades?