Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
  • Posts

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. 4 hours ago, binobo said:

    I think the roman army camp would be better at phase 2. however, rams should not be buildable at this phase. No other Civ can make siege in P2. I think most people don't use the camp because the build time takes too long. Reducing the build time to 200 seconds (20% reduction) would make it more viable. To make it more affordable, I think it it should be 400 wood (100 wood reduction) with 100 stone and 100 metal but the overall stats should be changed. I would suggest slight health reduction to 1750 health to balance the faster build time. I think the arrows should still stay the same. Thoughts?

    yes, of course. As the merge request is written, rams are still a phase 3 unit, but just infantry may be trained during p2. At the time, I wasn't sure if an hp reduction was necessary as well, but I might still implement a few of these suggestions. Thanks.

  2. 58 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

    I think it still needs to be ported over and incorporated. My understanding is that the mod won't be a27 because other technical stuff needs to happen, but we could use the mod as a testing ground for things that may or may not be incorporated into a27. 

    yes, engine changes and other important stuff (hopefully some improvements to performance :D). Its very unlikely that the mod can be copy-pasted, but something similar could easily be rewritten.

  3. 49 minutes ago, Fabius said:

    There is only one faction with champion sword cavalry and that's Rome, and is arguably the best thing they have going for them currently. And its not the only strong melee champion cavalry either, Seleucid cataphracts can stop Consular quite well, so can Persian Bactrian lancers, which is reasonable given the anti cav bonus of lancers. Also they can destroy everything else too. 

    https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22/diffs

    this addresses melee champ concerns as well as ranged champs and ranged CS cav.

  4. k all done:

    merge requests:https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests

    branches comparison:

    https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cav_speed?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

    https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22/diffs

    These 2 shouldn't make a very big difference overall, but I expect them to help bring down cavalry's survivability.

    Feel free to comment on other merge requests I have submitted. I did one lowering crush armor, one for allowing the roman army camp in p2, and one for adjusting pikemen damage/armor.

    also, there is a slight crossbow nerf.

  5. 58 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    what could be done is increase the pierce damage of spearmen such that they damage ranged cav more (with 3 hack 1 pierce armor).

    spearmen also seem to be generally worse than swords, so I think this would be welcome.

    what about this?

    the cav speed nerf (is -1 m/s too much?) and this might be enough for the near term.

  6. 5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

    I don't know if I have a problem with any of that outside of when cav fight spear head on and the cav wins. That's why I said a health nerf for champ melee cav, which decimate CS spear head on. 

    I think they should be differentiated units, rather than just superior versions of infantry. What do you think of the health nerf I provided? Would you agree ranged cav are also too tanky? 

    I would say the health branch + nerfed jav cav damage + slight speed decrease is ideal.

    3 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

    Totally off topic, but I really dislike how you can't individual control units (or unit types) in formations in a26. 

    you can change that in options->session->battalions

  7. 2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
    6 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

    (re: "Stickiness") Sounds like it has potential. Do we have the coding capabilities to do this, though?

    I believe it can be possible with the status effect feature (same feature as poison). @Freagarach @Stan`

    personally, I am not a fan. This was in AOE3 and I hated it. it doesn't seem as bad in AOE4, but still I would rather my units' motion be predictable and not dependent on gameplay factors.

  8. 2 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

    If what you want is inf to be faster relative to cav then a cav speed nerf does the same thing without the other knock on effects for inf. 

    right but it doesnt fix them being tankier, having more armor, and dealing more damage. I'd still say the HP branch is necessary, as well as a jav cav damage nerf:

    https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cavalry_health?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

  9. 5 minutes ago, alre said:

    melee inf should all deal twice the damage it deals now. that would solve the problem.

    I would like to do a melee damage increase (also some armor adjustment) later on for meatshield meta purposes, but this isn't an appropriate change for the problem at hand.

    what could be done is increase the pierce damage of spearmen such that they damage ranged cav more (with 3 hack 1 pierce armor).

    spearmen also seem to be generally worse than swords, so I think this would be welcome.

  10. @chrstgtrI see what you are saying, and honestly, I agree, but I would like to maintain the mobility of cavalry as its primary advantage over infantry (instead of just being better in every aspect). If our only nerf is speed, and we leave damage at 18 for skirm cav, I think you will see even more players just simply using them as a replacement for skirmishers, which makes for poor gameplay.

    To avoid this, they should do the same damage as infantry.

  11. ok i see, thanks for the feedback.

    From what I gather from you all: Archer and skirm cav damage should be nerfed to inf levels, but not the other cavalry. sounds good to me.

    Also seems like the infantry speed increase isn't favorable.

    7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

    This happens because cav have enough health to survive dealt damage and are fast enough to limit the number of landed hits. Slowing cav down means more hits can be landed on cav. Lower cav's health means those hits do more relative dmg.

    To start, I would slightly lower cav speed and lower champ melee health (melee champ cav shouldn't be able to fight with impunity against CS spears--otherwise there is no counter for them).

    the health nerf I have reduces champ melee cav heath as well ranged cav (both CS and champ) a little.

    • ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ
    • melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ

    For spearmen, their prepare time is currently 500ms for a repeat time of 1000ms. I could reduce prepare time some, 350ms maybe, perhaps I could reduce pikemen to 600ms.

    On acceleration, I could give melee infantry a bonus in acceleration, from 35 m/s^2 to 42 m/s^2.

    how does this sound?

    also, any thoughts on the following discrepancy?

    13 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    currently all cav have more damage than infantry except for 1 unit: spearcav:

    spearcav: 4h 3p per 1.25 sec = 3.2 hack, 2.4 pierce DPS

    spearmen: 3h 2.5p per 1.00 sec = 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS

  12. ok, recall the discussion on cavalry nerf. There are three separate and independent nerfs considered: nerf cav damage, nerf cav HP, and increase infantry speed.

    As written so far, increasing infantry speed would be +0.5 m/s speed for the basic "unit" class. (skirmishers get a little more than 0.5 faster, pikemen get a little less than 0.5 faster). This is intended to close the mobility gap slightly.

    I am pretty confident in my HP branch which is:

    • ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ
    • melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ

    I have debated the best approach for a damage nerf, and I think the best approach is really to equalize the DPS for cavalry and their infantry counterparts. For ranged units, I would bring skirm cav and archer cav damage down to equal infantry values, and for melee units, I would raise infantry damage to equal their respective cavalry values. This is nice and dandy for everything except for 2 exceptions: 

    spearmen/spearcav:

    currently all cav have more damage than infantry except for 1 unit: spearcav:

    spearcav: 4h 3p per 1.25 sec = 3.2 hack, 2.4 pierce DPS

    spearmen: 3h 2.5p per 1.00 sec = 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS

    What I propose for these units is to use the margin of increase seen for inf swords (6.5/5.5) to increase spearmen DPS

    3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS * (6.5/5.5) ~= 3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec for spearmen

    keeping the same 1.25 sec repeat time for spearcav, their new hack and pierce values should be:

    3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec *1.25 sec ~= 4.4 hack, 3.75 pierce for spear cavalry

     

    Of the three nerfs, which sounds like a welcome change? I could see all three working out fine, but maybe just 1 or 2 of them are agreeable to you all.

  13. 1 hour ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

    Just a comment about the recent change:  I have not detected any change to my gameplay or strategy based on the fact that territory expansion has been reduced.  Has anyone?

    @ValihrAnt was able to strategically expand more easily here. It seemed very important to the win.

    I see CCs and colonies a little more in TGs. Even while CCs may not be added much more frequently, it makes the map feel larger, with territories not squished up next to each other.

    I guess it didn't really change the meta, just added flexibility.

×
×
  • Create New...