Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
  • Posts

    1.765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

real_tabasco_sauce last won the day on March 11

real_tabasco_sauce had the most liked content!

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

real_tabasco_sauce's Achievements

Primus Pilus

Primus Pilus (7/14)

992

Reputation

  1. Ok, after a couple of months with the new update, do you all find melee units too strong when they rank up? I have a plan to reduce the melee rank up stats (+hp, +20% damage, +1 armor of all types -> +hp, +10% damage)
  2. Ok, so it is pretty clear to me that questions 2,3, and 4 are problematic at the moment. Would you all say these issues are only problematic when the CCs and towers are garrisoned? Or are they problematic regardless of the soldiers inside contributing additional arrows? I don't think the "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted" solution will work very well, but I can certainly do it if thats what ppl want.
  3. ok, I just figured out how to allow siege towers to benefit from targeting (with queueing and pushing to front of queue). https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4964 All thanks to the glorious @Isam f
  4. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/36 I did a 0.3 pierce buff here. Of course a well played game can make archers look really good, but I have heard archers being a little weak from a lot of players. I think 0.3 won't take them to OP territory, just a little boost.
  5. so like +25 wood or stone, and reduce garrisoned damage? based off of this:
  6. Ah i see. Sure, so would a full revert. The reason the option involves the term "balance" is because that is what would be done by changing the arrow counts. The system is different, so it should be made balanced. Basically, it describes well the task of adjusting arrow counts now that they work differently. We have a new system that has disrupted balance as evidenced by questions 2-4, and that solution would involve restoring balance by changing arrow counts I suppose I could avoid the term "balance," but then I would need a lot more words than necessary.
  7. What do u all think should be done with sentry towers? Slight bump in cost? Increase build time? change arrows counts/fire rate?
  8. That question is about what to do going forward. Do we balance arrows to solve the above issues? or revert/semi-revert the random arrows. It doesn't make sense to have a "random balanced arrows" option because the arrows counts were already balanced for random arrows. That would just be the same as a full revert. That's basically the first question.
  9. You aren't butting in, thanks for your input! However, I am really confused @ChronA. I can't tell what you mean.
  10. @chrstgtr You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward.
  11. Ok then you want to go back to a26, surely. Frankly, I don't understand why you say this. I see perfectly content players in the community mod. You are massively overstating the effects on rushes, people are still doing rushes very effectively, its just different. One player yesterday told me that rushes are slightly more difficult. thats about 1% of the complaints. And your own complaints above are purely based on theory as you insist. Right now I am hearing that archers are too weak. I heard this from about 15 people when asking the lobby. I heard elephants are not quite effective enough from 5 people. And I heard 1 player say that spearmen were much more impactful when defeating a rush than the building arrows! Frankly I think you are very confident about your opinion solely based on a26 vanilla, and you fail to accept what is actually happening in the mod. It is not a disaster as you make it out to be, and that is why you called for "more experimentation" even though you said above "it appears to have been rejected." If it was really that bad you would actually advocate for a revert.
  12. That is massively mischaracterizing the intent of changing buildingai. I did think the 1:30 chicken rushes were imbalanced but above all else, the purpose of the buildingAI change was just progress. To further the enjoyability of the game. I don't know what to do with this information. I don't think it is helpful at this point to use the past as a reference: Its better to observe current games and adjust from where we are at right now. So it doesn't help to tell me I am wrong and my development is wrong simply because things were not problematic in the past. Nevertheless, I think I identified the two main issues you raised with the current version and I agree with both. But ok, I give up on it for now. The next version will just address the other variables and then we can take another stab at rebalancing arrows sometime later.
  13. anyone know how to refresh a poll? I would like to start a new one with more detailed questions.
  14. These are indeed very different....I am repeating what others have said. I pointing to votes of other people. You not only are saying what other people MIGHT think--you are saying that people will change their mind. I honestly don't see how you can continue to insist on knowing the opinion of others. Ah, then you must be misunderstanding me. I was explaining that 0ad NAIVE players would expect and prefer a system similar to the one I developed over random arrows. You are the one saying "People don't like X, Nobody complained about Y" Ok this is closer to what I was asking for. Before you were just deflecting to how things were previously to describe a problem in a26.6. So I am gathering this from your paragraph: "Non-random building AI is too effective at stopping rushes" Is that what you mean? If so, I agree. Changes must be made to CC arrows and sentry towers so that rushers can still find kills. And lastly, let me address your last sentence here. Maybe people didn't complain about it, but my observations told me there was a problem. Players were able to dive under the CC for extended periods of time with no consequences. The CC should (according to the success of other games) be able to be a somewhat safe space if there is a ton of pressure. I would just argue that it is now too good at countering rushes when it is garrisoned now that it actually gets kills. It seems pretty clear then that the solution is to change the CC arrows and not revert to a26 arrows. With the right balance, rushing should be more dynamic since it brings in arrow micro, dodging, weak unit sniping, and quick dives under the CC. You could compare it to a26 where early rushes basically only involved buildings for uprising rushing cavalry with soldiers, other than that, they basically were just a timer saying "ok in XX seconds you need to leave the cc range." About your second paragraph, I would summarize it as: late game effects are complicated, but in general there is more turtling. Is that accurate? If that's the case, I would also agree and argue that arrow balance could fix it. However, given that there is so much uncertainty, how about I put together an update that addresses all the non-buildingAI stuff which is easier to address, and then we can reassess?
×
×
  • Create New...