Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
  • Posts

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. ok, so a "transport class" ship could use pretty much the same model as a normal trireme or equivalent ship for gauls, britons, etc. Or at least some slight modifications.
  2. I think we have enough votes to conclude that the ram change and the ptolemy, Iphicrates nerfs do not have enough support. @wraitii does a November 1 release of the next version sound feasible/ideal? Seems like the second round of the tournament will happen soon, so it would be nice to release in time.
  3. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/commits/main
  4. haha yes, some kind of boarding mechanism would be an awesome feature in 0ad. But I am sure it would be very, very difficult to make that happen, especially considering the animations required. Also, I imagine even giving ships turret points would be difficult task, as in that case you have to make compromises in terms of the ship's size compared to the units occupying the turrets. now, one way to simplify the above task to fit 0ad's scope could be to give whatever ship does the "boarding" a capture attack, with some constraints. Even in that case, you already have plenty of conditions/concerns: Does capture attack depend on units garrisoned? should capture be a "recharge" ability? What ships can capture, what civs have access to this ability? How do you stop both ships? Will this be frustrating to players? (likely yes) one concern is that "boarding" could gamble on what units the enemy's ship has garrisoned. I am not sure if this would be good or bad. Don't get me wrong, I do not dislike the idea, it is just that the implementation and balancing both sound difficult.
  5. so you are suggesting training ships on a basic level, light, heavy, scout etcetera, but they can be upgraded individually into other forms of the ship? ex. trireme -> ramming trireme or bireme -> fire ship? interesting suggestion.
  6. yes, I am familiar with the AOE ship system. Fire ships basically serve as melee units in AOE naval battles, the system is simple but entertaining enough to make water fights interesting. The problem is I can't think of an appropriate close-range ship in the 0ad timeframe. Also, it may not be necessary to try something like that.
  7. any ideas @Lion.Kanzen for a couple other "special" ships, I thought about some kind of bolt shooter ship, a variant of the siege ship with a little more speed and bolt shooter style attack.
  8. right, but wouldn't there need to be a way for a player to know if they are up against ramming triremes or non-ramming triremes.
  9. ok, if we did a "ram attack," one could make ram damage proportional (by some function to balance) to the speed of the ship. I think it would also have to be in the form of an technology for some mediterranean civs (which imparts an added metal cost). I think it should also only be possible for certain ship classes, perhaps only triremes, ie ships of the "heavy" class for the following reasons. 1) biremes would probably be too light to ram well, 2)siege ships are too valuable to use this way, 3) most importantly, players need to be able to anticipate what ships can ram them. Unfortunately, that probably means the ships that have access to rams would need a version of the model with a visible ram. <- maybe its not worth it, idk.
  10. yes, I think a naval overhaul in general should be in the works for a27, probably starting with some ship classes instead of just bigger = better. Ideally naval combat should be more diverse (different ships with different qualities), easier to handle like @Philip the Swaggerless said. light, heavy, siege, transport, special where special includes the fireship and maybe the ptol juggernaut. from there we could balance things, add a couple new "special" ships, and maybe implement some ship mechanics of interest.
  11. This could be good, but I think we should avoid adding too many UI buttons/mass action hotkeys. For example, there was also a discussion for some button to garrison all barracks evenly. There is a pretty simple way to do this with the alt or option hotkey, ordering one unit at a time out of a selection to do something. So select 30 or so units, hold option/alt and click each boat that should be garrisoned until no more units are in the selection. (similar to sniping method). I think would it be ideal to decrease the garrison space of fighting boats to 10-20 depending on the ship, and add a dedicated transport ship. This way you would only need to garrison a few units for effective ship battles
  12. oh, also, what are your thoughts on the contribution of the cavalry health and cavalry speed upgrades. In my eyes these are basically blanket buffs to cavalry as a whole. (I already am working on a much better replacement anyway)
  13. yes, I also find that it takes painfully long to get infantry armies where they need to be. Ok, I could start to put these ideas into a branch, which could be a merge request for later.
  14. settings -> options -> session -> deselect minimap icons
  15. IMO, better to have that tanking power be the less damage-dealing unit, hence the original suggestion. Anyway, I guess @chrstgtr is right, we need some nerf to cavalry in general, and there is no better way to experiment than with a mod. So, cavalry have 4 advantages (mobility, damage, armor (generally), and HP) to infantry and 1 setback: not being able to gather resources. From a principle standpoint, I think the main advantage to cavalry should be their mobility, with any HP and armor stats being secondary. Their mobility is already very strong when used to its full potential (skilled player) and in my opinion, this is almost enough to justify their inability to gather. if we want a wholesale cav nerf, making damage equal to their infantry counterparts is a start. Changing armor would effect their balance with infantry and should probably be avoided. Mobility is what makes cavalry cavalry, so ideally this should stay the same (although i would support making infantry a tiny bit faster). So I think damage and health are what should be lowered, who agrees with this? now, we could make all cav do the same damage as their infantry counterparts, which could be a good start. Perhaps we would then want to give a "mounted vantage point" damage increase of 10% to melee cav, but not ranged cav. As for health, currently they are hard-coded to 100 for ranged cav and 160 for melee cav. How about instead, we give cavalry in general a 30 hp "mount bonus" compared to infantry such that ranged cav is 80 and melee cav is 130. From there, we could then balance as needed (like how I suggested with the +1 armor for spearcav, -1 armor for swordcav) how does this strategy sound?
  16. 4 hack 3 pierce -> 4 hack 4 pierce armor for spear cav 3 hack 4 pierce -> 3 hack 3 pierce armor for sword cav.
  17. looking towards additional balance changes after the current voted ones are added to 26.3, any thoughts on sword cavalry -1 pierce armor and spear cavalry +1 pierce armor? I have heard players are calling for another spear cav buff and also that the swordcav rush is a little strong. The reasoning would be since spear cav does less damage, it should be slightly more tanky, not just a counter to sword cav. On the flip side, since swordcav do so much more damage, you should be able to kill them more easily. Importantly, this should make defending the han swordcav rush easier without moving the unit to p2.
  18. CCs and colonies have smaller territory increase in p2 and p3, but they are cheaper
  19. I know, first they pick apart my use of "democracy" with no care about changing the term to "socratic scholarship", then they pick apart the gameplay effect as if they are experts of multiplayer. It's not fair , i'm just trying to help add content. If it is bad we can always change it later. In any case, those users are probably outvoted by a mile. I do thank those of you that actually gave suggestions, they will likely be used to adjust/rearrange stats as necessary.
  20. in this case, it remains useless. Even in water maps with ships, you could only save something like 100 to 400 wood/metal.
  21. Perhaps the athenian one is too powerful, I don't know yet. In that case we will modify it as needed in future releases. Team bonuses should be just powerful enough to make a difference. We see this with ptol, rome, iberians, especially, and to a lesser extent, seleucids and kushites. I will give you an example: the briton's cheaper healers is basically unknown to players in multiplayer, because it has 0 effect on gameplay. Like @BreakfastBurrito_007 says, it is not "actionable." we should avoid these.
  22. yes but this team bonus has 0 impact on land games and basically 0 impact on water maps. The impact of the team bonus I proposed is far more impactful and interesting. Can you come up with another name for the team bonus proposed? I came up with one before, but you still think nothing of it. The name is pretty much trivial, what matters is the impact to gameplay.
  23. Propose an alternative then. I went to the effort to try and find a bonus that players would find exciting and with enough historical historical plausibility that would explain its significant effect on gameplay, and all you two can do is shoot it down on it not being historically accurate enough. I can't believe the historical debate has yet again ballooned so much. You two need to let up. It is a videogame, not a historical nonfiction. Please propose another alternative (I already did and @AIEND and @LetswaveaBook don't seem to notice, perhaps because they are busy hating on my idea).
  24. ? Nobody is praising Athenian democracy, we are only using it as a plausible justification for a team bonus. Why are you so insistent? have you looked at other team bonuses, they aren't exactly real life simulation. That being said, democracy allowed normal citizens to access power that would normally only be for nobility (ex. Themistocles). One could say that democratically elected leaders will generally be better suited to lead their people. In addition, ideas are readily exportable, so it's not inconceivable that athenian democracy could effect other systems of leadership. Is that good enough? again: would you rather it was called "socratic scholarship?"
×
×
  • Create New...