real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
1.835 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
ok so basically unitAI is responsible for just about all the entities, so ships and siege towers have UnitAI. BuildingAI is responsible for the building arrows.
in @wowgetoffyourcellphone's work, they no longer have anything to do with buildingAI, and instead behave like infantry, cavalry etc.
19 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:UnitAI is similar to non-random buildingAI except ships will chase the first ship that they come into contact with. This chase can lead to problems, including luring with rock ships with rock and/or paper ships.
By default they will target the first enemy they see unless you give a specific target, just like regular units. I think the ship classes do an excellent job on emphasizing ship positioning: Keeping vulnerable ships protected, flanking with ram ships, massing arrow ships together, raiding fish with scout ships.
The main thing is that ship gameplay won't be a total snooze fest XD.
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
But why is that mutually exclusive? If it is old buildingAI then the classes get muddled and you just need a mix of units. If it UnitAI then I think it could become just be a bunch of luring with sniping (targeting overrides). If it is nonrandom buildingAI then at least you get battle positioning.
not sure what you mean with this. The ships are now like any other unit, (archer, pikeman, etc) in that they don't have buildingAI. So there is no buildingAI to be had.
im sure there will plenty of strategies and micro involved.
-
5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
But wow already has a rework for ships I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive, though
They are, the rework makes ships behave like proper units rather than water siege towers.
And they have classes: scout ship, arrow ship, fire ship, ram ship, siege ship.
-
40 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:
That said I think nonrandom arrows would be good for ships.
Well @wowgetoffyourcellphone has already put together a pretty awesome rework for ships, which goes a lot further.
40 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:Nonrandom arrows simply don't play well with the engine currently imo, and random arrows did introduce a somewhat unique strategical mechanism like mentioned above.
47 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:All this is to say, we tried. But it was disliked by a lot of people. It wasn’t the first change to suffer that fate and it won’t be the last.
I'll die on the hill that ultimately a non-random system is superior, but I can agree that the implementation of non-random arrows haven't hit the mark I was going for: Manual targeting isn't used much, some buildings are too effective, and others like the fortress are still fairly ineffective.
I'll put out an update sometime removing the non-random arrows, which may also help to serve as a negative control. I will bring them back at some point, with improvements for user control, cursors, audio cues, and more careful balance.
-
3
-
-
When I did the melee/ranged rebalance, I reduced all ranged unit damage. I could apply that same damage reduction to the a26 building arrow values. I think that would be the simplest way to go about it.
i won’t have time to make a new version for a while tho.
-
1
-
-
On 17/05/2024 at 7:57 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
My favorite "spy" unit I've seen in an RTS was way back 30 years ago in Command & conquer: Red Alert.
To you, it looked like a guy in a tuxedo (think: James Bond), but to the enemy it looked like just one of their own soldiers. So, then you could move your Spy into the enemy base relatively undetected. The only detection methods were the fact that you couldn't command an enemy spy to do anything, even though it looked like one of your men. This would clue you into the fact that it was indeed a spy. Also, one faction had Guard Dogs that the Spy had to avoid, else they'd detect him and maul him. The Spy could infiltrate enemy structures and you could then see what that structure was doing. The Spy could also "Sabotage" the structure by damaging it by a certain percentage.
AOE4 has this with the ninjas and they can damage/destroy buildings and drop smokes and run fast.
I don't recommend this kind of mechanic.
Now, it might be cool for a civ to have a unit equivalent of the scout tower. I think that would be cool for an american civ.
-
7 hours ago, Atrik said:
You don't play/spec enough games
So that disqualifies me from making points here?
19 minutes ago, Atrik said:Siege towers can be a bit annoying because they are hit and run units. If you remove the pack/unpack time of bolts, that would also allow hit and run.... But with much more range, and aoe... Bolts are the most interesting units right now because they are challenging.
What are you talking about? siege towers can attack while moving. Bolts and catapults cannot. That is a masssssssive difference.
17 hours ago, Atrik said:I guess this is why hans don't have access to their wheeled bolt shooters, they are just too op.
This was probably historical accuracy. Also, this would be a very simple fix to make them balanced: Keep the low movement speed, adjust damage and accuracy.
19 minutes ago, Atrik said:Bolts are the most interesting units right now because they are challenging.
challenging for the wrong reason: you have to wait 10 sec + (2 sec prepare time) to shoot. They have never been OP because of their mobility and they wouldn't even if the pack time was removed.
A better challenge would be to focus on rewarding manual targeting to make the most of passthrough damage by increasing linear splash and decreasing the single unit damage the same amount.
-
@Atrik both bolts and catapults have been op before, but not because of their pack time.
it was because of their damage. What would happen is a ball of 30 or so bolts could be formed that basically became invulnerable but immovable.
-
4 hours ago, Atrik said:
They are just high risk high reward units.
I would say just high risk. Its pretty rare to get them in a position you actually get the rewards (because they are so clunky).
Yeah, they are rarely seen in TGs and almost never in 1v1s (except for when vali pulls some wizardry).
-
17 minutes ago, Vantha said:
But you're aware there's seperate hotkey entries for setting, selecting, and adding control groups, right?
yes and I have these set to nothing. Can you successfully make batches? hold shift -> press 1111111111
-
hmm, using shift+1,2,3 etc? I can use the numbers to queue single units, but not batches. You mean restarting the game, or uninstalling and reinstalling?
-
ok so since this is a general siege discussion, I would like to post about siege pack times.
Currently catapults and bolt shooters take 10 seconds to convert between packed and unpacked. I think this is a needlessly long conversion time and it basically makes the use of catapults and bolt shooters highly clunky and annoying. Also, it massively reduces the surprise factor, which is important in 0ad.
Often I see players prefer to use rams even when up against turtled civs that heavily counter rams like iberians.
Lastly, pushing a player with siege ends up taking too much time for most games. in team games at least, the rest of your team may have lost the game before your catapults have made progress.
I'd like to reduce the pack time to 5 seconds and the pack time upgrade to -50% prepare time, so they come up to 2.5 seconds.
-
on "officer" type units, I don't really see the need to simulate these except for civ - specific reasons, like the centurions. Other than for special cases, there is really no point in simulating officers and lower level military leadership. It just seems like a complication that may as well be baked into the soldiers anyway.
-
51 minutes ago, Vantha said:
You reassigned the hotkeys? Maybe the numbers are conflicting with the default control group hotkeys then.
Well I unassigned the control group hotkeys, and this is also something you can do on mac. Now that I am on windows I am surprised this is different.
-
17 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I think what you're basically describing is the Han Minister.
no i mean more like a civic equivalent of the heroes we have. The ministers are more like an economic version of the trumpeters.
-
@Vantha yes but it seems using numbers like this does not work and produces some strange behavior, like not being able to click. Can anyone else on windows confirm?
-
1 hour ago, Emacz said:
But I like when allies think about the bonuses as they choose their civs
and both teams could run mirror if they thought one set team was OP with bonuses And again if the 2nd one wasn't able to be unlocked until p2 or even p3 you would have to get there first to see if it really made ur team OP
well, coming from someone who has -tried- to balance civs and design new features, the team bonuses can be limiting. Ie, I am thinking of some civ bonus and I realize that basically the same thing is already a team bonus from another civ. If those bonuses double up, then you have super OP combos of civs, which is not intended.
Then in essence, every team bonus for 1 civ restricts the civ bonus possibilities for all the other civs. Then as you start to add new civs, this task gets harder and harder.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
What do you think about putting Heroes in @Village or Town phase? A little more integral to the course of the game. Or maybe 1 hero in Village, 1 hero in Town, 1 hero in City.
I don't know about that. For one, heroes have super strong stats and could be used for very cheesy stuff early on. I suppose we are introducing a p2 hero (kind of a B tier hero) in a27 for Athenians, so we will see how strong that is.
@wowgetoffyourcellphone what about this: instead of selecting a hero, you select a ruler. This would be a purely infantry unit without much fighting stats, but some bonus or aura, potentially you could use existing civ bonuses for this too. I don't really like doing it at the start of the game, because it becomes a 1 click strategy: your choice would determine your follow up moves. It could be interesting to make this available from the cc once you reach p2: Click an icon in the cc called "Take rule" or something, and it pulls up the dialogue to make the selection.
Then these ruler units could be used for regicide.
idk, just a thought.
-
6 hours ago, Atrik said:
Here is my line of reasoning: if the maximum power dps of a tower is nerfed by that much (reminder garrison contribute to -50% dps in 26.8), the associated cost of building the towers or upgrading them should have been scaled in consequences. Here some ideas:
- Sentry towers build cost reverted back to 100wood, or even lowered to 80wood.
I agree, I think the 25 wood cost especially has made them much less worthwhile. However, lowering the cost back to 100 or 80 wood and keeping them weak (-50% garrison dmg), makes them a bit more spammy (too easy to cover a large area), which is kind of what happened in 26.6.
I would rather keep the cost as is, but add a single default arrow to make the 125 wood more worthwhile. I think it is good design to make scout towers something you get if needed when you can't fight off rushes. For example in aoe2, they talk about "forcing a tower" basically applying enough pressure to make the opponent invest in a tower for defense, therefore that money isn't invested in eco.
-
imo the roman heroes are very bland. Somewhere there is a version of a roman hero (DE maybe?) that slows enemy units among a couple of other things, and I think that one sounds super fun (not for the enemy ofc).
-
I like multiple civ bonuses, but as for team bonuses I think there should only be one. I agree some team bonuses are very lacking (looking at you britons).
The reason for my take is pretty much for simplicity: When you are teaming up with three allies, it is less to keep track of knowing only 3 bonuses may affect you.
Also, by allowing only 1 team bonus, you run less risk in accidentally introducing OP civ stacks.
-
1
-
-
the scaling is just the recording (i think).
These were things i did on mac but now cant on windows. (use numbers to shift queue batches).
i havent tried cmd and ctrl, should that be done before or with the other keys?
-
-
Ok, not sure what is wrong with the video format, but it shows what is happening in my windows experience on 0ad.
1st (not exactly related to the video):
I can't use 1,2,3,4 to queue units with shift, only queueing single units by pressing 1 without shift.
2nd:
in a game I played yesterday, I would occasionally notice a batch of a few units I tried to train with shift+clicking the icon a few times. This batch would not train, and clicking the icon again would add 1 unit of that type to the queue. Also the batch number would disappear back to normal.
Now about the video, this is what happens if I let 'queue first unit' be shift+1, in an attempt to be able to shift queue with the numbers.
1st: I train a few units without batching, this is fine.
2nd: I use shift+1 multiple times to make a batch of 6.
3rd: this batch isn't produced. Instead, a single unit is queued and the number 6 is stuck over the unit icon.
4th: Now I can't click anything except the icons in the barracks menu.
5th: I click the unit icon with 6, and a single unit is queued, 6 remains on the unit icon.
6th: I press shift again and the 6 units are queued and train, I can click now.
Pretty weird, can any windows users replicate this?
Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
AFAIK, ships will currently try and aggro enemy ships. Yeah the only practical difference is that the Building AI is a stream of arrows (or a multi-arrow blast :D) that can be done while moving.