Jump to content

Rush by dogs and win !


Recommended Posts

So I just did a bit of testing too:

20 dogs vs 20 cavalry javelineers → 13 surviving cavalry
20 dogs vs 20 cavalry swordsmen → 18 surviving cavalry
20 dogs vs 10 cavalry javelineers + 10 cavalry swordsmen → 10+4 surviving cavalry

20 dogs vs 20 infantry javelineers → 9 surviving dogs
20 dogs vs 20 infantry swordsmen → 8 surviving infantry
20 dogs vs 10 infantry javelineers + 10 infantry swordsmen → 10+0 surviving infantry

Which again shows (i) swordsmen are most effective and (ii) infantry javelineers die quickly.

Given that dogs and animals can't attack structures and most players tend to have civic centres and towers which can be garrisoned and shoot arrows, I expect going for dogs might be not all that effective in practice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogs cannot do anything, only open a map and attack, so they must be able to fight with some efficiency, the question is what would be the ideal proposal for this. The current proposal for Celts is that they have a very strong initial phase1, with efficient rush and lose their efficiency in later phases.

so I believe that a very small adjustment must be made, nothing that remove the efficiency of the dogs. The ideal of @Genava55 should be enough.

Edited by borg-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember also that most are probably not taking use of loom (that is now only a 100 food) and the fact that on phase 2 you can take melee resistance upgrade for low cost.

People need to be less alarmist of balance 'issues' until the meta has stabilized, especially on a small low competitive community.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, badosu said:

Remember also that most are probably not taking use of loom (that is now only a 100 food) and the fact that on phase 2 you can take melee resistance upgrade for low cost.

People need to be less alarmist of balance 'issues' until the meta has stabilized, especially on a small low competitive community.

Exactly what I said. There is still a lot to be tested and new strategies to be used. We have very little information yet. The fact that you lose one game against dogs vs player much better than you, does not mean that everything is wrong and that everything must change or dogs go back to p2.
But as I said before, it is great to point out problems and this is really necessary, but also present a proposal to solve problem.

Edited by borg-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, borg- said:

Exactly what I said. There is still a lot to be tested and new strategies to be used. We have very little information yet. The fact that you lose one game against dogs vs player much better than you, does not mean that everything is wrong and that everything must change or dogs go back to p2.
But as I said before, it is great to point out problems and this is really necessary, but also present a proposal to solve problem.

Dakyras was rushed too and he is not  weak

Look how a player can rush two players by dogs.

As our friend genava 55 said 20 dogs kill 20 pikes spears javs and also they kill slingers too.

But remember making 20 dogs is easier than making 20 soldiers 

Then if 20 dogs go to rush may they face u say 15 spears

I think Dogs should get back to p2 or they need to be bought by metal in p1 to stop fast dog spam.

Edited by king reza the great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Nescio said:

So I just did a bit of testing too:

20 dogs vs 20 cavalry javelineers → 13 surviving cavalry
20 dogs vs 20 cavalry swordsmen → 18 surviving cavalry
20 dogs vs 10 cavalry javelineers + 10 cavalry swordsmen → 10+4 surviving cavalry

20 dogs vs 20 infantry javelineers → 9 surviving dogs
20 dogs vs 20 infantry swordsmen → 8 surviving infantry
20 dogs vs 10 infantry javelineers + 10 infantry swordsmen → 10+0 surviving infantry

Which again shows (i) swordsmen are most effective and (ii) infantry javelineers die quickly.

Given that dogs and animals can't attack structures and most players tend to have civic centres and towers which can be garrisoned and shoot arrows, I expect going for dogs might be not all that effective in practice.

Yes ! Ur opponent give u time and let u make towers, enough men, economy then rush u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, king reza the great said:

As our friend genava 55 said 20 dogs kill 20 pikes spears javs and also they kill slingers too.

But remember making 20 dogs is easier than making 20 soldiers 

Then if 20 dogs go to rush may they face u say 15 spears

Yes, now after tests we can avail better.

Contrary to what @vinmesay, economics should be taken into consideration, because if you delay the rush just for a moment, it may be pie to attack your opponent, then he wins in the economy.

As I said earlier, dogs are exclusively for attacking, so with an opponent's carelessness, they must be able to do serious damage and even win the game.

It seems to me that a small adjustment is necessary, but nothing to move to p2 or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, don't be surprised if you die because you didn't scout dogs and counter it properly.

Any meta change that punishes lack of scouting will be controversial in my opinion since so few players do it properly.

I'm not sure I should comment in these terms, since I'm not even playing regularly anymore but I know the effort that goes into balancing and the fact this is the first 0ad release we actually released with actual player feedback (and implementation).

Chill out, we'll figure things out, as long as we continue and improve the feedback process. (pls enable weekly a25 lobby :-))

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, badosu said:

People need to be less alarmist of balance 'issues' until the meta has stabilized, especially on a small low competitive community.

Some wise words. I 100% agree there.

I wonder if part of the issue that Reza is trying to formulate might not be in resources gathering rates rather than in dogs stats themself. Eco balance is a bit different, food seems to increase faster and women spam seems more rewarding now. So of course a unit that cost only food would be more interesting

4 hours ago, king reza the great said:

dakyeras with rank 1800 is a weak player who lost 50 men aginast dogs ? 

This seems like a much more relevant question at this stage of a24 ! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm about the dog rush issue, I think that we should also take into an account (when testing 20 something vs 20 dogs) - how much time (and resources in total) does it take to make 20 x units vs making 20 dogs
 

And also, on the nerfing of the dogs - it seems it might be better to make a dog cost 20 more food then take 20 hp away, cause dogs are pretty squishy and have such a poor range of sight that I think if they lose more health they will be underpowered and nobody will try (and maybe make a decent) dog rush in p1 and I think that that would make the game less fun and britons less defined as a civilisation (Celts should be a bit stronger in p1 cause if they don't get a good rush they are pretty much done for vs late game archer civs, especially vs Mauryans) 

And also in general, rushing is already harder to pull vs archer civilisations

Edited by Alar1k
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...