Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
  • Posts

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. Yeah, but how often will you have more than 15 soldiers to defend in early game? 15 arrows is enough to deter cav. My main concern is that they have almost as many arrows as forts, which seems like sub-optimal balancing. I could add the changes to a separate branch, so that they could be added if cc dropping does prove to be a problem.
  2. ok I have forks now for moving the army camp to p2 for rome and for giving pikes damage, reducing armor some. If you would like to view them, they are on my fork previously linked. I have a question for you all: Should I add a change to arrow count to the CC_territory cost merge request? (***we already voted on this, hence why I ask you all). currently, CC's max arrows are 1 less than a fortress (23 vs 24). With the change making them cheaper, I think their max arrows should significantly reduced. *this does not in theory effect early defense from rushes because you are usually only able to garrison a few soldiers in the CC for arrows at that time anyway. I propose to lower the max arrows to 15. (and the same for colonies). This should help with concerns of "CC dropping." I will add a fix to sentry towers (<max arrows> should be 4 and not 3, currently the 3rd soldier does not add an additional arrow)
  3. just an edited screenshot, but I think this is closer to what @wowgetoffyourcellphone and @Lion.Kanzen suggest. probably less contrast in the thatching lol. It shouldn't look shiny like this.
  4. the increased contrast here is good. But, yes, a little more brown will be good to further distinguish them from the gauls.
  5. territory radius is kept as is for now. I think it should stay the same. If we want to do something like that, it should be to either reduce the amount in each mine to 3000 OR add some more randomization to the position of the "starting" stone and metal. I am more partial to the second option. However, it is best to try one thing at a time.
  6. in case it should be written another way: 5 pierce armor means unit receives: (attack damage) x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 59% of (attack damage) (aka 41 percent less damage).
  7. I was 1 year old when this topic was written. Guys this is the biggest necropost i've seen. It's like writing your name over cave art.
  8. @Feldfeld I think @wraitii is busy or taking a break. @Stan` do you have commit access? I'm not sure what it takes to approve the merge requests and later add to mod.io, but I think a 26.3 branch would need to be made to house those changes.
  9. the branch I linked was about the difficulty spear cav have when chasing other cavalry, its just 15% more acceleration.
  10. ok, well all this debate shows that we should not rush to change the status quo here, but rather agree on a more nuanced solution. Honestly, first we should agree on some problem XD. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on these two: I think these are more agreed-upon problems. Many players are saying crossbows are strong. spearcav: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...spearcav_accel?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false Crossbows: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...crossbow_nerf?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false
  11. U really just copied my entire post, said "untrue" and then explained your experience of chicken rushes. So you would also say chicken rushes are good gameplay? @chrstgtr @BreakfastBurrito_007 agree?
  12. So you have no problem with all-in "chicken rush" gameplay? I guess it is fine in 1v1s which I understand is where your exerience lies. I guess you would expect something like this and prepare some infantry/cav or maybe other preparation already like @Feldfeld said. So OP. However, in a TG, doing a chicken rush is usually a toxic way to put someone out of the game. It's nearly impossible to recover from if you set up for a "greedy" boom. Even when you instead try to make infantry, these units are at best equal in number to cav which is not enough to defeat them. Maybe a better approach to this would be to half the number of chickens instead. But still the cav dominance remains (early game, mid game, late game). Skilled players use cavalry's mobility to win while anyone can use their inherent advantages over inf to simply supplant skirmishers in the late game. This is seen all the time, and I think its not ideal gameplay. The patch as written would maintain the mobility advantage of cav while limiting the plain advantage over infantry. If you would rather we keep it how it is, I'll just forget about the branch. if you would like something changed about it, suggest.
  13. it's crazy that you say I ignore that. I literally said food economy is not a limiting resource at 30 seconds. Ie 50 wood = 50 wood. I agree however, that train time is a difference.
  14. no chicken rush is 11 cav at 1:30 or so I wonder if It would be good to half the number of chickens at game start for random maps?
  15. no, its not actually false for the following reasons: all cavalry do more damage than infantry (ex. 16 pierce vs 18 pierce for jav cav), javelin cavalry have double the health of javelin infantry, (not double for melee, but almost), javelin cav have +2 armor compared to infantry javelins (other cav has more armor too) all in all, you need much more infantry than your opponents cavalry if you expect to win. This is hard to do in the early game when the limiting resource is usually wood, not food. Importantly, you are often unlikely even to get kills on cavalry in an early game situation due to how tanky they are (and their speed). This is why cav are often needed to defend from a "chicken" rush.
  16. @eTrey If I recall correctly same warning on older operating systems just said something to the effect of "this application isn't signed, it could have malware, are you sure you want to open?" I presume they make the warning sound dangerous so it is harder for users to make use of applications they don't make money off of.
  17. Well currently, the reason all in "chicken" rushes are so effective is because a small number of cav can pretty easily beat a larger group of infantry and because you can get the extra food required for cav very fast. Instead, success in these rushes should be earned by the skill of the player, so thats why the cav have less HP. The use case of the unit should really be its mobility, not because of its innate strength compared to infantry. Don't get me wrong, cavalry will still be stronger than infantry (because they can't gather every res) but they will be less tanky, less forgiving when mistakes happen like running into spearmen. The expectation I have is that you could instead see aggression with infantry as well, which would be more interesting. Currently you only see this if two players are very close. I imagine we will play version three for at least a month. I just put those out there so you guys can give feedback to me, so I might change things.
  18. By the way, if you are curious, I updated the cavalry balance fork to also effect champions. https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cavalry_balance Also, a crossbow nerf: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...crossbow_nerf and a 15% increase in spear cavalry acceleration to improve chasing (even without upgrades). https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...spearcav_accel?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false
  19. yeah I think its good practice to make patches as concise as possible. So ptolemy nerf and iphicrates nerf probably should have been two patches. its generally good practice, but where to draw the line is debatable. For example, I have both Themistocles and Pericles in the same merge request because they are both weak athenian heroes, and they go together. However, it might have been better off as two patches.
  20. I think the pipeline failing is just because we wait for the merge requests to be approved. I could be wrong here tho. I already have a branch made for balancing cav vs infantry and I'll add it once the next version of the mod releases. You can see the details here: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/commit/e33bc27f79c7e5f3d94ea83c363e711272d33f42 It basically makes reconfigures cavalry balance from scratch: Cav damage equals their infantry counterparts, cav get a 40% health bonus compared to inf (melee: 140hp, ranged: 70hp), infantry +0.5 walkspeed (effects skirms a little more, pikes a little less). I know this is a huge hit to cavalry, but this is intended on being a starting point for balance. We may need to adjust counter-cavalry damage multipliers and perhaps melee cavalry damage. (I could see a 20% or so "mount bonus" being worthwhile for melee cav). Notice that instead of making cav slower, I made infantry faster.
  21. Oh yes ur right. I'm not sure how actually "building" the upgrade would work, but it could be nice. Another option would be increase upgrade time, so you have more time to try to deny it.
  22. Another option would be to increase build time of the wood tower. Yes, I agree this shouldn't be possible.
  23. yes, joining gives the error "service unavailable"
  24. nice, a second round just in time for the next community mod release with some balance changes.
×
×
  • Create New...