Wow's new unit countering ideas

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I don't think it's about balance, it's just people wanting to add interesting settings based on their historical imagination. But what I'm trying to say is that it's more fun to design based on reality rather than imagination, for example I suggested adding arson earlier.

you're exactly right. 0ad is historically inspired, but also a videogame. You will see debates between those who favor more realistic features and behaviors, and those who are more willing to abridge reality for better gameplay. Most people consider that features should be historically "justified," where enough reality, enough plausibility supports good gameplay. The fact of the matter is we have to draw a line somewhere: so debating in length the physics of an axe versus a sword gets us nowhere. We should instead decide how an axeman behaves in 0ad more for gameplay's sake.

I think the higher hack damage and lower attack rate are justified, but more importantly will introduce and interesting unit (see my discussion on a hyrcannian cav change (page 1)).

[AIEND]

2 分钟前，real_tabasco_sauce 说：

 为了游戏性，我们应该更多地决定斧兵在 0ad 中的行为方式。

我认为更高的 hack 伤害和更低的攻击率是合理的，但更重要的是会引入有趣的单位（参见我关于 hyrcnian cav 更改的讨论（第 1 页））。

My point is that if it's just for the richness of the elements, in fact, the axeman does not need to be any different from the swordsman in DPS, after all, the battle axe is still a slashing weapon in essence. I pay more attention to the detailed settings of maceman, such as they can stun enemies and make them into a state of sluggishness for a period of time.
In addition, I think it is more important to unify them into spear cavalry and balance them instead of increasing the types of melee cavalry.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

21 minutes ago, AIEND said:

My point is that if it's just for the richness of the elements, in fact, the axeman does not need to be any different from the swordsman in DPS, after all, the battle axe is still a slashing weapon in essence. I pay more attention to the detailed settings of maceman, such as they can stun enemies and make them into a state of sluggishness for a period of time.
In addition, I think it is more important to unify them into spear cavalry and balance them instead of increasing the types of melee cavalry.

I agree: they don't need to have higher DPS. They should just be a little different, since they are a unique unit to the persian civ. As you can see, this is not a new cavalry type. I was just suggesting a new role for the worst melee cav in the game. Unit differentiation is good for gameplay IMO, so they should not be unified into spear cavalry.

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，real_tabasco_sauce 说：

我同意：他们不需要更高的DPS。 它们应该有点不同，因为它们是波斯文明的独特单位。 如您所见，这不是一种新的骑兵类型。 我只是在为游戏中最糟糕的近战骑士建议一个新角色。 单位差异化有利于IMO游戏玩法，因此不应将它们统一为长矛骑兵。

I think if you want to enrich the gameplay, you should focus on refining spear cavalry and pike cavalry, or melee cavalry and shock cavalry, general cavalry and cataphract.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

13 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I think if you want to enrich the gameplay, you should focus on refining spear cavalry and pike cavalry, or melee cavalry and shock cavalry, general cavalry and cataphract.

Totally. I support a buff to spearcav since they nearly lose to swordcav at the moment, and @wowgetoffyourcellphone's cataphract mixin sounds great. Differentiating hyrcannian cav would be a an addition to these enhancements and a buff to the persians.

[Loki1950]

It is not the type of damage that is in question it is the magnitude of the damage.

Enjoy the Choice  

[LetswaveaBook]

On 20/04/2022 at 12:42 AM, Outis said:

do not have a hard counter vs cavalry archer, but make archer attacks against them more accurate. Justification: a rider with horse is a bigger target than an infantryman and easier to hit.

This is all ready the case. If you open the scenario editor and let the cavalry archer and infantry archer fight one on one,You will see that the infantry archer hits the cavalry archer more often. Both units have the same accuracy.

[Lion.Kanzen]

16 hours ago, AIEND said:

pike cavalry

Lancer?

[AIEND]

2 小时前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

扔？

Those cavalrymen who hold pike with both hands.

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Those cavalrymen who hold pike with both hands.

We called Lancer.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Wow's idea is the counter role of units.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I have a habit of ordering things on the internet.

 

This is related.

[AIEND]

On 13/05/2022 at 12:40 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

哇的想法是单位的反作用。

0AD's spearmen and swordsmen, archers and javelinmen do not have very different positioning differences. In fact, there are only melee infantry, long-range infantry, and cavalry.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

0AD's spearmen and swordsmen, archers and javelinmen do not have very different positioning differences. In fact, there are only melee infantry, long-range infantry, and cavalry.

you say that they must be differentiated?

[AIEND]

12 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

你说他们必须区别对待？

No, I don't think a distinction is needed, but that's why we can't refer to Age of Empires in this regard.

[AIEND]

On 13/05/2022 at 12:40 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

哇的想法是单位的反作用。

I think there needs to be a dynamic mutual superiority relationship rather than unilateral superiority, for example, the archer counters slow units and units without shields, so it counters both melee infantry and melee cavalry, but if both If you can get close to an archer, that archer will also be defeated.
So whether the archer has an advantage over the melee infantry and the melee cavalry depends on preventing the infantry and cavalry from approaching the archer, that is, making them "run slower", if this is achieved, then the cavalry is more vulnerable because it The defense against arrows is even worse. But we know that to stop the advance of the infantry, we only need to use the infantry to block, but to block the cavalry mainly rely on fortifications such as walls, so the cavalry can generally restrain the archers, but if the archers get the cover of the wall or their own cavalry in the confrontation, That can also form restraint on the enemy's cavalry.
In general, certain conditions are required for one type of soldier to gain an advantage over another type of soldier. If the conditions are lost, the relationship will be reversed.

[myou5e]

On 18/04/2022 at 11:01 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Take the Cavalry Spearman and add the Chariot mixin. It's what mixins are for, to mix and match traits with different classes of units.

Composition over Inheritence. IMO it's a better way to construct a set of objects that share properties. Inheritance specifies relationships between classes as a tree structure, but Composition more like a mesh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance

[myou5e]

On 18/04/2022 at 11:45 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

In other words, the innate properties of the units (armor, speed, dps, cost, range) should be enough for unit differentiation.

I like the idea of adding some bonuses/debuffs to the current matchup between units, like cav debuff for palisades, or catapult buff to fortress, but I dislike rock-paper-scissors balance.

I've never liked how certain units get a "bonus attack" vs other types. They need to have their damage types, range, HP, armor types etc and that is sufficient to make a counter. It makes the gameplay far more intuitive.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, myou5e said:

I've never liked how certain units get a "bonus attack" vs other types. They need to have their damage types, range, HP, armor types etc and that is sufficient to make a counter. It makes the gameplay far more intuitive.

I don't know how that's more intuitive than a tooltip explicitly giving you the unit's bonus (rather than having to suss it all out by comparing stats).

 

But anyway, I'll defer to the "stats dictate everything" faction and try some stats to create counters. Because right now the stats of the units don't readily do this. For instance, currently melee cavalry have lowish pierce armor to make spearmen, who have pierce attack, counter them, but this also makes them vulnerable to ranged infantry's range pierce attacks, a class of unit the melee cavalry should counter!

 

First, let's GET RID OF THE PIERCE ATTACK OF SPEAR INFANTRY.

Why? Cavalry's lighter hack armor can make them countered by hack units such as melee infantry.

Whew, now that's done: Give melee cavalry greater pierce armor!  

 

 

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

currently melee cavalry have lowish pierce armor to make spearmen, who have pierce attack, counter them, but this also makes them vulnerable to ranged infantry's range pierce attacks, a class of unit the melee cavalry should counter!

They are vulnerable for good reason: because the dps of melee cavalry absolutely ruins ranged infantry. The damage they deal is counter enough: honestly, they could be weaker still to pierce attacks and still decimate ranged infantry.

What you quoted is fine and should not be changed in my opinion.

[Dakara]

i hate counter unit  

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

kk have fun, lol

[Freagarach]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

a class of unit the melee cavalry should counter!

Because of their speed. Give archers a minimal distance and some dagger as melee defense.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Freagarach said:

Because of their speed. Give archers a minimal distance and some dagger as melee defense.

How close are we to getting that?

[myou5e]

21 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't know how that's more intuitive than a tooltip explicitly giving you the unit's bonus (rather than having to suss it all out by comparing stats).

 

But anyway, I'll defer to the "stats dictate everything" faction and try some stats to create counters. Because right now the stats of the units don't readily do this. For instance, currently melee cavalry have lowish pierce armor to make spearmen, who have pierce attack, counter them, but this also makes them vulnerable to ranged infantry's range pierce attacks, a class of unit the melee cavalry should counter!

 

First, let's GET RID OF THE PIERCE ATTACK OF SPEAR INFANTRY.

Why? Cavalry's lighter hack armor can make them countered by hack units such as melee infantry.

Whew, now that's done: Give melee cavalry greater pierce armor!  

 

 

 

Well, as someone here has said, I think Grapejuice, I think it's really good to have what the unit looks like intuitively be good at what you think by looking at it. This isn't the same thing, but I think it's a related point and that's my goal. I guess it also allows more flexibility when new units or matchups come into play that you don't expect, you don't need to add more exceptions, because the stats already balance.