real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
1.887 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
What's the issue? Is it just that you can "create" res by trading with yourself? Doesn't that quickly disappear as rates get adjusted after you trade a few times?
no it exponentially increases the more u click
-
6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Let's just remove it for now and come up with something better (less exploitable) for A27
I agree. I still think some siege related team bonus is appropriate but this can be for A27, alongside other team bonus adjustments perhaps.
-
1
-
-
Its a tricky tradeoff
-
-
6 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
Maybe a very soft sound which is not disturbing.
Here's a perfect sound:
In seriousness, maybe a single trumpet note or something?
-
1
-
5
-
-
-
I would be happy to test it but I cannot make that time. Do you know if another testing bundle will be available like the December one?
Usually more balance issues are found over several 4v4 TGs.
-
Looks fun! How would the teams be arranged on this map? I would hate to be sandwiched in the middle down there.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
So a fix must be applied or this civ has to be banned from TGs.
the walls are not OP. I don't see why the game should be changed because you made a mistake. Now you know to keep control of ur army. I think if a change had to be made, it would be allowing units that invaded the gate able to leave even if its locked (you could just unlock them). But this would require giving gates a direction, which IMO overcomplicates walls.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Dakara said:
i don't have the problem in 2 vs 2 with 200 pop max each
the map size and number of fauna (see minimap) also might be contributing to @Abuz's problem.
-
20 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Chariots: mini siege towers that can shoot while moving, unlike regular cavalry archers that have to stand still before shooting. However, to nerf them, they don't target one unit but all enemies entities when fighting.
I think they should also work kinda like ele archers in the video @Freagarach shared:
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, faction02 said:
As long as the civilizations are more or less balanced, weaker heroes might be balanced by stronger technologies for example.
yes, heroes are part of the balancing strategy, and my point is that there are places where this falls apart (ptol being OP and having arguably 3 of the best 10 heroes in the game).
I agree it may be appropriate to have some civs with less powerful heroes, but the heroes with no aura should still do something. Ex: Sparta already have 2 great heroes, so no need to make Agis similarly strong. (although the spartan heroes are very important for the civ, along with skiri and the spear bonus)
-
2 hours ago, Stan` said:
I disagree here, for the sake of differentiation. Maybe as @wraitii proposed, they could in tiers, but I'd rather not have 14 identical civs with different art.
My apologies, I was not clear. I should have said that their relative strengths should at least be comparable. I certainly don't think the heroes should be identical, in fact quite the opposite. Creative hero auras make the late game more interesting.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
With all the good hero auras I think we are a bit like spoiled kids. Even without any auras the hero is worth it. They are a lot stronger than regular champions. Philip of Macedon and Ashoka the great easily take out 12 skirmishers on their own.
its true, not an entire waste of resources, but the heros should be fairly comparable across civs.
-
17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Better: make other civs have useful heroes. The problem with ptol is that they are basically the only civ that could be considered “done.”
+++++
yes I agree. we need to develop a concrete list of the heroes that should be given a new effect (either because they don't have one or because their bonus is worthless).
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
Why not decrease?
to delay the ability to spam champs to a little later in the game. This way early p3 attacks have a little more time to stop someone booming longer for champs.
Maybe instead of cost, increase the time to unlock idk. The price really isn't as important as the time IMO.
Just now, real_tabasco_sauce said:to delay the ability to spam champs to a little later in the game.
Also makes champs that train from the fort a little more relevant, if you just need a few.
-
1 minute ago, Player of 0AD said:
I think that means that forts should not be buffed. At the other hand if you really want that a fort can train champs again it's probably not the worst thing.
yes keep fort stats the same for sure
-
I think we should keep the ptol house bonus, but I agree this civ is pretty op. In particular, having 3 really strong heroes is kinda nuts meanwhile athens has one okay hero and two wastes of resources.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
I'm against removing champs from barracks and stables, as these buildings make champs viable. I'm rather for allowing Athenians and Spartans to train champs in barracks, too.
Fortresses aren't too weak, right now they can be very annoying. And they are needed for the will to fight tech, and some even for heroes. So I don't see why they should be buffed further.For all civs:
1. barracks and stables train champs: perhaps increase cost of champ unlock? or make it cheaper and required for each barracks as @BreakfastBurrito_007 said.
2. For civs without dedicated champ buildings, champs train from the fort with no need to unlock.
Allowing to train from the fort is great because sometimes u just need 3 -5 sword champs to stop a ram spam attack. I don't think forts are OP, just annoying. Its almost always best to attack something else if you can.
-
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I would honestly like to see Walls become a viable and balanced structure in Alpha 27, but that's a different topic.
it would be awesome if there was some means of limiting ranged attacks through stone walls tbh. although that would be really complicated and controversial.
-
1
-
-
emphasizing defense is fine and all but why on earth do people want turtling to be a viable strategy? I think currently, a successful defense is maybe just a little too hard to pull off, but that it is still very rewarding to quickly counterattack. A24 was a defensive alpha and I think most people agree it was sub-optimal.
As for the fort training champs situation, i like @chrstgtr's solution with forts and barracks training champs, but with the tech needed for barracks.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, alre said:
all in all I like the resources spent system better, and I like that is somehow more alike the widely used GDP index. I think the concept is more sound and that the final ranking is more fair. I'd like the decreasing value issue fixed though.
yes, and also if you compare military score to res spent, this gives an idea of their skills (micro, unit composition, etc)
^this could also help show if some units are too OP for their cost.
-
1
-
-
On 21/02/2022 at 7:14 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:
How about eco score is proportional to resources spent?
Really quite similar to economic growth irl: IIRC, a growing economy is one where more and more things are purchased.
I think showing the resources spent would show how much cost was required for the corresponding military score: that way the eco to military score ratio would reflect the skill of players including unit micro and strategy.
In addition, I think this would encourage new players to start spending resources more. I often see new players saving up resources for things, when they should usually be spending as fast as possible, investing in upgrades, additional production buildings, early soldiers, cav, etc.
I could probably make a diff for this, or at leat part of it. IDK about any GUI stuff, but changing the calculations looks pretty easy. My question is would anyone be interested?
-
oh thats my mistake, i didn't realize there already was one.
Feedbacks from A26 SVN tests
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted
it seems to kind of balance out in games because people realized they can trade 100 wood for like 600 metal for example. But even in that case, it makes the barters crazy for everyone which is really annoying.
Probably the worst possible abuse would be in a 1v1: take mace, rush p2, build stables and market, generate metal -> infinite cav mercs.