LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
To be honest, I think the call to for a design document isn´t rooted in practical purposes. I would consider the hope that a design document provides misleading. You might think that things get done once it is clearly put in a design document, but issues don´t magically solve itself when there is a design document.
I expect any design document to quickly get stale. So rather than saying this is the design document, It would be probably better to set goals for the next 3 alphas and count how much has been achieved to reach these goals.
There was some talk about faction differentiation, but what have the discussion since A24 delivered? Hoplite tradition and moving possibly kush pyramids to p1. You can´t say we should achieve this goal and just wait until it is achieved.
-
2
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Changing the trade formula sounds good. Once train becomes used more we can think about if we need to adjust the formula.
I'm very confused as to why when I look at the simulation/helpers/ folder I don't see tradergain.js.
I was using an old version assuming the location didn´t change. Thanks to @Freagarach for pointing towards the right directory.
-
17 minutes ago, thephilosopher said:
But for team games, esp. 4v4, it would do a lot more to show that a player who kills 400 units and loses 350 did a lot worse than a player who kills 375 units and loses 100. Whereas now the worse player gets the higher military score.
I think the player killing the 400 enemies performs better. Strength is how much trouble your opponents can throw while they are still unable to take you out.
-
3
-
-
I think it would be nice to introduce some features that represent the culture of certain factions.
An idea would be the Roman bathhouses. The in game effect could be similar to the technology living condition where garrisoned units regain HP.
-
5
-
-
16 hours ago, AIEND said:
If there are elephants, it should be provided by this part of the people, but obviously Ethiopians are not included, so no one can provide elephants to the Romans.
The Numindians provided elephants to Rome in the Second Celtiberian War. So the Romans had sources of elephants, but they did not focus on elephants corps.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I would suggest removing the extra pierce damage and adding +1 pierce and -1 hack armor.
Without upgrades, a javelin cavalry does 18 damage and needs 3 hits to do 48 damage to ranged infantry and only the 4th hit will eliminate. If the javelin cavalry loses 2 damage, then it can still kill the ranged infantry in 4 hits. In return it gets some durability, which means that all in all javelin cavalry get better against ranged infantry.
Also, javelin cavalry only are a suitable replacement if you can afford the +50 food. I must admit that some players regularly get in the situation where they have surplus food and for them replacing javelin infantry with javelin cavalry is a logical option. If the javelin cavalry loses 2 pierce attack, then this pattern is still there as the javelin cavalry can escape easier due to their speed. Their speed also helps them chasing down escaping infantry. So reducing the pierce attack by 2 won´t change that much from my perspective.
However I would be in favor of trying adjusted statistics, even if they are controversial.
-
1
-
-
IMHO, fixing trade needs some major changes and I don´t know if everybody would be happy with that. So I would like to get some input from the community. However changes tends not to be happening if you wait for community input. So it is better to be bold and just try something.
First I need to look at the code and see what works. but first I would like to discuss some trade gain logics.
The current code reads: distanceSq = firstMarketPosition.distanceToSquared(secondMarketPosition);
// We calculate gain as square of distance to encourage trading between remote markets(from simulation/helpers/TraderGain.js)
I have a problem with the square. It means that trade income per second goes increases proportionally with distance (to the power 1). That way there is a significant difference between trading over 300 meter (about the diameter of the p2 CC radius) and being able to trade with an ally over 600 meters. Over a distance of 900 meters, the trader is 3 times as efficient. This makes that if a value is balanced for 1v1, then due to this increase proportionally to distance it will be OP for TGs.
So I would change this formula to distanceSq = 40*firstMarketPosition.distanceTo(secondMarketPosition)^1.5;. The first formula speaks for itself as it mean that the gain per second increases proportional to sqrt(distance). By adjusting the constant and the exponent we can get the values that we like.
If you want to trade with you ally, then you currently are dependent on them building a market, or building two of your own. So I would like to trade between markets and civic centers. This can be done by adding to the CC template the following element:
<Market>
<TradeType>land </TradeType>
<InternationalBonus>0.1</InternationalBonus>I chose a value of International Bonus of 0.1, which is lower than that of a market/dock, meaning it is preferable to trade with real markets/docks than with CCs.
Getting everything to work takes some time which I currently not spending on the project.
So are there any further thoughts on the matter?
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Regarding the proposed team bonus differentiation^
I appreciate the effort, but as long as the trader is not viable with or without the bonuses, differentition does not improve anything.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
What is your least favorite balance thing in Aoe2? I saw a video from Spirit of the Law where he talked about how attack-move might be a bit op. He said it gives so much extra speed to archers while they move and shoot that it makes it too hard for them to be targeted by melee pathfinding.
In The Conquors expansion for AoE , most civilizations had a tech tree that gave both options and liabilities. But with the balance changes, the liabilities were softened. This makes that the different tech trees become less unique and the game becomes age of eco bonuses.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I think you need to accept that the product will be unrealistic if you have a game where cavalry and elephant´s can´t move and attack at the same time.
What I think about AoE 2 development? The developer added enough dis-likable balance features to the game for me to say that the end result is worse than what they started with.
-
16 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
It is a balancing issue. There's expectations of how the user interface should work. Once those expectations are not met and they force resignations it is a balancing issue. Going from 200 pop limit to 0 in a matter of seconds with no adversarial action by your enemy forcing a self-inflicted loss is a balancing problem.
Unless you use shift-delete, there is a warning before you delete something. You might expect that the warning is just something you need to click away, but actually it should be used as a moment to think if you really want to delete it.
You can´t blame the system for not checking what you were deleting before you deleted it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, faction02 said:
Citizen-Soldiers makes many of the existing features of other games not suited for 0ad. Sieges needs to be able to destroy buildings relatively fast. Whereas in other game keeping some military units idle to protect your sieges is perfectly fine,
6 hours ago, faction02 said:For the same reason, having sieges units being effective is quite important in 0ad.
I disagree with @BreakfastBurrito_007 and @faction02 that the CS system makes siege units more important. In most RTS games, an idle army is wasted time and is a serious limitation to your chances to win. In 0ad an attack does not need siege units to be effective.
2 hours ago, davidsrsb said:Why is it a problem? It is historically correct. The real world penalties were cost, training time and that they were slow, vulnerable to attack from behind
Pikemen weren´t well protected so the high armor values doesn´t seems historically correct IMHO. The main protection of a group of pikeman was that undisciplined soldiers don´t want to walk towards a wall of pikes.
Personally, I am no fan of adding arson to the game and I prefer the capture mechanic. The capture-delete mechanic is not a great design choice. Maybe instead of deleting buildings, a player should be able to set his own buildings on fire to slowly destroy it instead of instantly deleting them.
-
2
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
more cultural and religious background.
That would be very nice. Currently the dominant strategy has little strategical depth: Spam skirmishers and spearmen (or pikemen)
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
As a balancing consideration we need to ask: is an extra 50 food per unit equivalent to +2 attack, extra hp, and speed?
In equal numbers the cavalry outperforms the infantry skirmisher on the battlefied, but if both armies have equal cost, then the infantry wins in a pitched battle. Would it be bad design if the more expensive unit is superior in equal numbers?
Also I like the balance between javelin cavalry and infantry in the early game. So I think the current values are justified.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
what do you mean by "useful in small numbers?
There come 3 ways to my mind to ensure that trade is only viable in small numbers.
1. Increased cost or dimishing profit as the number of traders increases.
2. Lack of technologies that boost traders. Citizen soldiers gain +25% gather rate per technology, whereas the traders only gain a lower profit increase per technology. Traders could have a base trade profit that outperforms other economic options early on, but as the player researches technologies the traders would become less competitive. In such a situation it would be ineffective to train a lot of traders, whereas they might be used to get a head start.
3. Giving traders a long train time. If traders would cost 30 food and 20 metal and produce as much income as citizen soldiers, but have a train time of 50 seconds, then using the market to train trader is efficient, but getting a lot of them would not be viable.
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
These are good points. Also keep in mind trade bonuses are boring and there are a million other creative and engaging bonus possibilities that can influence player decisions in a variety of situations. When I see a team bonus of "+20% land trade income" for example, I read "no team bonus for this civ".
I disagree with the way you view the situation. The only reason Carthage came to be an empire is because they mad a lot of trade profit. So Carthage should be viewed as much to be trade faction as a mercenary faction. It isn´t bad design to have a bonus to traders.
The trader has a low resource generation and a high payback time. I don´t know what the exact gain is for traders. I would guess you unlikely will receive more than 0.6 resources per second. The trader cost 180 resources and thus pays for itself only after 5 minutes. So currently trade can´t compete with other ways of building an economy. That is in my view the real problem about trade.
Before we can fix trade, we need to discuss what trade is supposed to be. Should trade be a last resort for your economy like it currently functions the map polar sea? Should trade be something that is useful in small numbers? Or should trade be the superior way to build an economy, with the disadvantages of giving no military power, being difficult to protect and requiring p2?
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
For example, a Helot Slinger for Sparta. Some kind of slinger for the Romans (probably a merc Balearic Slinger).
I dislike this approach. If a faction lacks diversity, just jumping to the solution of giving them slingers makes factions more like each other rather than making those faction truly unique.
Spartans have the Skiritai and Spartiates, yet those units don´t stand out as the units that make Sparta unique.
-
2
-
-
I have seem some people saying that if melee units deal to much damage, then there is no reason to create ranged troops.
As long as ranged troops can kill enemy units faster than melee troops can, there is a reason to add some quantity of ranged troops in your army, even if the difference in damage output is relatively small.
Even though the damage difference between spearmen and archers is fairly small, a composition of 100% spearmen will lose against 90% spearmen and 10% archers.
My point is that ranged units are still viable even if the damage difference would be small.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, thephilosopher said:
Ways of setting up the game (specific pop limits/maps/civs) to discourage turtling as a strategy? Ways to quickly defeat players who turtle?
On mainland there is no guaranteed way to defeat turtlers, but a map that make turtling very difficult is the empire map. On that map you start with 2 CCs and both thus you can focus your cavalry attacks on the weakest point of their bases.
But then again, turtlers might not like to play on empire.
-
1
-
-
I think it is nice that you bring up the topic. I tried trading between my markets which were placed about 340m apart (a p1 CC has a territory radius of 140) and the traders gained about 0.22 resources per seconds (without bonuses or techns). If you double the distance, then the profit increases to about 0.33 resources per second.
Currently the trading mechanic is only useful is there is absolutely no other way to get a particular resource. So rather than trading being a enhancement to regular gameplay,it only has a very tiny niche.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Sevda said:
Both the black player and the white player have a queen so the civs are balanced.
NO, it needs an FTA(First Turn Advantage) counter!
-
3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Stop purposely misquoting me.
It think one should be careful not to misquote people, but for me it is bad language/attitude to suggest that someone does so on purpose.
3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:-
Sele
- a cav health tech that actually mattered
-
Persia
- a cav health tech that actually mattered
- unique stables, which are a handicap and much more than something that just "'looks' different"
-
Brits
- building pop bonus
-
Gauls
- building pop bonus
-
Ptol
- free houses/storehouses/farmhouses/corrals
-
Mace
- a unique siege building that allowed for unique strats
-
Rome
- Camps could do more
-
Sparta
- More champs options
- Less pop (I wasn't sad to see this go)
-
Athens
- More champs options
- p2 champs
For all of these changes, there are good reasons to accept them as well as there are good reasons to grief about them being eliminated.
A23 is history right now. Some things have gone and some have come in place. Rather than saying this is bad, it is better to try to undestand both sides of the discussion. So we should look on how we can move forward.
When discussing if something is unbalanced or not, the settings should be considered. Though there is a lot of complaining around here, there is not a lot of people that try to play in different settings. In A24 TG players said that there was to little metal, yet nobody with those complaints created a map where players start with 2 metal mines around their base.
-
1
-
Sele
-
I don't think RTS is doomed. Obviously RTS is not where the big money is.
-
1
-
-
On 11/03/2022 at 12:06 AM, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Entity parent="template_structure_military_forge">
<Identity>
<Civ>gaul</Civ>
<SpecificName>Gobanion</SpecificName>
</Identity>
<ProductionQueue/>
<Trainer>
<BatchTimeModifier>0.8</BatchTimeModifier>
<Entities datatype="tokens">
units/gaul/gaul_armorer_cart |Update. I corrected this from "units/gaul_armorer_cart" to indicate that the file is found in the gaul folder under units.|
</Entities>
</Trainer>
<VisualActor>
<Actor>structures/gauls/blacksmith.xml</Actor>
</VisualActor>I am not an expert either but the <ProductionQueue/> element seems strange to me. Shouldn't there be an opening and a closing statement like <VisualActor> </VisualActor> ?
Wow's new unit countering ideas
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
This is all ready the case. If you open the scenario editor and let the cavalry archer and infantry archer fight one on one,You will see that the infantry archer hits the cavalry archer more often. Both units have the same accuracy.