real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
1.887 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
This is for the mac bundle. I agree that infantry acceleration should be a little faster.
- Launch a random game +
- Launch a skirmish. +
- Connect to the lobby +
- Play on the lobby with someone (nobody else there)
- Launch Atlas and try things out there +
- Open Unit tests demo (To see if there any breakage in displaying entity's) (It's in scenarios) +
- Enable feedback and see if it works (Main menu) Example video +
- Connect to and use mod.io ( Try to download and install the linux libertine font)
- Test replaying new games +
- Test Screenshots (F2) +
- Test Big Screenshots (Maj+F2) +
- Test hotkeys + (except for shift + delete)
- Test Saving and loading a game. +
- Test Quickload/Quicksave +
The acceleration makes formations look unnatural when changing directions (same swirling motion as in A25, but slower now) Would it hurt to use @alre's formation changes (from proposals for formations), or does that cause other issues?
Thanks for sharing the build, you all have done a great job!
-
@borg- I agree, I don't think we are ready to consider this for A26, especially since acceleration is also introduced and there would probably need to be some rebalancing after attack-ground/attack-group. At last, the answer to my question! XD
Also, I hope those of you with indifference tried the mod, or watched the replay to see how much of a difference was made in gameplay with the meat shield meta gone (aside from balance issues e.g. firecav).
@chrstgtr I agree. Maybe attack ground won't be enough to beat the meat shield meta, but it will make a large difference between those who use it and those who don't.
In conclusion, after reading all the comments, I think I have an idea of the pros and cons to each:
Attack gound:
-
Pros
- More easily implemented (i think)
- More micro, also player must decide if it is worth it to use.
-
Cons
- has fewer use cases
- Might require too much micro to be practical (especially when the game is laggy)
Attack group:
-
Pros
- A little less micro, more easily manageable
- More use cases
-
Cons
- Harder to implement (i think)
This is all that I could definitively say most people seem to agree on. I think there would be disagreement over which involves more skill, and which one would be more effective for attacking ranged units. As for me, I like them both.
I think getting a taste of either would help solve the debate, as we can only predict so much.
Thanks for all this discussion, I think we are on the right track.
-
Pros
-
Here is the replay. I believe you have to have the mod for it to play. The FFA game showed us that battles are unpredictable and chaotic, with some things (like firecav) being even more OP.
If this becomes a feature, it will need to be a mode the ranged units can adopt (call it fire at will perhaps) and it should have the same constraints normal attack has (cannot fire while moving, capturing, building).
In my opinion, the way forward is to keep a25 ranged attack behavior and add attack ground to allow more player control and heighten the skill ceiling.
Attack group would accomplish similar goals, but I think it could be abused by selecting a large area. It also seems a lot more complicated and I think it does too much for the player.
would you guys be interested in trying an attack-ground mod?
-
Ok. I renamed it the "saucemod"
Ranged units now capture.
However, an issue that makes ranged units OP:
They can shoot while capturing and while walking. This mod is just to see what gameplay is like when ranged units can shoot other ranged units, and build interest in attack-ground or attack-group.
You can see my observations above. I think this does improve a number of other gameplay issues like pikes being OP and healers being often unused.
-
1
-
-
Its not a table, and it doesn't contain absolutely everything, but I think the in-game civ structure tree and civilization overview will help. (menu->learn to play).
From this information you can see for example: Gauls have a melee cav damage bonus, or that the Iberians get a training hero.
-
1
-
-
yes, they like to capture buildings by damaging them XD.
-
1
-
-
This one doesn't have a .DS_Store file.
-
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Need to strip out all of the .DS_Store files. I think there are 2.
These are so annoying. I guess it's something mac does when they are zipped?
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Have you tried capturing anything with these new ranged infantry dudes?
I hope they don't disobey orders, that would be bad.
-
16 minutes ago, ChronA said:
I think this buildingAI target selection sounds promising
yeah it actually worked out quite well, despite it looking silly on paper. Im trying to get a TG together, but it might have to wait until the weekend. Feel free to give it a try before then if you like!
@Feldfeld made a discussion about pike and ranged balance, which i think would be a fairly good fit along with this change. Idk what the balancing team would have to say, but they should certainly try the mod first
-
Ok this one is the same but does not have a hidden file.
-
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?
-
4
-
-
24 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
<GarrisonArrowMultiplier>1</GarrisonArrowMultiplier>
<MaxArrowCount>10</MaxArrowCount>
<GarrisonArrowClasses>Infantry</GarrisonArrowClasses>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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
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?
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
For the mod, I only gave it to archers (because it is easy and) since they often have the other ranged units in range. If you give it to a skirmisher, the archers would be out of range and won't be hit. Being able to hit opponents in the back is mainly useful if you have long range.
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Also, what targeting feature is this? Random ground targets? Or group targeting?
random, with no area selection. basically each archer is a tower.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Do you think slingers or skirms would be able to see as much benefit from them?
yes, but this makes range more powerful. Skirms will benefit much less from this behavior, and slingers a little less.
5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:I wonder if there is a way to make the archers get a greater accuracy penalty when shooting over other units? Maybe we could just give them an accuracy penalty when using these features.
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.
-
This is me and @BreakfastBurrito_007
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.
-
6 hours ago, Grapjas said:
Whereas "attack area" can have it's niche and strategic moments where it can be usefull like firing at chokepoint
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?
-
1
-
-
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.
8 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:13 archers survived, but there appears significant randomness and sometimes the side with the javelins wins
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?
-
1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:
I don’t get what you were disagreeing with then.
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!
-
Just now, chrstgtr said:
I laid out four different ways units can be targeted and only one of those is what you are describing
yes I already said random targeting in an area is fine too.
->
7 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Both of these sound appealing to me, and perhaps they are not mutually exclusive.
-
12 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
more to the point, how is random shooting at an area. Better than targeted shooting at an area? You can achieve the same thing that you want with random targeting of units with an area (1) above, but not have any of the downside.
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.
Territory mod
in Game Modification
Posted
Thank you @ValihrAnt!
I'll try this out.