Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.240

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

 Content Type 

Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. real_tabasco_sauce
    Well, if u have a population of women and men (50:50) it would make sense that among the men, the "laborers" are of lower status than those trained to fight as soldiers. U don't have to call the unit a slave, which could be too specific for some civs anyway.
  2. real_tabasco_sauce
    to be super generic and straightforward you could do this: woman unit (unchanged) - gather rates better for food laborer (male model, costs more than woman due to opportunity cost compared to CS) - gather rates decent for food, but best for wood, stone, metal. CS - gather rates halved. then, all you would have to do is pick the right cost for the "laborer" (a generic term which would nicely encompass terms that might be more controversial). Then on top of that, you could use this for a civ bonus (start with 2 laborers instead of 2 ranged units). I'd say this would require the fewest changes to the game (besides just buffing women gather rates.) The only issue that remains is the controversy of encoding gender roles, which is generally historical, but some might take offense. This way you also don't have 4 visuals for eco units (as in 2 gender mod + DE)
  3. real_tabasco_sauce
    Epic start to a nomad game from spartan_299
  4. real_tabasco_sauce
    @hyperion you think i don't understand parabolas? That's a pretty cringe thing to say. In the above, green is the real range of the tower. Below, you can see the average bonus range is 13. How would it be ANY different to say instead: "basic range: 73" "average range bonus: 0", with the 13 meters already taken into account? I am not saying this is a catastrophic bug, but arguing to maintain the status quo is pretty embarrassing.
  5. real_tabasco_sauce
    right, but my point is instead of starting at +13, start at 0, with 13 already accounted for by the towers range. ie 73 (+2), 73(-6).
  6. real_tabasco_sauce
    @alre the point is in this picture. Towers have a range of 60 meters, but this range is actually 73 meters because the additional range due to window height is treated as elevation bonus. Because of this, tower range overlays are incorrect, with more range than visually indicated. It would be much more intuitive to include these 13 meters of range as part of the tower's innate characteristics, so that the final range remains 60. This way, additional bonus range would be 100% due to elevation. I actually couldn't find where bonus range is in the templates. Is it because of the 15m y origin of the arrow?
  7. real_tabasco_sauce
    Yes it did. Of course, the main objective with early raids is to find easy kills, so this is relatively unaffected. However, they are now more easily stopped with melee units. In addition, sword and spear cavalry will now be more viable units for raiding, whereas currently a spearcav takes a long time to kill even 1 woman.
  8. real_tabasco_sauce
    Is my advice not relevant? no, it definitely is. This is how I tested the melee rebalancing mod. I wonder if they thought your comment was a joke because "change perspective" sounds like imagining you are the enemy.
  9. real_tabasco_sauce
    yeah it makes no sense to me to distinguish the height of the window as part of the "elevation" bonus. It is more of an inherent property of the tower, and any "elevation" bonus should be actually due to elevation. Coincidentally, I just had players asking me if the tower range is accurate.
  10. real_tabasco_sauce
    I don't think it's a bug. For 1, I am using macOS, so I doubt its that . A game FPS of 8 seems to agree with the %CPU usage. Hopefully this will be a little better in a27.
  11. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes, it makes playing quite a struggle.
  12. real_tabasco_sauce
  13. real_tabasco_sauce
    well if it should stay the same, at least the range overlays should be accurate to 73 meters and not 60 meters.
  14. real_tabasco_sauce
    Yeah, it seems like it would be more simple to include the 13m as part of the towers 60m range, then any additional range is actually due to elevation.
  15. real_tabasco_sauce
    I guess I didn't realize every tower is +13 by default. I guess the issue then is that the range overlay doesn't take this additional range into account.
  16. real_tabasco_sauce
    ^accurate depiction of my laptop giving up after micro-ing a 30 minute battle (no units have died yet).
  17. real_tabasco_sauce
    Well whats weird is that this is on mainland, which is mostly flat. These towers are placed next to ccs and forts which receive no terrain range bonus. Not really a catastrophic bug, but something to get to the bottom of.
  18. real_tabasco_sauce
    has anyone noticed weird inconsistencies with bonus range on buildings? It seems towers, ccs and other buildings with arrows frequently get 13 bonus range even though they are not on a hill.
  19. real_tabasco_sauce
    a26 or svn? I tested a singleplayer stress test and we also did a multiplayer test with quite minor improvements. 10% the current ttk would be disastrous for gameplay. In any case, we are on kind of a tangent, and I think there are other discussions for performance related concerns.
  20. real_tabasco_sauce
    I can. (a26, intel mac) 0 master volume makes everything very quiet but not silent. The tooltip confirms that the volume is 0.00 Also, closing the game and reopening then seems to restore a louder sound overall despite the master volume bar still being set to 0. (at this point, slowly sliding the master volume back up makes the game very quiet again and then progressively louder.) I tried then setting the value to 0.01, which also produced a very quiet sound as expected. Restarting the game faithfully maintained the sound level (compared to 0.00).
  21. real_tabasco_sauce
    I have something made that ticks these boxes: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...unit_upgrades?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false I hope people will be more open minded going forward (especially so for the community mod), I have massively simplified these techs.
  22. real_tabasco_sauce
    By the way, I did a mod a while ago (50% slower fire rate, iirc) to test that and I really didn't see an improvement.
  23. real_tabasco_sauce
    I forgot to change ele archers I'll need to change that, probably just for the community mod. No sense to confuse anyone with a quick v3.
  24. real_tabasco_sauce
    sorry. Time to kill. So not as fast as in melee mod v1.
  25. real_tabasco_sauce
    "melee" mod v2: 25% less damage for all units champ spearcav -1 hack armor CS swordcav -0.5 pierce armor melee infantry + 0.5 m/s walkspeed VERSION 2 **************** melee.zip ** **************** I quickly tested and the overall ttk is actually similar to a26 vanilla.
×
×
  • Create New...