Jump to content

Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

1-Rams can’t be defended from behind walls. To do so you either (A) need ranged counter siege (better cata like @Fabius has said), which isn’t a unit available to all civs; or (B) make ram attacks less viable. (A) already has a ticket made, but that only addresses the few civs that have cata. (B) wasn’t as big of a problem until all civs got rams in a24 (ele can be killed from behind walls whereas rams cannot be). I think the decision to make rams available to all civs should be reconsidered.

I feel that things should be added to counter rams rather than just reverting a change, it can be argued that all civs would know how to make a ram at the minimum, hang picking up a log and using it on a door counts as a ram, so, I think the path should be towards things that can damage rams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sevda said:

35 food, 35 wood and let the training time be 6 seconds compared to the 10 seconds for infantry. 

absolutely not.

this would immediately make han the most broken civ. Imagine how fast this would boom. You would be 200 pop in 5 mins. Especially considering the farming strengths of han, this would be a nightmare.

I could see this being some upgrade in p3 with some effects on their HP or something, but absolutely not in p1.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I could see this being some upgrade in p3 with some effects on their HP or something, but absolutely not in p1.

However, the crossbowmen are not available until P2, by which point the increase in boom speed would be less significant. Players may try to race to P2 early just to train this particular unit, but that will hinder other aspects of their economy and this unit is also the weakest soldier unit in the game. 

If the price decrease is not sensible, then we must increase their attack. So either 36 pierce attack per 3 seconds, or 12 attack per second. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sevda said:

However, the crossbowmen are not available until P2, by which point the increase in boom speed would be less significant.

Oh, right I forgot about this change. It would still be very broken.

4 hours ago, Sevda said:

If the price decrease is not sensible, then we must increase their attack. So either 36 pierce attack per 3 seconds, or 12 attack per second. 

+

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/05/2022 at 1:59 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

It would still be very broken.

Considering that A26 doesn't change the technology, armour and pathfinder compared to A25, having a flood of crossbowmen would still result in you inevitably losing the battle to another civ with melee cavalry or a combination of melee infantry and skirmishers. Your rate of reinforcement will always be slower than your death rate. Units die too quickly in A25 and A26 and there is little opportunity for a long lasting battle. For example, a skirmisher cavalry can kill a ranged infantry unit in just 3 hits (3.75 seconds). In my opionion, this is too fast. 

Suggestion: either increase the health of all units or decrease the standard attack values. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sevda said:

still result in you inevitably losing the battle to another civ with melee cavalry or a combination of melee infantry and skirmishers. Your rate of reinforcement will always be slower than your death rate.

i'm not talking about fighting, I am talking about how fast you could boom with these units. One of the biggest strengths of ptol is how early you can get p3 and launch a full scale attack (with upgrades, seige). 35f 35w and 6 seconds would take it to a new level (this costs 20 more res than a woman and trains 2 seconds faster). Then, you have to factor in the 220 pop space.

It's just inadvisable to do this. Better to increase their dps to match slingers. The only way I could see this being a little balanced is as a p3 unique tech

1 hour ago, Sevda said:

Units die too quickly in A25 and A26 and there is little opportunity for a long lasting battle

To be honest I like the fast paced fighting, but to each their own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

To be honest I like the fast paced fighting, but to each their own.

The issue wit fast-paced fighting is you can't micro the battles once they start. It's often the case that you can kill 100 units in merely 30 seconds; you spend 15 minutes booming and walking only to fight for 1 minute, then it's a siege + turtle time. Not being able to control your army in a fight would be a downside, especially when 0AD is more about conquest than city building. 

It also removes the importance of good reinforcement: if you outnumber your enemies in the first encounter, you can push them back relentlessly and there is nothing they can do. This problem did not exist in A23 because of the lack of ridiculous techs and all units had lower attack values and accuracy. A23 had a reasonable pace of battle that doesn't include an army of 100 perishing against 150 in 20 seconds. 

@real_tabasco_sauce I would recommend you to try A23 and compare the differences. You will also see your flood of hundreds of archers be defeated by 100 skirmishers + melee. 

Edited by Sevda
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sevda said:

The issue wit fast-paced fighting is you can't micro the battles once they start. It's often the case that you can kill 100 units in merely 30 seconds; you spend 15 minutes booming and walking only to fight for 1 minute, then it's a siege + turtle time. Not being able to control your army in a fight would be a downside, especially when 0AD is more about conquest than city building. 

It also removes the importance of good reinforcement: if you outnumber your enemies in the first encounter, you can push them back relentlessly and there is nothing they can do. This problem did not exist in A23 because of the lack of ridiculous techs and all units had lower attack values and accuracy. A23 had a reasonable pace of battle that doesn't include an army of 100 perishing against 150 in 20 seconds. 

@real_tabasco_sauce I would recommend you to try A23 and compare the differences. You will also see your flood of hundreds of archers be defeated by 100 skirmishers + melee. 

What about slow-paced fighting? I'm a fan of seeing units fighting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sevda said:

The issue wit fast-paced fighting is you can't micro the battles once they start. It's often the case that you can kill 100 units in merely 30 seconds; you spend 15 minutes booming and walking only to fight for 1 minute, then it's a siege + turtle time. Not being able to control your army in a fight would be a downside, especially when 0AD is more about conquest than city building. 

It also removes the importance of good reinforcement: if you outnumber your enemies in the first encounter, you can push them back relentlessly and there is nothing they can do. This problem did not exist in A23 because of the lack of ridiculous techs and all units had lower attack values and accuracy. A23 had a reasonable pace of battle that doesn't include an army of 100 perishing against 150 in 20 seconds. 

@real_tabasco_sauce I would recommend you to try A23 and compare the differences. You will also see your flood of hundreds of archers be defeated by 100 skirmishers + melee. 

There is precious little to conquer anyway, it is rather fun building elaborate fortifications and watching others break them, but that is irrelevant in A25. Its all boom and go, I like to enjoy my games like I would a good meal, not a ten minute stop at the fast food place and then off I go to do something else. There is more to playing than just winning. It would be nice to have a satisfying experience too. Which we did have in A23 and progressively seems to have evaporated with each alpha. I personally feel quite jaded with the whole thing, if I had the opportunity I would have stayed with A23, at least there was more to personally enjoy. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sevda said:

The issue wit fast-paced fighting is you can't micro the battles once they start. It's often the case that you can kill 100 units in merely 30 seconds; you spend 15 minutes booming and walking only to fight for 1 minute, then it's a siege + turtle time.

you can micro at the moment, just not very much. Perhaps battles seem longer to me due to lag XD. I bet if the game performed perfectly, they would appear much faster too. Instead of lowering damage values, raise repeat times. If my understanding is correct, this would reduce the number of range queries needed per unit time.

7 hours ago, Sevda said:

@real_tabasco_sauce I would recommend you to try A23 and compare the differences. You will also see your flood of hundreds of archers be defeated by 100 skirmishers + melee. 

I played a23 btw. The main thing that stood out to me were the slinger death balls.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sevda said:

A23 had a reasonable pace of battle that doesn't include an army of 100 perishing against 150 in 20 seconds. 

 

 I understand if you are playing vs cav, but if its infantry versus infantry you can usually retreat unless you get trapped.

7 hours ago, Sevda said:

It also removes the importance of good reinforcement: if you outnumber your enemies in the first encounter, you can push them back relentlessly and there is nothing they can do

Also I see many players are able to fight huge battles and keep their pop at 200 (myself not included). They do this by keeping strong economies through the game, making large numbers of barracks and / or stables, keeping their army in a good location for reinforcements. If a player is constantly sending re-inforcements forward, then they can just retreat the main army until it grows larger than their enemies' one.

,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

people love that approach.

I am probably the minority in this, but while those were definitely a pain, a decent roman player like myself could play turtle and grind done those blocks with attrition and siege. And it was greatly satisfying :) True Roman experience was A23, fight Gauls all day every day, and the holy Roman bolter, I still miss the unit sprite for it, was it necessary to change it :( 

Also immortal heroes for maximum one man army shenanigans and roll play.

Honestly in a way A23 felt more forgiving than the later alphas.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Fabius said:

I like to enjoy my games like I would a good meal, not a ten minute stop at the fast food place and then off I go to do something else.

I totally agree with this, I also prefer a long-lasting game to ending in 10 minutes. However, I do like to rush the enemy in early stages. 

 

19 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Perhaps battles seem longer to me due to lag XD. I bet if the game performed perfectly, they would appear much faster too. Instead of lowering damage values, raise repeat times

Lag is certainly a factor in this, as singleplayer vs Petra often feature battles that end in seconds. I like the idea of raising repeat times, as that doesn't upset the entire balancing plan and also gives archers an advantage. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

 I understand if you are playing vs cav, but if its infantry versus infantry you can usually retreat unless you get trapped.

The pathfinder is quite inefficient with large groups of infantry so retreat is always slower than you think; it is especially difficult when enemy slingers are already in formation: 1 shower of stones will decimate what you have left. 

 

19 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Also I see many players are able to fight huge battles and keep their pop at 200 (myself not included). They do this by keeping strong economies through the game, making large numbers of barracks and / or stables, keeping their army in a good location for reinforcements. If a player is constantly sending re-inforcements forward, then they can just retreat the main army until it grows larger than their enemies' one.

,

Theoretically, yes. However, the strange attack mechanic in A25 is such that your units don't die one by one but 10 at a time (for roughly equal battles). Again, this could be caused by lag, but it makes the queued units in stables unable to begin their training promptly, and therefore even if you have 10 stables, after the 12 seconds of production time and another 10 seconds of walking, your main army would have been reduced by 40 units and you still can't reinforce properly. This will happen to both sides so you won't get a lasting large battle but a trickle of units rushing each other in under a minute. The cavalry will also arrive one after another instead of all at the same time which also exposes weaknesses. The rate of killing is simply too fast compared to train time. 

The size of medium Mainland is too large for units to arrive in time, especially if you are a pocket player trying to push the enemy at your flank. Infantry stands no chance; only cavalry can get there in time but their train time and cost are too much.

Most of the time, when I am fighting a weaker player, it's easy to maintain 200 population because my army outnumbered theirs. The A25 attack mechanic favours the more numerous side to the extent that I can exterminate an army 80% of my size with only half casualties. This, combined with the fast killing, leaves them very little chance to resist. On the other hand, when I am fighting another full army, my population will drop to 180 and maintain there, because the first 20 units sacrificed themselves in knocking out 30 enemy units, which reduced their speed of killing and hence an equilibrium is reached at 180. Given I have 7 barracks and 7 stables  (which is above average number).

In my early A25 games, I played 1v1s with someone and both of us made 8 barracks each, only to see the battle of what used to be 200 units disappearing in less than a minute, then both of us had to go back to base and do economy, then fight again, then back and forth...

On the other hand, in A23, I can maintain a large battle with the AI at 200 pop or 300 easily, with only 5 barracks. The AI also resists for a few decent minutes (on only 3 barracks) before losing. I think this is a much more reasonable setting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Fabius said:

I am probably the minority in this, but while those were definitely a pain, a decent roman player like myself could play turtle and grind done those blocks with attrition and siege. And it was greatly satisfying :) True Roman experience was A23, fight Gauls all day every day, and the holy Roman bolter, I still miss the unit sprite for it, was it necessary to change it :( 

Also immortal heroes for maximum one man army shenanigans and roll play.

Honestly in a way A23 felt more forgiving than the later alphas.

Siege was great in A23. In A25, siege seem to be over-nerfed, especially the catapult, which has no accuracy and the unitAI of catapults and boltshooters is severely bugged. They target random units and random buildings instead of the entity that you ordered them to attack. 

The immortal hero Kurush still exists and can now auto-train these champions, however, the Persians really could use an infantry buff and the Cardaces units were just ideal. 

And yes, in A23, if you make a mistake and lose a large portion of your army,  you still have a fair chance of returning. In A25 however, if you walk into a battle outnumbered then you have lost the game. Overpowered cavalry units will clean up every last hope you have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that in a26, units will be able to less able to overlap and become more like an incompressible fluid. Is this true?

if this is true, it has great implications for palisade walling to stop cav raids: the combination of acceleration for cavalry and less compressibility for units will mean that even if melee cavalry can break palisades very quickly (as they can in a25), it might be easier to catch them going through the hole they create. 

+I am hoping that cavalry acceleration and the formation smoothness changes that are slated for a26 can be tuned to perfection during testing and we can avoid a catastrophe like a24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

 

+I am hoping that cavalry acceleration and the formation smoothness changes that are slated for a26 can be tuned to perfection during testing and we can avoid a catastrophe like a24.

It's up to you guys :) I'm planning to release a RC soonish, I am waiting for one or two bugs to be fixed first. I'll advertise the RCs on the forums :)

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stan` said:

It's up to you guys :) I'm planning to release a RC soonish, I am waiting for one or two bugs to be fixed first. I'll advertise the RCs on the forums :)

yoooooo! I am so excited for this, I will be sure to pester people on lobby to get big stress tests/ balance tests going.

  • Thanks 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...