real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
1.887 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
7 minutes ago, soloooy0 said:
roman road technology for the Romans to move faster in their territory
sounds like a good idea to me.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
More units. new sub classes.
i would love to see a couple more skiritai-esq units. One of which could be axe cav, especially since this unit is unique to the Persians. Hyrcannian cav are currently worse than swordcav, with less hack/sec and 2 less pierce armor. Their best use is for crush against buildings.
Since they seem to be a "light" cavalry, I think it would be cool if they could become a more costly, more powerful rank 3 unit like skiritai. Specifically, this should be the fastest cavalry in the game, keeping the light armor, but additional hack dmg. The specifics of these could be honed obviously for balance, but I think a fast and light, high damage unit would be exciting.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
I tend to agree that if all the civs all have the same units then things get boring fast. It might make sense to have some civs have primary and auxiliary units. Something like rome gets the base of swords and skirms and has the option of choosing one of archers or slings. This only works once the choices are more or less equal, though, which currently isn’t the case with archers being the worst unit.
I would also be interested in maybe a couple other units for other civs in the skiritai "class," more expensive, powerful CS with less eco value. IMO a contender could be axe cav.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Friendly Fire for all ranged units. Units default to not fire if they may hit a friendly, but can be put on a behavior where they attack anyways. Seems like the most "realistic" option and it would completely break the DPS/meatshield dichotomy, but it's not desirable as it sounds like
Instead of not firing, what if they just chose targets without nearby friendly soldiers? in general, Im not sure how smoothly this would work in practice.
In short, I am in favor of more directly player-controlled features, but this could be a good behavior solution.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Attack Area/Group: A good feature I think. Melee units would no longer be a meatshield. @real_tabasco_sauce Was there ever an answer to the question of will it make melee even less relevant? Like, once the ranged units are all dead, could you just kite the enemy melee units?
@Philip the Swaggerless when ranged units are able to use their full range, much more damage is unlocked, especially with higher ranged units like archers. Currently this damage is largely unused because it's 1: all sent to the meat shield unless you manually intervene and 2: lost to overkill. Getting rid of these losses would make all ranged units much stronger, with archers receiving the biggest benefit.
The great thing about attack-ground is that it should fit pretty well into the balance of 0ad. The benefit of a volley would be: use full range, damage multiple enemies, with the costs being the proportion of arrows missed, or the whole volley missed due to user error. The attack group feature would basically just be more effective, and likely easier to implement.
I would expect both of these features to increase the importance of melee, owing to more dynamic battles, and more melee surviving since they would be less targeted by ranged units. I imagine after testing these features, some units will be more OP than others using these tactics, but I hope the game won't need to be balanced around either of these features.
I will say attack ground is pretty realistic, basically implementing volleys, but I like both.
-
-
ranged units behavior is to target the closest unit first, so increasing melee dps will change little. Currently, you can manually target enemy ranged units, which requires a lot of clicks, and is surprisingly effective, but for the most part meat shield wins.
I have advocated for an attack-ground (like siege in AOE2) feature before which uses a player-controlled radius (area damage), and others have called for an "attack-group" discussion to target the units within an area. There is a discussion for these two.
-
4 hours ago, Sevda said:
The only civ that is truly helpless against camel rush is the Ptolemies
slingers can at least range camels a little bit compared to skirms.
4 hours ago, Sevda said:Javlin cavalry can chase camels and kill them
Spear cavalry can kill camels even when outnumbered
This may true for a 1v1, but in a multiplayer game, the rusher has already slowed the victim down a lot, even more so if they have to switch to cav for protection. Usually if a rusher can slow down two or more enemies (in a 4v4), they are successful.
In any case, my message is this: being vulnerable isn't that big of a deal. The Han do not appear to be significantly more vulnerable than any other civ.
-
52 minutes ago, Sevda said:
They have archers, spearman and sword cavalry in phase one. If you use spear cavalry, then you can beat their sword cavalry, after that, archers can also be defeated by spear cavalry easily, therefore you can raid their farms without distraction. However, you will need more than 10 spear cavalry to do significant damage.
You can also do an early infantry push with a javlin civ and that will also beat their archer + spearman combination.
In phase 2 they only have crossbowman, which is also sitting duck against melee cavalry or javlin units.
what you are describing does not sound "extremely vulnerable". There are other civs that are more vulnerable to rushes too. For example, many civs are helpless against the camel rush. Even If the Han are in fact more vulnerable, I don't see this being a problem.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Nullus said:
First, I could increase the range of the towers, which risks making these more offensive buildings. Second, I could decrease the minimum range to something like 25 meters. Lastly, if others don't think this is a problem, I could leave it with its current values. What does everyone think?
IMO better to decrease the minimum range than increase the maximum range.
-
21 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Yes they do apply, since what you'd probably do is make the defense tower the parent with a mixin that adds the "artillery" stats.
I see. Currently (in the patch) artillery towers and bolt towers have minimum ranges of 40m and 30m respectively. Murder holes would eliminate this which is much more valuable for these towers than defense towers. I would expect the minimum range to be important for their balance.
-
On 25/01/2022 at 9:02 AM, Nullus said:
It's a pity that no models were made for the Iberians, since they would be the ideal civ for defence-centred differentiation.
Ibers already have a differentiated tower. It's just not very good, costing way too much for the added benefit. Imo they shouldn't be so much more expensive than normal defense towers, but thats another discussion.
Id say it is best to keep these towers just for mace for the time being.
-
5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I'd prefer the Upgrade feature be used instead of adding another buildable structure. Makes it more interesting to me. I use the feature extensively in DE.
how does it work with the defense tower upgrades? In my mind, the minimum ranges should be preserved for artillery and bolt towers. When u "level up" towers, none of the existing upgrades to defense towers apply right?
-
11 hours ago, Nullus said:
I've made a patch on phabricator to add them back to the Macedonians, at https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4587.
Great! thanks for doing that. We should consider if both towers should be buildable, or just the bolt tower. I am fine with either, but I think the build time should be increased more. Defense tower is 150 sec and these towers are 200. I think it should be raised further to 250 so that it is difficult to play the towers very offensively. They should definitely be easy to deny.
-
yes @Sevda there are many videos that go live on April one that are hilarious. Here is one:
Also, in 2020, FINA (the international swimming federation) announced changes to the rules of breaststroke on April 1, which was shocking to many swimmers XD.
https://swimswam.com/fina-votes-for-dramatic-post-olympic-changes-to-breaststroke-underwaters/
-
looks fine to me
-
1
-
-
Yes you are right about the cost. I misinterpreted @Yekaterina. IMO The stables didn't make a big difference for Persians. It was civ differentiation but not very impactful. A better way to differentiate pers is to give them both skirm and spear cav in p1. Thoughts @chrstgtr?
-
43 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
They not only cost more resources and time to build
no, cheaper than barrack.
I think seeing the building does ruin surprise, but adds value to scouting the enemy. There's also nothing to stop you from training some cav from the CC. Def keep the stables, and give Persians skirm and spear cav in p1.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, huseyin said:
chasing cavalry all day spoils the fun of the game and is a waste of time for me. Immediate inference in a game with cavalry, waste of time.
Using a good mix of ranged and melee is key to any battle not just cav. Also, when you have a lot of spears, you want to force the enemy to attack them. For example, add siege and push their buildings and they will likely have to come try and kill your spears up close.
-
On 04/03/2022 at 11:07 AM, LetswaveaBook said:
I would also be in favour of it being an unfair relations, where the weaker player needs to accepts the domminance for protection but in return the "weaker" player get a disavantage. Like having his own military troops train slower (+20% training time might seem fine), less grain gathering rate(The garrison eats the food) or a lower population limit (the lost population capacity could be added to that of the "dominant" player). This would be a slightly abusive relationship that could benefit the team in some situations and give some extra strategical options as a team. But that concept would need more thought.
I envision this being either unused or abused to troll your teammate. firstly, the only protection a building can give is building arrows, so I have a hard time imagining how effective the protection the garrison provides would be, especially considering how huge the costs you listed are.
perhaps it could be modified to the form of an anti-rush building available in p1, maybe with a build limit of 1. The cost of the building would be on the builder, but not exorbitant. (maybe 150w 50s) The cost to the teammate would be that it takes 3 pop space or something.
-
7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
This should be visited, and I suspect such a revisiting will fix the "Mace" problem.
yes I agree, but there was some consideration that the mace team bonus should be changed to avert the problem (since mace is the fastest to generate res with faster exponential growth). I don't know how many people abuse it tbh, but in a 1v1 it could be very bad. I guess in TGs, it would be fairly obvious if someone was heavily relying on it and specs could also see the abuse.
definitely better to try and fix the root cause.
-
@chrstgtr Im sure you could try this once or twice and see how busted it is. Especially for 1v1s:
take mace
rush p2
build stables and all eco on wood for houses
generate metal and therefore infinite champs.
-
On 21/03/2022 at 1:45 PM, chrstgtr said:
I still don't see the problem with the Mace bonus. I just checked in a single player game and without any prior trading the baseline trade value is 100:98. So the mace player actually loses 2 res by trading. Sure, other players can cause the value of res to result in above 100:>100 trades, but that can happen for any civ and when that does happen the opportunity to arbitrage will quickly disappear.
You must not have seen the video in this discussion.
The res generated can be done by one player alone and in vast quantities. It is the most exploitable with mace. This is very different than simply observing that 100 wood gets you 164 stone (because of other players) and making the most of that trade/
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
What if we replace the bonus with a small metal trickle from Markets? "Standardized Currency" would make sense in this case. Thoughts?
you could also call it tariffs or something
-
1
-
"Arson" attacks should be added to cavalry and infantry.
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
I could see this being more favorable than capturing and deleting houses, but only as a visual change. In other words, the time to destroy a house with torches should be the same as if you were capturing. However, it doesn't make sense for CCs, Forts and towers. Overall, I would consider this feature not worthwhile.