-
Posts
2.668 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
69
Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
k all done: merge requests:https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests branches comparison: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cav_speed?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22/diffs These 2 shouldn't make a very big difference overall, but I expect them to help bring down cavalry's survivability. Feel free to comment on other merge requests I have submitted. I did one lowering crush armor, one for allowing the roman army camp in p2, and one for adjusting pikemen damage/armor. also, there is a slight crossbow nerf.
-
I think they should be differentiated units, rather than just superior versions of infantry. What do you think of the health nerf I provided? Would you agree ranged cav are also too tanky? I would say the health branch + nerfed jav cav damage + slight speed decrease is ideal. you can change that in options->session->battalions
-
right but it doesnt fix them being tankier, having more armor, and dealing more damage. I'd still say the HP branch is necessary, as well as a jav cav damage nerf: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cavalry_health?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false
-
I would like to do a melee damage increase (also some armor adjustment) later on for meatshield meta purposes, but this isn't an appropriate change for the problem at hand. what could be done is increase the pierce damage of spearmen such that they damage ranged cav more (with 3 hack 1 pierce armor). spearmen also seem to be generally worse than swords, so I think this would be welcome.
-
@chrstgtrI see what you are saying, and honestly, I agree, but I would like to maintain the mobility of cavalry as its primary advantage over infantry (instead of just being better in every aspect). If our only nerf is speed, and we leave damage at 18 for skirm cav, I think you will see even more players just simply using them as a replacement for skirmishers, which makes for poor gameplay. To avoid this, they should do the same damage as infantry.
-
ok i see, thanks for the feedback. From what I gather from you all: Archer and skirm cav damage should be nerfed to inf levels, but not the other cavalry. sounds good to me. Also seems like the infantry speed increase isn't favorable. the health nerf I have reduces champ melee cav heath as well ranged cav (both CS and champ) a little. ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ For spearmen, their prepare time is currently 500ms for a repeat time of 1000ms. I could reduce prepare time some, 350ms maybe, perhaps I could reduce pikemen to 600ms. On acceleration, I could give melee infantry a bonus in acceleration, from 35 m/s^2 to 42 m/s^2. how does this sound? also, any thoughts on the following discrepancy?
-
ok, recall the discussion on cavalry nerf. There are three separate and independent nerfs considered: nerf cav damage, nerf cav HP, and increase infantry speed. As written so far, increasing infantry speed would be +0.5 m/s speed for the basic "unit" class. (skirmishers get a little more than 0.5 faster, pikemen get a little less than 0.5 faster). This is intended to close the mobility gap slightly. I am pretty confident in my HP branch which is: ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ I have debated the best approach for a damage nerf, and I think the best approach is really to equalize the DPS for cavalry and their infantry counterparts. For ranged units, I would bring skirm cav and archer cav damage down to equal infantry values, and for melee units, I would raise infantry damage to equal their respective cavalry values. This is nice and dandy for everything except for 2 exceptions: pikemen (have no cav equivalent), so I already made a separate branch for pikemen which could be added independently: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...pikemen?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false Spearmen/Spearcav (see below) spearmen/spearcav: currently all cav have more damage than infantry except for 1 unit: spearcav: spearcav: 4h 3p per 1.25 sec = 3.2 hack, 2.4 pierce DPS spearmen: 3h 2.5p per 1.00 sec = 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS What I propose for these units is to use the margin of increase seen for inf swords (6.5/5.5) to increase spearmen DPS 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS * (6.5/5.5) ~= 3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec for spearmen keeping the same 1.25 sec repeat time for spearcav, their new hack and pierce values should be: 3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec *1.25 sec ~= 4.4 hack, 3.75 pierce for spear cavalry Of the three nerfs, which sounds like a welcome change? I could see all three working out fine, but maybe just 1 or 2 of them are agreeable to you all.
-
@ValihrAnt was able to strategically expand more easily here. It seemed very important to the win. I see CCs and colonies a little more in TGs. Even while CCs may not be added much more frequently, it makes the map feel larger, with territories not squished up next to each other. I guess it didn't really change the meta, just added flexibility.
-
Unit specific upgrades
real_tabasco_sauce replied to real_tabasco_sauce's topic in Gameplay Discussion
I am thinking I could use something as simple as a campfire to symbolize scouting. Isn't there already a campfire someone made? I can't find it. @wowgetoffyourcellphone are you familiar with this one? Or maybe I am just crazy? @Lion.Kanzen any idea where this is? With that last piece, I could finalize the tooltips and descriptions and add them as a merge request to the community mod. -
So I tried the repeat times change to see if there was an improvement on performance (200 archers vs 200 archers). It did not seem too impactful to be honest. (no detectable change in fps) However, this isn't really a simulation of 4v4 conditions, so maybe it could still help. Would you rather I keep the merge request for the repeat times up? Or should I take it down?