real_tabasco_sauce

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.

Well if they are the repeating crossbow, i think this model is fine! I also like how they are in the changeset.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a flapjack??? Americans call this a flapjack:

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? This would probably need a refined and balanced map selection.

It does seems a little weird to have such a specific damage multiplier.

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?

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

In your case , @Yekaterina by the end of the game, you gathered less res and successfully carried ur team by army composition and skill, while your teammates likely gathered unnecessary res, and were less successful in fighting overall. I bet the solution above would be a much better predictor of the MVP in each match. As for the rush part, at the time immediately after the rush, the aforementioned ratio would be very high, since a rush resulted in a high KD. However these details will be just as lost to time as what you showed above (except for the charts section, where the ratio could be graphed over time)

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.

Yes if all civs got the archery range, we would need appropriate units for them. It would need an established role which would be the same in all civs, ie gameplay "framework." If it remains a Han unique building, I think it still needs to have a specific role. Is it for massing trash units? or for accessing more powerful ones like tier 3 units? Maybe it can be both: costs: 100 wood, 200 stone. 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. I don't think both archers AND crossbows should become tier 3. Since CS crossbows are the unique han unit, only they should have this option. Imagine if we allowed spartan skirms to train tier 3.

How many women then? Anyways @Yekaterina, so if i'm understanding this correctly, practice range is now a p1 building, costs 200 wood (50 more than a house), and trains rank 3 units in p2 at no additional cost other than train time? You think this is balanced?? I think for this to be balanced, it must cost more stone. This way at least you cant make like 5 practice ranges, go p2 at 6 mins and immediately win. In addition, it requires late game stone eco, which people are often quick to abandon in favor of metal eco. In other words, I like @wowgetoffyourcellphone's cost of 100 wood, 200 stone which now makes it 3 in favor.

I thought accuracy also? or maybe i'm wrong.

Ok, that makes sense. So then is there a building limit for practice ranges? It seems to me like building several of these would be OP late game, considering the units price. Think of ppl building several stables to spam champ cav, but instead the units are much, much cheaper.