Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
  • Posts

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. It's definitely bottom 2-3. At least in TGs. Maybe it is better in 1v1s? Once iphricates is sniped what to do next?
  2. no I mean for spec only. Like to show other specs. It would not be visible to players ofc. Sorry I wasn't clear!
  3. this is incorrect. There are very often rushes in dark age (p1).
  4. Some realistic feedback on these: 1. I agree with the CC change. Cost should also be reduced. @ValihrAnt has a mod to demonstrate these changes among other things. 2. For metal and stone, this could be done. But I don't think it will change anything. The costs of things one needs to buy is what should require multiple resources to be extracted. 3. While I don't think this should be for all civs, perhaps some future civ (perhaps nomadic) could receive this as a unique civ bonus: houses, storehouses, farmsteads, perhaps some other buildings too receive a very small territory while not being a territory root. Is this even possible? 4. There will be very little support for this. One important reason is that we cannot have too many auras at the same time for performance reasons. 5. Why give this to towers? I could imagine this or something similar being a unique tech or some special building. 6. This would frankly be terrible. It can already be frustrating finding space to put buildings down. Forcing unnecessary building restrictions is not the move. Base layout is already something that requires thought.
  5. I've never heard anyone complain about unit diversity and their resource gathering status in 0ad.
  6. Its better than the Athens team bonus in 0ad
  7. this is not a problem. In fact, it is part of what makes the game fun.
  8. How about: Allow specs to flare, and allow settings toggle for spec flare visibility?
  9. Here is another suggestion: Hide enemy civilizations in the diplomacy window. In random games, it kind of ruins the surprise.
  10. Totally. I support a buff to spearcav since they nearly lose to swordcav at the moment, and @wowgetoffyourcellphone's cataphract mixin sounds great. Differentiating hyrcannian cav would be a an addition to these enhancements and a buff to the persians.
  11. I agree: they don't need to have higher DPS. They should just be a little different, since they are a unique unit to the persian civ. As you can see, this is not a new cavalry type. I was just suggesting a new role for the worst melee cav in the game. Unit differentiation is good for gameplay IMO, so they should not be unified into spear cavalry.
  12. you're exactly right. 0ad is historically inspired, but also a videogame. You will see debates between those who favor more realistic features and behaviors, and those who are more willing to abridge reality for better gameplay. Most people consider that features should be historically "justified," where enough reality, enough plausibility supports good gameplay. The fact of the matter is we have to draw a line somewhere: so debating in length the physics of an axe versus a sword gets us nowhere. We should instead decide how an axeman behaves in 0ad more for gameplay's sake. I think the higher hack damage and lower attack rate are justified, but more importantly will introduce and interesting unit (see my discussion on a hyrcannian cav change (page 1)).
  13. yes, but there is an amount of abstraction required for a game to be fun. This is something we must accept as part of a videogame. Even if 0ad were a simulator, some sacrifices to realism would be made. I encourage you to play multiplayer, as these gameplay balances will make more sense there.
  14. I would say maybe a little higher dps, but less armor. perhaps even more speed? Even if they had the same dps, the axemen would do more damage in one hit, with implications as a raiding unit.
  15. Thats exactly it. Very few people consider this a gameplay problem. Only a realism problem.
  16. Right, so the new damage type would be largely unnecessary. I appreciate that you are experimenting with mods, but this change seems to be a terminology change rather than an enhancement. I think it would be cool if axe units (hyrcannian cav) had much more hack than swords, but also a slower repeat time.
  17. @wowgetoffyourcellphone should the balance changes you suggest go all together or be considered individually? For example, I really support the siege tower change, but not the rock-paper-scissors counters.
  18. If we add a damage type, it should be "siege" as @Lion.Kanzen mentioned earlier. This could allow crush damage to take more interesting balancing roles. Although to be perfectly honest, this is still equally possible without the new damage type.
  19. yes, I agree. I think they should still do damage to buildings however, in large enough groups like they currently do. I see no problem with both of these at the same time. Lower crush damage for armored units seems valid.
  20. Yes, but my point is that the trireme should have various civs specfic upgrades. I just put metal ram as a possibility, not implying it could be readily implemented. I was referring to something along these lines, although this probably would only apply to fishing boats. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/56010-did-someone-say-improved-ship-movement/#comment-453813
  21. lol sorry i didn't see this. I guess that means we agree XD. How do you think what I wrote above fits into those classes?
  22. I'm not so sure, currently boats seem to be the bigger the better, with bigger boats being faster, stronger, and dealing more damage. While this may or may not be more realistic, I think the ships would be better off in different classes, like citizen soldier infantry: First, some things for all boats: acceleration Smaller footprints (scale them all down some, perhaps to near bireme size like @Stan` said) Less garrison space for all boats perhaps boat turn radii? bireme -> faster, lighter, perhaps scout ship. trireme -> medium HP, speed. Some civ specific upgrades could be applied (metal ram, oarsmen training, any other ideas?). quinquereme -> slower, more HP troop transport +40 garrison space or catapult variants. (slight visual differences) Special -> fireship, juggernaut, other ideas lastly: thoughts on allowing ships to have turret spaces?
×
×
  • Create New...