real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
1.887 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
5 hours ago, faction02 said:
114.6/1sec
this is also with greater range than briton champ chariots and firecav. So Omega OP.
Three unique upgrades that apply to crossbows both CS and champs seems like an impossible balancing situation to be honest.
Either: 1. you balance for the upgraded state and the units are only good after you get all those upgrades or 2. you balance for the unupgraded state as above and have godlike champs for the late-late game that nobody can beat.
balancing between 1 and 2 would be ok i guess, but i think these unique upgrades would work better as tradeoffs of sorts. (increasing cost, or movement speed, or accuracy as examples)
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Trash units should be a bit less IMHO. But 0 a.d. has the citizen soldier complications as well.
Yeah, i'm not sure how successful a trash unit (like in AOE2) would be in 0ad. In @LetswaveaBook's mod's mod, persian skirms train for cheaper, train faster, and do less damage.
I'm certainly fine with crossbows being cheaper like this, but their strength should mirror their cost, keeping in mind upgrades they receive. Perhaps something like "repeating crossbows" or "crossbow regiment" or whatever unique damage upgrade they end up receiving in p2 (p3?) should bring their cost to 50f 40w 10m, the same cost profile as a sword and remove the -10% health?
^this upgrade would probably need to have a more substantial cost associated with it.
-
1 minute ago, thephilosopher said:
I assume the objection to buffing them only against buildings is that it would make them too similar to rams?
There is no objection so far. rams and catas play very differently because of range, weakness, and the need to unpack them. A damage buff will not change that.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
What about just buffing them against buildings?
This is the main thing. I think a very small radius is ideal if we bring back splash at all, since they really should be able to do some damage to units, just not over such a massive area like in A23.
I think a25 has missed the gradual pressure provided by catas, since rams and eles are just way better.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Without the repeater mechanism and magazine, a crossbow is not faster than a bow. It's easier to operate. Easier to train on, etc. That's why I wanted them to be trash units.
Right. So the cost is 50 food 40 wood?
-
Catapults at the moment just take way too long to destroy enemy buildings. Their damage rate and unpack pack times (with adjustment) mean that it takes forever to deal proper damage to your enemies. To make matters worse, they can be killed by ranged units very easily.
Should they recieve a buff in A26? I think adding a very small (1 or 0.5 meter) splash damage range where the full damage of the projectile is dealt. Also, they should do more damage IMO. @LetswaveaBook made these changes in his gameplay balance mod. To me, it seems like a no-brainer for a26.
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Crossbows were superior to bows for higher firing rate, so it should be even faster-firing, for example 750ms. But we lower the damage per shot!
Well if they are the repeating crossbow, i think this model is fine!
I also like how they are in the changeset.
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Yes, a charge speed that happens automatically. Once the Spearman gets within 20 meters of the enemy soldier he goes into charge speed. I'd say maybe limit it to units tasked by the player?
Yes, I think something like this would be great! What would be done about shift clicking multiple units in a row, and abusing the charge for dancing? (pikes charge back and forth between a some enemies for example)
-
increasing melee HP/armor will only decrease the amount of melee units required for shielding ranged units. The melee will still die first.
-
5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
There's also the question of whether players would use it, if attacking and defeating the enemy's melee troops first is always the most effective move.
It's usually not, especially for pikes.
In fact, recently I have seen lots of success with manually tasking 10 or so archers to kill 1 skirmisher at a time, since players expect them to be safe.
Really what I'm getting at is that if archers could use their range effectively, they would be much stronger.
5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:buff melee infantry damage by 9% as suggested by letswave earlier
Yes, I think this is the way to proceed for now. An attack-ground solution will have to wait as seen in it's own discussion.
-
3 minutes ago, AIEND said:
Before defeating the enemy's melee soldiers, the melee soldiers will be destroyed by the enemy's stronger firepower, which makes the melee soldiers a consumable item and it is difficult to accumulate experience and become a veteran.
Yes, this indeed is the problem. ranged units default their attack to the closest unit, which is usually a melee unit. This makes melee inf, in particular pikemen serve as shield for ranged units behind them. This property of ranged units behavior is also responsible for archers seeming weak, since they often do not use their range effectively.
I think the game needs an improved form of control over ranged units, instead of nerfing/buffing ranged/melee infantry. What I have proposed in the past is "Attack-ground" where essentially ranged units can fire volleys where the player decides. Unfortunately, there was little agreement on how best to allow this control.
-
1
-
-
The difference in armor between melee and ranged units accounts for this difference. 20 swords or spears will easily defeat 20 skirmishers or slingers if the military upgrades are the same and if no micro is taken into account.
-
11 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Also it's not impossible to balance 1100 players if they are willing to learn.
Specs sometimes coach these players in TGs to try and balance on the fly XD.
I think the hardest ones to balance are the overrated players, owing to the demographic that plays 1v1s. It seems only new players and dedicated 1v1 players do 1v1s. Mid-tier players seem pretty uninterested in 1v1s. I think more people would be interested if there was a matchmaking option.
-
1
-
-
I don't think people can file a patent for the way they micro in 0ad
If you watch players, you learn how to play like them. If your ego is so strong you need to think of yourself as the OG archercav rusher, then go for it.
No need to credit the original clubby rusher after ruining a TG with clubs.
-
4 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
In Alpha 24 archers made the same amount of damage but they have been the OP ranged unit.
I think a lot of this was also to do with the slower inf speed and strength of forts,towers. It made it very easy to sit under a fort and temple and keep massing.
-
@UltraMan When there are only skirms and archers, the skirmishers win because they do more damage and closed the range to reach the archers. If you add melee, the skirmishers will be busy with the spears and swords (good for mauryans because of extra sword dmg). That said, archers are pretty weak at the moment, mainly because their range is not utilized by default (archers also attacking closest unit, which is often melee).
long story short: archer's strength is their range, but it is very difficult at the moment to take advantage of their range.
-
@Stan` I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 is referring to banning from the host of a TG lobby, not the actual game lobby.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
We call that 'pancake'
Yes pancake and flapjack are synonymous. We would just call the picture you shared an oat bar or something XD.
Anyways, back on task, how feasible would a 1v1 matchmaking system be for 0ad?
-
Why not just make crossbows a p2 unit and have Han start with archers. Similar to how some civs start with spears in p1 and get pikes, slower, in p2. Mace and ptol have pikes p1 and people tend to avoid training them at first because of their walk speed.
If the archery range were still considered, I would say my solution from a previous post solves this aswell.
Also, I think crossbows seem more fitting as a p2 unit as bows must have come first.
-
45 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
This is a flapjack???
Americans call this a flapjack:
-
1
-
-
If 0ad had a larger player base, I would say it would be interesting to try to setup a ranked matchmaking queue. This will probably result in more accurate ratings and encourage more people to play 1v1s. While it certainly wouldn't handle the smurf problem (not that its really a big problem), I think more accurate ratings would be healthier for balancing TGs. Thoughts?
Just now, real_tabasco_sauce said:I would say it would be interesting to try to setup a ranked matchmaking queue.
This would probably need a refined and balanced map selection.
-
1
-
-
It does seems a little weird to have such a specific damage multiplier.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
It's all talk for now.
I think one of the bigger questions is what the role of the practice range. I don't really like it being only powerful rank 3 units.
What do you all think about my middle ground solution?
Archery range costs: 100 wood, 200 stone ( @wowgetoffyourcellphone).
P1: can train both archers and crossbows at tier 1 (normal citizen soldiers)
P2: upgrade becomes available called "crossbow regiments" or something:
- Allows tier 3 crossbows to train with much slower train time, or cost if train time is not enough.
- archers remain a normal citizen soldier.
Maybe in addition to this, It would be good to allow archers and spears to train from CC and Barracks in P1, but in order to access crossbows in p1, you have to invest in the archery range?
-
1
-
2 minutes ago, alre said:
- it's a known issue that rushes lower the total score of both rushed and rushing players, this is inevitable and could only be mitigated including a lot more factors in the score, which would make it more complicate and finally less understandable
yeah the best way to consider early rushes is by looking at early military score in the graphs section, its not reflected in the final score
-
1
-
Persia Cav in p1
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
@LetswaveaBook's mod showed us a few things about balancing, in particular across civs. One thing that I thought was great from this mod was allowing persians to train both spear and skrim cav during p1. Currently pers are basically only good in the very late game, and if you want to do a p2 archercav rush. I think it would reaffirm pers as a cavalry civ and a good/decent rushing civ. It would also bring more benefit to the stables which used to be persia's unique building.
Thoughts?