Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1.852

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

 Content Type 

Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. real_tabasco_sauce
    Ok this one is the same but does not have a hidden file. TemplateMod_sauce_update 3.zip
  2. real_tabasco_sauce
    Hi everyone, I forgot to give building AI to the elephant archers, so here is the updated sauce/book mod. (see next page) While testing has seemed quite positive so far (see my comments above), we need to get more feedback, and I think the best way to do this is setup a large team game. like this if you want to try a TG with the mod, and maybe we should schedule it?
  3. real_tabasco_sauce
    I don't think its necessary either, but since that is what @LetswaveaBook included for the first mod which only changed archers, I thought it best to continue with the same exact change for the other ranged units. I don't think it makes a difference tho, but for simplicity's sake I could change it.
  4. real_tabasco_sauce
    from brief testing of my mod update: Pros: battles are more balanced with both melee units and ranged units taking damage from ranged units, no more meatshield meta. battles look cool. Encourages healing: the victor has a higher number of higher ranked, but also very damaged soldiers, healing these units will be valuable. Healing during fighting is stronger now. intricate army composition is key to victory. better performance because of less overkill. Cons: less micro: players odds of winning an engagement are less dependent on their micro and more dependent on upgrades and army composition. (this is a big issue for me, but maybe new more subtle micro techniques will arise) Let me know what u all think. I think we should get a TG testing scheduled.
  5. real_tabasco_sauce
    Ok guys I added all other ranged units to the mod, now calling it the "sauce_update." I figured if we add it to archers, other units should benefit from this change and we can now test it for all the ranged units in the game, does anyone want to setup a TG using the mod?
  6. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes, this makes sense. What we basically found is that archers with this change are very strong. I can't think of a scenario where the archers are stronger only attacking the closest unit. Even for hero sniping, you can still do this by telling all archers to attack the hero, then they go back to random targeting. I would say it is very OP, so for balance, other ranged units would need this even though the benefit would not be as significant as it is for archers. (then even more balance may be needed) To be honest, the following units would become game breakingly strong: mauryan champ archers and their poison, probably crossbows, champ archer chariots, camels, and horse archers. This is certainly an eye opener as it shows how much damage they can do without overkill. I think it is too powerful and would also reduce micro.
  7. real_tabasco_sauce
    100 archers vs 100 skirmishers. can you guys now see how strong they are with almost no overkill? this is amazing: no damage buff at all but now way stronger. To be honest i think this is OP (without considering archer nerfs that would be required), and that attack-ground would require more skill. 100 archers vs 100 skirms would normally be catastrophic for the archers but look at this video. this one has better quality, sorry about how bad the last one was.
  8. real_tabasco_sauce
    random, with no area selection. basically each archer is a tower.
  9. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes, but this makes range more powerful. Skirms will benefit much less from this behavior, and slingers a little less. I don't think its worth it to over-complicate something like this. Honestly a damage nerf for archers or armor buff for shorter ranged units sounds better.
  10. real_tabasco_sauce
    This is me and @BreakfastBurrito_007 ArchersTowerAI.mov It seems we have unlocked the damage potential of archers. They are now able to range skirms over melee to a degree and because of this, the seem to be very powerful, easily beating 30 pike+ 30 skirm and 30 spear vs 30 skirm. Horse archers would be very powerful because they could kill the ranged units and run before the melee even arrives. This makes sense, because in the past archers have only been allowed attack melee first. If this were implemented, archers would need nerfs.
  11. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes, and if people don't like the repetition as seen in the video, Im sure it could be made a one time attack that the player would order each time they would like to send a volley. This would also avoid the need to stop archers from attacking empty ground should a battle stop. Im curious to see if people would rather the attack be repeating or 1 per attack?
  12. real_tabasco_sauce
    First of all thanks a lot @LetswaveaBook i'll give this a try. I like the concept and maybe it could be called "fire at will" or something in game. Maybe this is because of the archer distance away from the skirms. If the archers are not hitting a certain number of the skirms, they lose?
  13. real_tabasco_sauce
    No worries, i was just defending the possibilities attack-ground already brings. I do think using attack-ground involves more opportunity cost (is it worth it to use or better to use the default behavior?) and will involve activity on behalf of the player (continually updating attack area and moving units). It may impart a higher skill ceiling. @Freagarach can what you wrote be used in A25, or would it need to be updated? you and the other devs put a lot of work into this, so I would like to give it a try!
  14. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes I already said random targeting in an area is fine too. ->
  15. real_tabasco_sauce
    I am on board with this idea as I have already stated. My only issue is that it has not yet been developed, which is not the case for attack-ground.
  16. real_tabasco_sauce
    @chrstgtr @chrstgtrif you send your units to battle and snipe one ranged unit at a time with all of them you are wasting at least 80 percent of their value. (80 percent do damage to a unit that is already killed). These are rough numbers obviously since it depends on the unit. do you now get why its powerful to spread out damage a bit, imagine this for crossbows!
  17. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes this is what I'm talking about. Why is it pointless and how have you already come to that conclusion? How about we test it to find out? firstly the areas are not random, they are player specified. Targeting is done by the player. secondly it could literally do more damage in some cases, so i don't see how that is pointless.
  18. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes attack-ground means the units are shooting an area, which is assigned by the player. The archers do not target, but instead the player does the targeting. For example: enemy has 30 pike and 30 skirm, I have 30 pike 30 sling. I would use attack ground to target the skirmishers because i know they will kill my pikes first. This should kill the skirmishers faster than individually clicking each one (because of avoiding overkill and not defaulting to shooting pikes). The reasons to use this are: -give the player some control over where arrows go, as opposed to the default of shooting the closest unit. This allows ranged units to shoot past melee for example. -when attacking a lot of units that are close together, damage can be dealt to units in the area simultaneously. This means more damage is done as opposed to when all of 50 slingers snipe one or two enemies, with most of the projectiles being wasted. I don't think it would have to be repetitive like in @Freagarach's video, perhaps individual volleys. I may be wrong about this but maybe if the diff(https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1971) could be made into a mod for A25, we could all get together and test it! The other proposals (especially (3)) sound good, but would likely require more development time.
  19. real_tabasco_sauce
    @chrstgtr I think you might be misunderstanding me. It's not random, it is an area that is shot at. Units in the area receive damage if an arrow hits them, which is more likely with a smaller radius (higher arrow density). The biggest advantage of Attack-ground is that 50 archers for example, that would often times all shoot 1 unit at a time now deal more overall damage to a group of units, especially if they are tightly packed. This feature would be controlled by the player in response to micro in the battle. There's nothing random about it, other than the distribution of arrows within the circle. In addition, there seems to already be working code for this and all that is required is testing by some means. This sounds like what I described for Attack-group above, and I agree that seems like a good option. Coding may be difficult as you said. What I am saying is we have an existing option, which will be more easily implemented and tested. I'd like to know if people want to test it or not. Wouldn't it be better to test existing ideas before new stuff is developed? If attack-ground should fall short of what we are looking for, maybe the next step is to try something along the lines of 3.
  20. real_tabasco_sauce
    Hi everyone, I appreciate the interest, and i'm glad we are having a fruitful discussion. I suppose i wasn't clear about the distinction @chrstgtr: attack-ground is a player-controlled attack blanketing an area as seen in @Freagarach's video. however, far from aimless, it may do more damage to tightly packed armies because it avoids overkill. My imagination is that it could be used to the degree of onagers and mangonels in AoE2, where skilled players can anticipate movements and score effective damage against groups of weaker units. I see what you mean. Maybe something like what @BreakfastBurrito_007 mentioned would help, with the ranged units disengaging when no enemies are present. Another alternative would be to make the attack ground order non-repetitive, where a player is responsible for individual volleys if they want to take advantage of the benefits of attack ground. When I mentioned attack-group, i was referring to your preference of attacking the units within a user-specified area. maybe for future discussion we should define the two terms, so everyone is clear (let me know if i get something wrong here): Attack-ground (see video): either a single or repeated attack on a circular player-specified area, where projectiles are likely to evenly spread their damage throughout the area. Attack-group: Ranged units behavior is to attack enemies within a circular player-specified area, regardless of proximity within the area (similarly to how towers evenly spread damage) ^ feel free to change either. For Attack-group I think calling it a behavior is accurate. Both of these sound appealing to me, and perhaps they are not mutually exclusive.
  21. real_tabasco_sauce
    I'm fine with either, but do we agree to do this or no? do we start with attack ground, or go for attack group?
  22. real_tabasco_sauce
    I still bet sending cav or even a group of melee inf to exposed slingers or skirms will be way more powerful than a group of archers using attack ground. The point is it gives archers and other units with longer range more of a chance in these kinds of battles, and another option when it comes to these scenarios. Overall, I just think attack ground or attack group will just give players another option to deal with battles like you described, and it can't hurt to test it. One does have to expect some changes to the current playstyles as the game is developed, maybe the outcome wont be better or worse, just different.
  23. real_tabasco_sauce
    with this being one target, it makes sense that most miss. The merit of attack ground as seen in the video is in larger battles. Id like to see either attack ground or attack group. Attack group does seem like it would be more complicated, however. Since currently overkill (80 archers shoot 1 skirm) is the biggest offender when it comes to game performance, this may actually improve performance as it avoids overkill. see discussion below: It's hard to say if it will increase or decrease micro until we test it, but I would say attack ground would require close attention to be effective, like updating the area as units move. The player most effective with this tool would avoid overkill more. Because of that, I'd say it would either increase the skill ceiling, or do nothing if nobody ends up using it. Also attack ground could be used to anticipate the movements of something at long range, for better accuracy on fast moving targets. I think it's still worth testing as is, especially since there is existing code for it. Maybe if it is determined that the additional benefit of hitting specific units within the selected area is necessary, then we see about attack group? I will say that simply selecting a group of units to kill does not sound beneficial for gameplay.
  24. real_tabasco_sauce
    There has been some discussion about implementing attack ground, and I think we should go ahead and decide if this should be implemented for A26. I have no idea about the implementation process. Currently there seems to remain a need to design a graphic to display for the attack-ground radius, I imagine the mouse scroll wheel and using the existing radius for towers and forts might work fairly well. the graphic would probably only be needed when executing the attack ground command, for example when holding 'A' for a group of ranged units. Perhaps there could also be a hud element for attack ground alongside patrol, garrison, and delete. I think more players are beginning to realize what benefits this could bring to the game. Reasons for Attack-Ground: allow players with ranged units to attack significantly beyond an amount of melee units. "silent nerf" for pikes (as opposed to reducing armor, which would basically make them bad again) "silent buff": for units with higher range (ie archers, which are considered weak, primarily because their range benefits are hampered by their limitation to shooting closer units) Reducing Overkill: Allows players with ranged units to better allocate their damage high pierce units will have even less overkill Overkill seems to be calculation-heavy, might even reduce lag if many players use this. In general: adds more creativity, balance, and skill to fights involving ranged units. Attack ground: id like to test this in more realistic situations to see if it has the benefits I outlined above. Here is a video posted by @Freagarach a few months ago. I could test this with a group if it became a mod. Could I get an idea of how favorable people see this for A26?
  25. real_tabasco_sauce
    yes maybe this and an indibil nerf are all that is needed to fix firecav. indibil nerf could be: -aura ineffective when garrisoned - +25 percent train time instead of -25% how many people think this is a good approach?
×
×
  • Create New...