Introducing the Official community mod for 0 A.D. Empires Ascendant

[vinme]

On 11/10/2022 at 9:15 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

what is this logic lmao. 

@Darkcity, @real_tabasco_sauce's solution to the naval hero was to add a bonus that works on land too, so that the hero can be used in either situation so that map generation won't make the hero totally useless.

Cheaper walls? no1 uses walls rn, altho could work, if naval map, and already gives value, otherwise no1 will use this hero.

it can work well with athen neutral walls to block off chokepoints(too expensive elsewhere) but ofc this is not justifying cost of hero, when you can get 3 armor one, which is 10x better, or more.

[vinme]

On 11/10/2022 at 9:33 AM, chrstgtr said:

Pericles temple cost goes from a 25% discount to a 15% discount. 

Themistocles goes from a 50% speed bonus to a 15% speed bonus. 

I misread some other ones, so that's my fault. 

But like @Darkcity said, a lot of the problems with one of the heroes results from the prevailing non-naval gameplay. 

After a closer look, these may be fine. But I don't know. 

what do you think about separating "naval" and non naval maps being separated by some class system, so that civs only get "naval" heroes, when played on naval maps, the naval heroes replacing regular ones.

its hard to balance, When making civs naval/non naval as then map defines advantage, and no1 plays naval maps rn, so naval civs just become weaker.

Maybe another parameter could be for naval hero unlock as "must make x number of docks"

and have no replacement system, just naval heroes being 4th ones that can be unlocked.

i think its a waste to have naval heroes taking up space when theyll never ever get used, on reuglar maps, and will always get used every single time on naval, just becuase of how op they are there.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 minute ago, vinme said:

based on the screenshots, both heroes will be totally useless so i dont see why you guys are working on that, except first one on naval ofc, but no1 plays naval rn. 15% tech cost and -50% resarch time is such a tiny advnatage, i doubt it even justifies building+hero cost.

Considering you must first go p3, make building, get hero, this takes so much time(by then you have p3 eco techs unlocked, if you are going for boom option, otherwise why p3 and idle that 1.5min or however long the building takes to build+hero takes to unlock) and all this cost, for nothing, compared to getting +3 armor hero.

by the time hero comes out there are no techs to get, even last p3 military techs, will be gotten or if you wait it out, youve just fallen behind, so the 50% less resarch time is irrelevant, if you waste 3X that long.

15% cheaper if you hope to use on castle, that is -675 res, again why waste hero for this, all that time unlocking and the cost of hero+building for nothing.

denying enemy the loot is also an irrelevant stat, considering, you have this useless hero, and enemy has a good hero.

loot only really matters if dead even exchange, but if enemy has better hero, hell get a far superior exchange.

The 50% capture improvement, again is a "utility" type of advantage not power/eco direct advantage, it will rarely matter, compared to 20% dmg hero for example.

I like comparing to standard 20% dmg boost of army hero, any hero bonuses, to think if they are op/weak.

this one is maybe like 3% dmg hero, id take a 4% dmg hero over this one, every single time.

XP also doesnt matter rn, in direct battle units die way b4 they can get xp(mele units), and ranged get small advantage over long period of battling/killing that gets negated by their inability to work as efficiently.

In raiding, it matters, a small bit, as over time you can retreat, heal, repeat and get maybe 10% of army on rank 2, again tiny small advantage, totally insiginifcant. If you can get so many kills, while your units dont die, that they get promoted and get a relevant power boost, youve won the game with 10/1 kd anyway so it doenst matter. 

I wish XP requirements would get reduced by like 5X, would make the game somewhat more interesting.

I have not seen very many battles where both players are sniping ranged units. In such a case I would predict that melee units rank and dmg would be more important. I agree that the two new Athens heroes bonuses are not very powerful and could use a buff. perhaps the xp bonus could also boost friendly units xp while denying enemy xp. XP does boost ranged units more than you think, an HP boost puts them from a 2 shot kill to a 3 shot kill from crossbows which almost doubles the time to kill. -15% tech cost could maybe be increased to 20%, it won't help that much for the blacksmith or eco upgrades since a lot of those would come before the hero, but it would help more for expensive things like will to fight if a player decides to get it. (I predict if the research buff was good enough, a player would make the hero, get upgrades, delete him and then get iphricates in time for the main fight).

To be honest, Iphricates is a very powerful hero, so I don't think the new Athens heroes should be equally powerful as him.

[vinme]

On 11/10/2022 at 6:00 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Yes.  My understanding is that the purpose of this mod is to fix things that are technically broken (rice upgrades) and make balance tweaks.  Not change the game play of the alpha.

I think it is good that rams have slow turn rate and acceleration.  In this alpha it is harder for melee units to attack fleeing units.  They approach, slow down to attack, but sometimes do not attack because the fleeing unit maintains it's speed.  I don't think unprotected rams should be able to escape the enemy.  (Unless they are my rams of course). 

These seem fine to me.  Because they are never used anyways and the bonuses they would get are not top tier, I think it is okay to add to this mod.

I don't know...  Maybe if coupled with a decrease in the rank up bonuses.  They become incredibly strong at rank 3 with techs.  I'd probably leave it as it is.  I don't think this is needed to balance.

 

This seems beyond the mod's scope, if I've understood it correctly.

Iphicrates is very strong, however his bonus is a formation bonus.  That means that if the enemy targets him and you try to run him away, the formation loses the bonus.  Aura bonus heroes can flee or stand behind all the units, and the army retains their bonus as long as they are in range.  Therefore if Iphicrates' bonus is reduced I think it should become an aura bonus.  However, I kind of like the uniqueness of him having a strong formation bonus, as it is.

healers arent op at rank 3, they are not viable even at rank 3, thats the issue, and the challenge should be to rank them up, as you get stronger/more valuable units more you fight. Id like if in tgs for example, people who fight a lot, get stronger army, than those who dont.

yes the formation hero is fine as is, vulnerable and also formation can be difficult to manage, which is a cost of sorts.

 

[vinme]

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@Fabius I Iike the general idea, but I think it requires new unit models. As for the building to train them, fortress could work, maybe barracks. I think a p2 fortress honestly wouldn't be all that bad, but others might want them trained from CC or barracks.

It would also be wise to avoid too much overlap with heroes because of additional stacking of bonuses. Movement speed is good, building, and some minor attack bonus sounds interesting

@chrstgtr what should be the % increase in house, storehouse, and farmstead building time? I think 40% would be too much. Maybe 33.3% more so 40 seconds build time?

maybe @vinme has an idea here too?

I think this should still be a net buff for ptol, just not quite as OP as it is currently.

i like my idea of making them easier to capture, as well as increasing cost. Eco bonus, miltiary weakness.

Thinking about it now, making lets say 15% cheaper, 15% less builditme, but 40% less hp 40% faster capture is fair.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@chrstgtr what should be the % increase in house, storehouse, and farmstead building time? I think 40% would be too much. Maybe 33.3% more so 40 seconds build time

I would just revert to the way it was in a23. We know that worked and it was unique. 
 

Or are you asking a different question?

[chrstgtr]

19 minutes ago, vinme said:

what do you think about separating "naval" and non naval maps being separated by some class system, so that civs only get "naval" heroes, when played on naval maps, the naval heroes replacing regular ones.

its hard to balance, When making civs naval/non naval as then map defines advantage, and no1 plays naval maps rn, so naval civs just become weaker.

Maybe another parameter could be for naval hero unlock as "must make x number of docks"

and have no replacement system, just naval heroes being 4th ones that can be unlocked.

i think its a waste to have naval heroes taking up space when theyll never ever get used, on reuglar maps, and will always get used every single time on naval, just becuase of how op they are there.

Fine.
 

Or just add an extra hero for Athens. 

[Kampot]

19 minutes ago, vinme said:

what do you think about separating "naval" and non naval maps being separated by some class system, so that civs only get "naval" heroes, when played on naval maps, the naval heroes replacing regular ones.

its hard to balance, When making civs naval/non naval as then map defines advantage, and no1 plays naval maps rn, so naval civs just become weaker.

Maybe another parameter could be for naval hero unlock as "must make x number of docks"

and have no replacement system, just naval heroes being 4th ones that can be unlocked.

i think its a waste to have naval heroes taking up space when theyll never ever get used, on reuglar maps, and will always get used every single time on naval, just becuase of how op they are there.

No need separate just 4-5 herous available but maximum to be used per game 3.. so we can keep these 2 totaly useless herous and maybe get some finally adequate. So naval will get untouched. Also other civs can get some "naval or similar useless bonuses for theri 4th heroes"...

[vinme]

12 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I have not seen very many battles where both players are sniping ranged units. In such a case I would predict that melee units rank and dmg would be more important. I agree that the two new Athens heroes bonuses are not very powerful and could use a buff. perhaps the xp bonus could also boost friendly units xp while denying enemy xp. XP does boost ranged units more than you think, an HP boost puts them from a 2 shot kill to a 3 shot kill from crossbows which almost doubles the time to kill. -15% tech cost could maybe be increased to 20%, it won't help that much for the blacksmith or eco upgrades since a lot of those would come before the hero, but it would help more for expensive things like will to fight if a player decides to get it. (I predict if the research buff was good enough, a player would make the hero, get upgrades, delete him and then get iphricates in time for the main fight).

To be honest, Iphricates is a very powerful hero, so I don't think the new Athens heroes should be equally powerful as him.

Dont get me wrong im not saying  that "they are not AS powerful" which may imply they are at least half as good, im saying, they are not even 1/10th as good, jsut to get the perspective right.

Idkw hat sinping had to do with anything, or mele units rank/dmg.

again, 15% , 20% , 50% doesnt matter, still too weak, you go p3, you must get the techs, asap, not in 1.5 min it takes to make building+get hero to use.

So dont misunderstand me, im not saying "it wont help that much, with blacksmith/eco techs" im saying it wont help AT ALL, 0% help. ALL OF THEM come b4 hero, except maybe arseonal techs, but no1 uses those.

things like will to fight? what else is there like that? again, sparingly used, and only other thing is wonder, even less used.

and 800(15% of 6000 for will to fight), irrelevant amount of res for hero bonus.

even if it wasnt so, and hero was gotten at p2, 15% is still very small, you get maybe 1000 res in value total.

 

[vinme]

11 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I would just revert to the way it was in a23. We know that worked and it was unique. 
 

Or are you asking a different question?

pretty sure it was even more op then, becuase buildings were free.

 

[vinme]

11 hours ago, Kampot said:

No need separate just 4-5 herous available but maximum to be used per game 3.. so we can keep these 2 totaly useless herous and maybe get some finally adequate. So naval will get untouched. Also other civs can get some "naval or similar useless bonuses for theri 4th heroes"...

naval balance is totally separate from regular balance, and it can never be mediated, so yes its better to have 4th naval hero for all civs or something equally useless like other athen hero with 50% caputre resistnace, 0 loot for enemy and tech cost reduction/resarch time reduction.

[Gurken Khan]

10 minutes ago, vinme said:

pretty sure it was even more op then, becuase buildings were free.

Buildings might have not cost resources, but just for houses I needed more than twice as many builders to avoid getting housed; I always wondered if the balance was positive compared to regular build times / resource gathering.

[vinme]

11 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Buildings might have not cost resources, but just for houses I needed more than twice as many builders to avoid getting housed; I always wondered if the balance was positive compared to regular build times / resource gathering.

its difficult for me, as someone not very good at math(which pains me every day) to estimate cost of build time vs cost of res highly accurately, but from what i recall, the buildtime cost added, was minute, in relation to already existing 30 sec buildtime of houses, was it 20 sec added? thats maybe very roughtly 20 res. so 105 vs 50, theyd have been half the cost.

main limiter was that with more you build, less efficient the building time but as it is rn, most players build small houses by 1 unit at a time anyway, or at least aim to do so as it is most efficient, considering res cost/low(30 sec) build cost.

generally higher the build cost, in relation to res cost, less units we use to build, and ofc higher the total cost, the more we use, to get the said building ready faster(capitalizing faster on investement, at a cost of more builders)

given small houses are cheap in both of those things, we already build 1 by 1, so theres no compromise for pto, and adding 1 more, 2 more, even 3 more reduces efficiency negligently, on those occasions of error, which never happened as youd spam 500 placemnts since they were free, and totally forget about them more or less throughout all of the game.

 

 

[chrstgtr]

57 minutes ago, vinme said:

pretty sure it was even more op then, becuase buildings were free.

 

Then make it slightly longer building time.

Ptol used to require a different play style that many people could not keep up with and resulted in players getting “housed” constantly. Ptol right now is just easy.

I don’t know what the answer is, but what we’ve had since a24 def isn’t right. 

[vinme]

12 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Then make it slightly longer building time.

Ptol used to require a different play style that many people could not keep up with and resulted in players getting “housed” constantly. Ptol right now is just easy.

I don’t know what the answer is, but what we’ve had since a24 def isn’t right. 

sure, if you make it longer, then its fair but unique, i still prefer my idea tho, since itll be hard to estimate proper rate, maybe test house making? like 10 men, cutting wood+making house vs 10 men making pto house for 3-5 min, compare, adjust, repeat? 
 

[chrstgtr]

18 minutes ago, vinme said:

sure, if you make it longer, then its fair but unique, i still prefer my idea tho, since itll be hard to estimate proper rate, maybe test house making? like 10 men, cutting wood+making house vs 10 men making pto house for 3-5 min, compare, adjust, repeat? 
 

That sounds hard.
 

Also sounds like same gameplay when that balanced

I don’t care to argue. I just want the current system gone 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

44 minutes ago, vinme said:

healers arent op at rank 3, they are not viable even at rank 3, thats the issue, and the challenge should be to rank them up, as you get stronger/more valuable units more you fight. Id like if in tgs for example, people who fight a lot, get stronger army, than those who dont.

• Rank 1 Healer
  • HP    Heal    Range     Interval
  1. 085  05        12           2
  2. 085  05        17           1.6
  3. 085  05        22          1.3           
• Rank 3 Healer
  • HP    Heal    Range    Interval
  1. 133   15         18         2
  2. 133   15         23        1.6
  3. 133   15         28        1.3

A single rank 3 healer fully heals a ranged citizen units in about 4 seconds.  How powerful do they need to be?

I wouldn't want healers to be able to keep the army alive mid-battle, like an RPG.

Currently at rank 3 it's like getting a reinforcement teleported to where your army is in 4-8 seconds with only the initial healer cost.  I think they're underused, which could be a consequence of the fact that it's faster and (more important) to build 2 blacksmiths (at least) and a market to go to p3 than to make a temple.

I will however say that the techs are expensive, considering one will likely only make a handful of healers.

[chrstgtr]

20 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

• Rank 1 Healer
  • HP    Heal    Range     Interval
  1. 085  05        12           2
  2. 085  05        17           1.6
  3. 085  05        22          1.3           
• Rank 3 Healer
  • HP    Heal    Range    Interval
  1. 133   15         18         2
  2. 133   15         23        1.6
  3. 133   15         28        1.3

A single rank 3 healer fully heals a ranged citizen units in about 4 seconds.  How powerful do they need to be?

I wouldn't want healers to be able to keep the army alive mid-battle, like an RPG.

Currently at rank 3 it's like getting a reinforcement teleported to where your army is in 4-8 seconds with only the initial healer cost.  I think they're underused, which could be a consequence of the fact that it's faster and (more important) to build 2 blacksmiths (at least) and a market to go to p3 than to make a temple.

I will however say that the techs are expensive, considering one will likely only make a handful of healers.

I find healers quite strong at rank 3. It’s not that they keep units alive—a unit under fire dies. It’s that that can reheal a unit after a fight so it doesn’t die right away in the next fight. That has a snowball effect. It also allows you to rank up your fighting units, which also has a snowball effect. 
 

A couple rank3 healers can heal an entire army quite quickly. Denying that strength is basically saying that a half promoted army isn’t OP, but we all know it is

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

12 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I find healers quite strong at rank 3. It’s not that they keep units alive—a unit under fire dies. It’s that that can reheal a unit after a fight so it doesn’t die right away in the next fight. That has a snowball effect. It also allows you to rank up your fighting units, which also has a snowball effect. 
 

A couple rank3 healers can heal an entire army quite quickly. Denying that strength is basically saying that a half promoted army isn’t OP, but we all know it is

also if there was a way to task healers on melee units then you are basically healing at a faster rate.

Edited October 12, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[real_tabasco_sauce]

potential Seleucid civ bonus:

"fertile crescent": Farmstead technologies -30% cost, research time.

Edited October 12, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@real_tabasco_sauce I think sele team bonus should be better than that. Here are some I have come up with.

-Maybe add to women farm rate? More of a plain option.

-30%cost, and research time on farmstead techs as well as fields

 +20 food capacity to cav and buff gather rate of men to be .45 base rate. (Women are .5)

Maybe add a 50 wood upgrade to farms (similar to sentry->stone tower) that gives +3 pop and adds a shed to a corner of the farm, 2 woman can garrison.

Add some creativity:D

Edited October 12, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[BeTe]

On 11/10/2022 at 7:13 PM, chrstgtr said:

Town phase is p2. This will move one forge tech from p3 to p2. p1 will have 0 techs, p2 will have 2 new techs, and p3 will have 1 new tech.

Making p2 stronger makes p1 weaker.  

What about making both P1 and P2 stronger ? 

[chrstgtr]

7 minutes ago, BeTe said:

What about making both P1 and P2 stronger ? 

See above. Some people think p1 is already too strong. Some people think p3 is already too strong. p2 is the age that needs to get stronger—which I tend to agree with

[BeTe]

52 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

See above. Some people think p1 is already too strong. Some people think p3 is already too strong. p2 is the age that needs to get stronger—which I tend to agree with

I think everybody agree that P2 need buff...

But, to explain:

I am thinking about being able to capture or kill something in early game (P1) with infantry - now only cavalry can eventually work. All other strategies are risky and will put you behind in eco if you fail which is high likely with an equal opponent.

Edited October 12, 2022 by BeTe
grammar fix

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, BeTe said:

I think everybody agree that P2 need buff...

But, to explain:

I am thinking about being able to capture or kill something in early game (P1) with infantry - now only cavalry can eventually work. All other strategies are risky and will put you behind in eco if you fail which is high likely with an equal opponent.

I have issues with cav/inf balance. But that’s beyond the scope here.