Jagst3r21 Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 First off, I just have to say that you should pm me on the IRC chat and actually play me on the balance branch. I am not the best player by any means, but I am pretty good. We need high level games to accurately judge the state of this balance branch.Now to the real issue. I agree somewhat with what Incog said, but if you have played Scythetwirler's balance branch at all then you would know it is MUCH better than A16. A16 requires no skill whatsoever. Some things have to be re-worked, but on the whole it is much better. I do not have time right now to go over every detail, but I will try later. Just remember, concepts are good, but actually playing the branch is much better. Hit me up on IRC and we can play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythetwirler Posted July 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 For ram attacking infantry, how about we give it a slight damaging aura instead (unlockable tech?), this simulates the soldiers inside the ram retaliate against attackers, also with this aura the ram doesn't have to stop to attack enemy units and can still sort of push forward given enough time. This way we can silmulate the fact that ram can still be blocked by enemy but it can slowly bowl over opposition, but clearing the blocking enemy with your own units will be more effective though.Rams attacking units is just meant as a placeholder until the pathfinder can be fixed etc.I think the Mauryan worker elephant can get around the wheelbarrow tech, but the other civs might miss it. Not sure why it was chained to lumber abilities anyway.Wheelbarrow techs (and subsequent capacity techs) have been revamped and implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auron2401 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Rams attacking units is just meant as a placeholder until the pathfinder can be fixed etc.Until such a time where we can run people over? Surely? Edited July 9, 2014 by auron2401 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan` Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Don't know if this is the right place, but it's a bit about balancing. The rotary mill should have an aura instead of a tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auron2401 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Thats a TBI thing. (to be implemented) so it's not about balance (yet)i was about to write a 2 a4 long rant but i think i'll take a chill pill and put it into a few bullet points.Persians. suck. Having 50% more money than everyone else is useless if you need 75% to beat them! And it's difficult to trade when theres' a stupid 'gentlemans agreement' saying you can't! (or at least, you can't play against 90% of the balance testers. Buttcheeks)Immortals, well.. suck. they're far more expensive than any other faction, and far weaker. (time is a cost! this is key!) Only ONE structure can make them, compared to nearly every other faction being able to restrict them in Barracks + fortresses. which can be up to 50. shouldn’t it be the other way around?! Take away the metal cost or for god sakes make them easier to mass produce! Or make it harder for everyone else!Phalangites need a nerf. eg: 1v1, 10v10 should lose to all infantry, 20v20 they should win. Their strength is the ability to fight several ranks deep, yet they are nearly on par (and better than some, eg, aforemention persians) with normal spear units! They attack too darn fast! 3 ranks of 0.75 a-speed phalangites are unbeatable! make them 1. 5 at least!Persians need an infantryman which does pure hack damage. srsly. they had THE MOST VERSATILE ARMY EVER (excluding maybe arche` seleukia). i seem to remember they had an axeman which was probably their most used inf unit IRL?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takabara <these guys, but they were primarily skirmish units.they could look like this?i know it's mostly a rant about PERSIANS SUCK AND PHALANX OP but it's balance, and it's truei just had a game against .. a macedonian, i had 5-6 times the amount of resources, triple the men, and i was made mincemeat of. makes me very very sad. :/ Edited July 11, 2014 by auron2401 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auron2401 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 There are three big attributes that a unit can have:Stats (attack/HP/rate of fire)RangeSpeedYou forgot Cost, time, And widespread avaliability. (eg immortals can only be recruited from that awesome looking palace thing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Son Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I've lost to a Macedonian player exploiting the syntagma bug, even if I had a better econ and massed counter-units, are you sure your defeat wasn't due to it? (no clue if it's fixed in the branch though, haven't played it). Edited July 11, 2014 by Prodigal Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auron2401 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Formations arent avaliable so syntagma is irrelevant.oh, i only managed to survive a while because i had tons of stone and spammed fortresses, towers and walls. in the end i just raged D: *shame* Edited July 11, 2014 by auron2401 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 I think it's a mistake to make spearmen use pierce damage. Now you have to do weird (unnecessary) armor balancing for cavalry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraitii Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 I've updated my script to take counters into account and changed a few other stuffs, here are the new results.The lack of hardcoded counters paints a very different picture overall. It also seems you've buffed all units attack up.SVN:balance comparison.zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agentx Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 > here are the new results.Just wow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagst3r21 Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 I don't want to comment on everything touched on here, but let me just say as a general rule of thumb that you should supply evidence for your arguments/statements. It is hard to take you seriously when you (you know who you are) just make statements without anything to back it up. For example, there is a difference between a civ being unbalanced and you getting owned by a better player. You need to explain what happened, what units you were making vs the other player, etc. To assert claims that something you lost against is overpowered, you must also be able to win against the same opponent using the that strategy/civ. Otherwise, it's just a skill gap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzippy Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Generally its a good idea to sort out possibly skill gaps by having a few games vs same opponent, both playing the same civ. Only if you are on par with your opponent it makes sense to compare different civs, and maybe this is only true for really good players.Also I think (maybe pretty wrong) that first a civs units have to be balanced between themselves, and when this is done (for all civs), it makes sense to compare/rebalance different civs. Edited July 12, 2014 by zzippy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNcog Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 How is the balance branch coming along by the way? any good results with these fixes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzippy Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 ..yes. It is on a good way I think.Btw, if I understood scythe correctly, the Windows version is fixed meanwhile, so why not give it a try (again), iNcog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan` Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Would some of you guys mind downloading Rise of the east mod to balance the units ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auron2401 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) From the GIT?https://github.com/0ADMods/han_chinaLinks help buddo. Edited July 17, 2014 by auron2401 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan` Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 I always ask before getting to much in details Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auron2401 Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Moving on. I just sent this message to scythe but I think a more public opinion may help flesh it out. :3I've been thinking. (shocking, I know)About the champions problem.at the moment, they fill a niche in ones armed forces. you are either spamming them, or you are not. Some civs have better champions, others do not etc.What can one do to fix this? either turn them into a force to be reckoned with or just easy troops because you have tons of the buildings which train them..?I think not. I think make them Extremely strong.. but.. Limit them.I've been thinking on this ever since I heard wratii saying that "immortals are too strong" (hogwash, they have so many weaknesses it's not even funny)EG: Currently persians suck at EVERYTHING combat related, and their only decent unit cant be trained en-masse. (comparatively speaking, one palace versus 10 fortresses?!) Thereby rendering their only "advantage" pointless.So why not try putting limits on champion troops? it's not like they were trained so constantly In reality. On the contrary, they were Elite troops with a hard limit as to how many men could be in their unit.Then we could branch out to balancing troops not on individual strength, but their cost - strength - numbers ratio.Eg: Persia and sparta would have the most Champions (sparta only because their numbers are already dwindled) Where Rome would have the least.So as it were', for further example;Persia 40 ChampsSparta, 35 champsSeleucids 30 champsPtolmies 30 champsMacedonians, 30 champsMauryans 25 champsIberians 25 champsBritons 20 champsGauls 20 champsRome, 15 champsEtc probably.Where persia and sparta had a famous "elite corps", rome had none. the closest we can have is the hand picked italian extrordinarius and their consular bodyguards, both of which were not actual elite troops, just the best of what they had.Im not actually sure about the guys in the middle, More research is needed! *puts on reading goggles*Thoughts? Edited July 20, 2014 by auron2401 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango_ Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 40 persians champions is ridiculous for unlimited pop cap game, for the example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzippy Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Just a question @Auron2401:How many games vs human opponent have you played in balance branch yet? I see no "champions problem"at all, at least not before fixing/rebalancing the basics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Son Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Kinda hard to balance the game this way. Who would have 30 footmen over 30 elephants? If the design direction goes this way it would be better to relate it with limits per unit type, reflecting historical numbers of units each civ had and the needed balance.But if the issue is Persians being weak, I'd rather buff them in other ways. They relied mostly on numbers and even immortals weren't that heavy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzippy Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) What about the new walkspeed?I'd like to hear a few thoughts about walkspeed increase, since a few balance branch* testers claimed that it is too fast. In my opinion it should be decreased a little again; generally spoken its a step in the right direction (a16 feels like slowmotion when used to balance branch ) ...Your opinions?* note that scythe created a rollback branch which makes a game without oos possible Edited July 26, 2014 by zzippy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraitii Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Imo the walkspeed from scythe is good enough, but it was a bland +3 to everything, so we should probably refine it by unit and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) Have you guys even attempted playing the game at 1.25x instead of making everything move faster as default? Edited July 26, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.