LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
951 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
11 minutes ago, alre said:
fire damage is OP guys.
pierce damage: good against soldiers.
hack damage: good against soldiers and siege
crush damage: good against buildings and moderately effective against siege.
fire damage: good vs everything as there are no entities with armor against fire
-
1
-
-
On 16/09/2022 at 8:11 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
imbalance: units that do higher damage per second are benefitted more by the same 1.2x damage upgrade than lower-damage units. Even more concerning is that the gains in damage per upgrade grows with each upgrade, which means the discrepancy between lower damage units and higher damage units increases at an increasing rate. This certainly is one of the contributing factors for champion cavalry skirmishers (firecav/brit chariots) being so OP.
I don't see it as an imbalance. If without upgrades unit A can beat unit B with 66% health remaining, then if both units get the same upgrades then unit A still wins with 66% HP remaining. So it stays the same.
-
1
-
-
I wanted to test some spear cavalry with their 2x multiplier and I noticed this: Hero spear cavalry still have the 1.75 multiplier.
I don't know if that is something "ugly" or not, but it exists.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
here is a tentative set of unit specific upgrades.
I dislike the idea of unit specific upgrades.
Naturally there will be units that are more useful and those who are less useful. Player are most likely to prioritize the upgrades for the units that are most useful. So if you have researched the technologies of the units that are most useful, then why should you make a unit that:
1. has less overal usefulness.
2. requires some additional upgrades to reach its full effectiveness.
My worry is that it tends to lead to less diversity and it makes thing more complicated without actual benefit to gameplay. It can help for balancing, but we could use other methods (like faction specific bonusses) for balancing.
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I still have not figured out how to give archers some fire damage as a technology
I haven't figured out how to edit the burning status effect that fire cav have, but you can add a fire damage tech like this.
First, give the archer template a fire damage slot and set it to 0 to make it inactive. The corresponding code in the template is:
<Damage>
<Pierce>6.7</Pierce>
<Fire>0</Fire>
</Damage>Then create the tech to increase the fire damage. The modifications section of the tech should look like
"modifications": [
{ "value": "Attack/Ranged/Damage/Fire", "add": 1 },
]-
1
-
-
What I really experienced as positive about the AoE2 community on voobly, is that how easy it was to play with modded settings.
If someone felt that there was a better way to generate the map, they would install the map and people joining the lobby would automatically download it and be able to play on it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 08/09/2022 at 8:02 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:
(Another trouble for the invader is that soldiers (especially ranged soldiers) get distracted fighting the palisade and do not immediately stop when enemy soldiers come into range)
This defealt behaviour is prone to causing issues like these and other undesirable effects. The problem is a large part due to bad behaviour and that is something that needs to be fixed.
-
2
-
-
On 27/08/2022 at 9:31 AM, chrstgtr said:
Who knew this limitation existed before this post?
I guess that actually most of the curious or attentive players noticed this. Other resources have similar limitations.
On animals the limit can be noticed if you try to use more than 8 cavalry to collect the food of an elephant and you see some of them idling. Also if there is say only 1 goat left and you send a 3 or more of cavalry to it, then only 2 units only execute the command.
Most often, the limit is fine. Who would think it is efficient or useful to send 10 cavalry to gather from a goat that has only 70 food on it? If you gather with 8 cavalry from an elephant, you might wanted to use more, but actually 8 cavalry also gather quite quickly.
-
@borg- Can you give an explaination why the value of the food tickle for the persian ice house starts at 0.5 food per second?
with a gain of 0.5 food per second, the ice house does not seem to me as a good investments. Later in the game, I know there is a technology, but I suppose we would want the ice house to be reasonable investment without the technology.
-
Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it to the game. I hope you get some good games.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
the amount matters.
try 10 vs 10 and 50 vs 50, even 70 vs 70.
the difference is that most of the spearcav have to path and find a target during which time 100 percent of the skirm cav can attack.
Thanks for the suggestion. I did some test in the A26 scenario editor.
In 10v10, the spear cav win convincingly. Over 20 the result vary a lot and position is hugely important. Both sides can win with a third of their army remaining. In practical situation there likely will be some spear cav with pathing problems in a if numbers reach over 50.
Not only the spear vs jav cav matchup is curious. Javelin infantry have only 1/2 times the HP of their cavalry javelineer (ignoring the cav health upgrade), but don't suffer from the 2x multiplier. In a 60v60 battle between spear cav and javelin infantry, the spear cavalry have the edge, but sometimes the infantry javelineers win.
If we fight with infantry spearman vs. javelin infantry in numbers above 60, the javelineers convincingly win.
Some would argue that this is desirable balance where players need a combination of both melee and ranged units.
To me, this seems more like an ranged vs. melee problem. For me the game would be better balanced if the player with more ranged units would need more micro to get favourable engagements.
I also think that in the early to mid game, javelin cavalry is fairly well balanced. So I would like any changes that affect that. Maybe removing the +10% health upgrade could be something. Rather than removing the health upgrade (which is unique as it is an upgrade in a different building than the blacksmith), I would prefer if the final armor upgrades in the blacksmith did not affect cavalry but they get the +10% health upgrade.
-
16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
To properly test for balance we will need many players (at least enough for a 4v4 or two).
I hold the opinion that to properly test for balance it is better to play a 1v1
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I did some cav testing in RC2 of a26 and it seems without micro, spearcav get consistently beaten by equal numbers of javelin cavalry. I think it would be appropriate to reduce javelin cavalry damage by 2 from 18 to 16.
I failed to reproduce these result in the RC of a26, but I am not sure if I am on RC2
-
9 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
From units, yes; from buildings, no
Depends on the specific buff. For example the auras of theatres stacks.
-
8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
camel rushes are easier to pull off because camels can see infantry archers before infantry archers can see camels.
Camel rushes are mainly viable because the Ptolemaic player has a better economy and can create the camels in unmatched numbers. In the scenario editor I matched an infantry archer against an cavalry archer in a duel and my experience is that the infantry archer won more often than it lost.
Cavalry are units with a bigger footprint and are easier to hit. This (partially) offsets their higher HP.
8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:I said it is a contributor. Obviously there are many other reasons.
If cavalry late game deathballs needed to be nerfed, it would rather suggest to remove the+10% health upgrade.
Furthermore the extra vision probably affect cavalry more in the early game than in the late game. Also, the player with the most cavalry might not always be the one benefiting the most from the extra vision. If I had only half as much cavalry as my opponent, I would very much like my cavalry to see the enemy cavalry from a larger range and escape.
I don't think that reducing their vision actually solves the problem you are aiming at. However since I haven't tested it I can't say if less vision for the cavalry makes the game better or worse.
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, alre said:
useless
I don't think the current values make it useless in competitive play. Currently it seems to me corralling only can be justified if you use the cavalry to collect the food soon.
if you spend the food on livestock and you only gather them 2 minutes later, then you probably could have done something more useful than training livestock.
With the current values, you can afford not to collect the livestock immediately and store them in the corral as until your cavalry comes around to collect their food.
38 minutes ago, alre said:but I don't like the idea at large, I don't see any fun in it
The fun in it is that it could help a well-planed cavalry build and it gives players another option to manage their economy.
-
1
-
-
@real_tabasco_sauce@BreakfastBurrito_007@Player of 0AD@alre@Dizaka@Philip the Swaggerless@Yekaterina@Micfild@Lion.Kanzen@chrstgtr@ValihrAnt@borg-, you currently have the roles of balancing advisors.
Personally, I think the values are a little lower than they could be. However I think they are high enough to be an advantage in some niche builds.
So for me the numbers would be acceptable. I would like to hear your thoughts.
-
3
-
-
@Stan` I would like the values for this patch to be optimized, but most importantly is that it gets accepted.
Is there any chance the patch could be adopted in A26?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Frederick_1 said:
The upgrade simulates one more garnisoned in.
@Gurken Khan was correct that the upgrade only adds a single arrow to the volley and the upgrades does not do anything else.
However this comment is totally of topic.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, rossenburg said:
since we are comparing 0ad and aoe side by side ( which shouldn't be so ), i have a personal question : "Will you buy the idea of healers converting enemy units as your units?"
We could do that. Get some monks, lets wave a book towards those huskarls and sent them back to where they came from.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, BeTe said:
But we should be careful - not all players want aggressive game. We don't want to make game uncomfortable for beginners / intermediate players.
The assumption that a more aggressive game is uncomfortable to beginners is not valid.
For example: Age of Empires 2 is an aggressive game, but it does not mean the game is no fun for newer players. Also aggressive games point beginners quickly to the moment when they fall behind. Whereas a defensive boomy game only tells people after 10 minutes that they did something wrong.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Right now, there is basically no resource scarcity--players can build all the units they need with the resources within their own borders at every phase of the game.
I tend to like the resource availability in small mainland map on the Aegean-Anatolian biome.
However other biomes have more wood and they get forests get even bigger when there map size increases. The amount of forest doesn't scale well with the map size.
Limiting the size of forest also limits your development speed in some sense. However I would prefer not to divert to much from the original topic.
-
7 hours ago, borg- said:
I'm not particularly a fan of the fast style
I agree as the fast style of the game eliminates the middle phase of the game.
However there are also other factors that contribute to this.
-
1
-
-
On 12/07/2022 at 2:12 PM, Grapjas said:
Introducing a new way to get more visibilty for your mods, you can now get featured on Trac.
The idea is that modders- if interested- add their own mod to the page on Trac and we get a nice list together.
Gonna tickle some modders to possibly spark some interest @nani@Langbart@azayrahmad@wowgetoffyourcellphone@Lopess@andy5995@Lion.Kanzen@maroder@LetswaveaBook@Stan`@wackyserious@asterix (unpinged people welcome too ofc)
I believe the game needs more action in p2 instead of being a race to get the benefits of p3 as soon as possible.
Therefore I made a mod that moved the tier 2 upgrades in the forge to p2. It is available on mod.io
However I isn't easy to convince players in the lobby to play some games with the mod. I think it is sad, as we can't decide if we currently have the best setup or whether improvements are possible.
percentage based upgrades versus addition based upgrades
in General Discussion
Posted
Can you try to convince me that it is actually true? If the winning unit deals 2x as much damage per second, then the weaker unit dies in half the time. However in half the time, the weaker unit can deal 2*0.5 the original damage if the weaker unit has the same upgrades.