what about snowballing

[alre]

You can't use the same rushing tactics in 1v1 and team games. With or without loot.

[chrstgtr]

5 hours ago, alre said:

You can't use the same rushing tactics in 1v1 and team games. With or without loot.

Not in the games current state. You could if loot was higher. That’s why I said it would be nice if there was a civ that had high loot, so they wouldn’t be slower as much by rushing. To offset this benefit they would need to be weak in p3 (ie weak siege, fewer upgrades to have weaker units, or something like that). That would create a true raiding civ that is meant to fight early and often

[alre]

you want a loot level so high that if you manage to do a succesfull rush (and it doesn't even have to be extraordinarily succesful, you said) then you have an economy that can compare with that of other players that have been booming instead?

now imagine this in a 1v1 setting, could be a school example of what snowballing is: you have been raided and you managed to reduce damage a little, so you may think you are fine, or at least that you can catch on, but no, the other player is so much forward (as if he was booming) that he can keep rushing without fear of being reset, because just a small margin snowballs more and more again.

[Gurken Khan]

14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I really don't know who pissed in your Wheaties. Maybe you were just born this way.

Ja ja, sunshine.

[LetswaveaBook]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Not in the games current state. You could if loot was higher. That’s why I said it would be nice if there was a civ that had high loot, so they wouldn’t be slower as much by rushing. To offset this benefit they would need to be weak in p3 (ie weak siege, fewer upgrades to have weaker units, or something like that). That would create a true raiding civ that is meant to fight early and often

I think loot does not really make that much of a difference. I just rushed with 3 cavalry and killed 5 women early, for an amazing 50 food early.

The main thing it did is probably cause significant idle time and set my opponent back. The loot is not a consideration, even not if it was tripled.

Also extra loot is nice if you get good engagements, but it does not really help to get those good engagements in the first place. A faction good for rushing will probably be one that helps to get those good engagements and the loot can be disregarded.

[chrstgtr]

11 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think loot does not really make that much of a difference. I just rushed with 3 cavalry and killed 5 women early, for an amazing 50 food early.

The main thing it did is probably cause significant idle time and set my opponent back. The loot is not a consideration, even not if it was tripled.

 

Three cav raiding doesn't sound like a rush. That sounds like a harass. Killing five women with 3 cav is also not a successful rush--at best you are even after that exchange if the defender doesn't panic and create a bunch of idle time. Loot would help--saying having extra res isn't helpful is clearly misguided. 

11 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Also extra loot is nice if you get good engagements, but it does not really help to get those good engagements in the first place. A faction good for rushing will probably be one that helps to get those good engagements and the loot can be disregarded.

 

13 hours ago, alre said:

you want a loot level so high that if you manage to do a succesfull rush (and it doesn't even have to be extraordinarily succesful, you said) then you have an economy that can compare with that of other players that have been booming instead?

No, clearly a good play should be rewarded, and a bad play should be punished. 

 

13 hours ago, alre said:

now imagine this in a 1v1 setting, could be a school example of what snowballing is: you have been raided and you managed to reduce damage a little, so you may think you are fine, or at least that you can catch on, but no, the other player is so much forward (as if he was booming) that he can keep rushing without fear of being reset, because just a small margin snowballs more and more again.

The point of what I proposed is that you would have to keep rushing (and keep doing it well) or else the rushed player will eventually recover and their natural late-game strength will overwhelm the rushing civ, which is naturally weaker late game. It could also be the case that that rushing civ provides a lot of loot if they do a bad rush, so that one bad engagement could flip the game back or even or upside down. 

[Ceres]

If I may chime in: It seems that loot is a "hot" topic.  Maybe it's possible (and worth?) keeping look but allowing users to toggle it on/off on the map etc. selection screen before the game starts? I don't know whether this helps to find out if and how much loot contributes to a snowballing effect, but in the end, you could let players decide what they like more. Again, I don't know if this is technically easy to accomplish and whether it would add any value, but maybe this is something to consider instead of thinking binary, only.

[LetswaveaBook]

2 hours ago, Ceres said:

If I may chime in: It seems that loot is a "hot" topic.  Maybe it's possible (and worth?) keeping look but allowing users to toggle it on/off on the map etc. selection screen before the game starts? I don't know whether this helps to find out if and how much loot contributes to a snowballing effect, but in the end, you could let players decide what they like more. Again, I don't know if this is technically easy to accomplish and whether it would add any value, but maybe this is something to consider instead of thinking binary, only.

It would be fairly easy (but time consuming) to make a mod that sets all loot of building/units to 0. Another solution might be looking at some hero's with loot bonusses and use that to multiply all loot by 0

[Stan`]

You can also apply a global aura for all players that sets the loot to 0.

Code changes should be similar to those.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4250

[alre]

today I was just thinking about how a 1v1 could last more than 20 minutes in this alpha, when this replay came out in the you tube thread:

I don't know about you, but I was amazed by what Lorenz has managed to pull out in this game. I think that, with the exception of the very first minutes, he played better than @LetswaveaBook for all the match. Of course Letswaveabook was also playing very well, he could afford to slip a couple of times because he was really never in danger.

What do you think about it? Do you agree with me here on this particular match? Do you think, more in general, that the next iteration of the game should have late game more decisive?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 minutes ago, alre said:

What do you think about it? Do you agree with me here on this particular match? Do you think, more in general, that the next iteration of the game should have late game more decisive?

I think that match will go down in 0 A.D. history, honestly. It's that good.

But I wish we could see more champions and ranged siege. More chariots from Britons, more swordsmen from Romans. Units who make these civs unique, and they should be viable.

[LetswaveaBook]

12 hours ago, alre said:

Of course Letswaveabook was also playing very well

You were asking for opinions and I agree with this one.

 

12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

But I wish we could see more champions and ranged siege.

I have seen some games of borg- and he seems to use champions more than I do. borg- certainly knows what he is doing and it is a legitimate style. My approach is getting good numbers with siege and p3 upgrades early and then advance and see what the enemy has. Such an approach doesn't suit waiting 60 seconds to unlock champions and then training them.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Such an approach doesn't suit waiting 60 seconds to unlock champions and then training them.

I really hate the champion unlock techs. I feel like they're completely unnecessary, or cost too much/take too long to research as you indicate.

[LetswaveaBook]

Something I noticed about snowballing is the imbalance of ranged/melee units, where ranged units are more valuable/important.

If you defeat an opponent in a battle, he loses some of his ranged units. While the winner only loses some melee units and keeping the more valuable/important ranged units alive. Currently, you only IMHO need enough melee units to tank enemy fire. So having lost some melee units is not bad as long as you have enough to tank opposing fire, In some situations having about 10% melee units can be enough in these situations. If you have most of your ranged (&valuable/important) units alive, then you remain at nearly full firepower.

So here is another way for me to advocate reducing the power of ranged units.

[alre]

I don't think ranged units are always more valuable than melee. If you are losing melee units, you usually want to replace it, then an extra melee is more valuable than an extra ranged in that case. Also melee units have steeper ranking benefits, so increasing the value of melee units may actually result in heavier snowballing probably (kind of what we have seen with melee cav in this alpha: when it starts rolling it just gets stronger).

[LetswaveaBook]

4 hours ago, alre said:

Also melee units have steeper ranking benefits, so increasing the value of melee units may actually result in heavier snowballing probably (kind of what we have seen with melee cav in this alpha: when it starts rolling it just gets stronger).

They indeed have steeper benefits, but it is a lot harder for them to promote, even if ranged units need more xp. Xp is gained per damage dealt and ranged units deal more damage and aren't prone to dying as much a frontliners. Also, promotion is a subject we could tackle in other ways.

I was playing with Leonidas and had hoplite tradition, so you expect to do more damage and get easy promotions for the hoplites. That was not the case in the battles.