[Alpha 22] Balance considerations

[temple]

49 minutes ago, Servo said:

I never complain about skirmisher cavalry rushes because I'm always rushing and had so many victims among very good players.

The fact that you've only been playing for a few weeks and already are beating pros who've played for months or years, should be enough indication that something's seriously wrong.

I played a game last night (rated, oops), dog + 12 jav cav vs my 4 infantry + 7 spear cav, I lost everything, he lost one horse. GG after 3:28.

26 minutes ago, Grugnas said:

as said on the first topic, none talked about changing accuracy.

I'm saying change it. That's the difference between a21 and a22, so that should be the first step in rebalancing. Maybe use an accuracy halfway between the two.

[Hannibal_Barca]

No cavalry game rule seems stupid

Its like they don't consider many civs rely on cavalry strategies

[Hannibal_Barca]

1 minute ago, temple said:

Maybe use an accuracy halfway between the two.

Or halve it for base unit, add a late game upgrade to re-increase

This way they can be good for late game too

If it is still op, the tech could come with a little cost increase

[temple]

3 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Or halve it for base unit, add a late game upgrade to re-increase

This way they can be good for late game too

If it is still op, the tech could come with a little cost increase

Veteran units get accuracy upgrades (see the thread I linked to), but it's very tiny now. We could make that a larger bonus.

(Also a previous comment in this thread: we could add it to the phases, like how citizen-soldiers get +20% hp in town, +10% hp in city.)

[Hannibal_Barca]

2 minutes ago, temple said:

Veteran units get accuracy upgrades (see the thread I linked to), but it's very tiny now. We could make that a larger bonus.

(Also a previous comment in this thread: we could add it to the phases, like how citizen-soldiers get +20% hp in town, +10% hp in city.)

While some of his other ideas might be over-complex I think wow could be right with adding a separate tech at the corrals, not everything in a phase

Phasing is too cheap if you get all the stuff with it

[Grugnas]

48 minutes ago, temple said:

I'm saying change it. That's the difference between a21 and a22, so that should be the first step in rebalancing. Maybe use an accuracy halfway between the two.

thanks for relinking the graphs, i will have a look at them later as long as i have time for it. The fact that didn't convince me to tweak accuracy in my experiments is that actually an army of archers (and perhaps slingers) can give hard time to skirmishers (mostly because of the range) but the idea to increase accuracy as long as units are promoted is definitely a good idea and perhaps justified from the fact that skirmishers are prevalently used against melee units which actually struggle in many situations. The accuracy difference between ranks  isn't really that noticeable actually  (i recall that spread has been reworked and perhaps promotion technologies aren't updated yet to fit the latest changes). e.i. another idea is that the fortress technology affecting bolt shooters accuracy could affect all ranged units (available in the fortress in phase 3).

Edited August 24, 2017 by Grugnas

[Servo]

lol I'm not his fan nor friend but it's more interesting to play with him than most others coz he plays real hard. Also I have the same frustration whenever I have very passive teammates. 

Now back to topic. 

@temple before I played multi I spent hours and months playing and studying the game mechanics and tbh I did not like the performance of the skirmisher cavalry on A21. I used to play RoN that's why I know the importance of raiding in RTS games too. See you lost having a Civ with no skirm cav somehow you played against a Briton having extra unit and extra bonus. If you were not Romans or Macedonians the result could be different. 

Although this is not a very ultimate solution but I consider it as viable and should also be implemented, what if the spear cavalry attack speed tweaked from 3.5 to 1.5 or even 1 second would you stand a chance against your skirmisher cavalry opponent? I think you will.

Rushes can be prevented and the more you delay the military unit production the less likely it can succeed. One good solution and could also improve gameplay is having military units trained only on military structures not from CC.  Requiring metal on units using metal weapons would also delay army production same as slinger need stones. Incremental unit cost as you produce more of the same unit will also delay mass unit production. Requiring produced weapons too. So many viable solution than reducing HP or walk speed. 

I lost 2 rated games using Mauryans against this guy (-_-) him using Iberians on a biome map. Still my game has no finesse and he hides very well on his walls. I pondered how could I lose? Was he a much better player? Maybe yes maybe not maybe he was just lucky to have a hiding walls.

Then I tweaked my style a bit and played on teams. This time I'm on the frontline as Seleucid and against an Iberian (very good player on an better team). He did not produce enough cavalry and I had 11 vs his 6 and made swordsmen instead of skirmisher. He resigned and game finished in 12 minutes. Who's fault why they lost? 

Under any circumstances you have to play according to what the game can offer though having no skirm cav is definitely a disadvantage. 

 

 

[temple]

7 hours ago, Grugnas said:

The accuracy difference between ranks  isn't really that noticeable actually  (i recall that spread has been reworked and perhaps promotion technologies aren't updated yet to fit the latest changes).

They haven't been updated, see the second graph. I'll make a patch for this. Edit: D834.

Edited August 24, 2017 by temple

[DarcReaver]

On 20.8.2017 at 5:44 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It seems like to me in these balance discussions that people keep piling on more tweaks upon all previous tweaks which just creates a giant stack of tweaks which like Jenga is prone to continue to fall over if the base is not solid. Create a solid conception of the roles of each unit and the web of counters in which they reside. Something that makes sense. Build the stats upon that. 

Sums up the issue in 3 sentences.

[elexis]

Hm right, that will surely make everyone happy

[Lion.Kanzen]

Why stable can be an attachment of barrack.

in SC series you can attach some minibuilding to main building.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Why stable can be an attachment of barrack.

in SC series you can attach some minibuilding to main building.

 

Can use upgrade feature.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The problem is the extra space. But you got about what I'm talking about. Wee only adding to current barrack a stable to acces to horses.

 

we don't need design for each civ a stable even in mods.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

the building was made by Enkeli Studios by a guy named Abe.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The problem is the extra space.

Nah, just have the original tier-1 barracks have the same obstruction size as the upgraded tier-2 barracks.

[Grugnas]

7 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The problem is the extra space. But you got about what I'm talking about. Wee only adding to current barrack a stable to acces to horses.

 

we don't need design for each civ a stable even in mods.

 

 

Actually the idea is good, it would also increase building capture points. Perhaps one of the purpose of buildings attachments in Sc2 is to unlock more units or to train more units at once trained from that building, another is to research specific technologies in the attached module without being enqueued in the main structure production queue because it is treated like a separate entity. Indeed more civ specific or unti specific technologies available from that module would be nice to emphasize phase 2 from phase 3.

[av93]

For ranged cav discussion, I created this post

Edited September 16, 2017 by av93